The Top Minds in Every CDR Method — And Why I'm Showing You

⚠️ Updated for v2 (2026-03-23)

This post now uses LLM classification (title + abstract) instead of keyword search. That’s a major upgrade — but it exposed a real problem with DAC data that I need to flag transparently. Rankings are based on number of CDR papers found in our classification. Institution and country data uses ORCID self-reported affiliations where available (66% coverage), with OpenAlex as fallback. ORCID links let you verify every name. If you see errors, tell me — I’ll fix them. Bluesky · X

This is Part 3 of the CDR Researcher Census series.

I’m about to list the most prolific researchers in every CDR method. I’m doing this for one reason: transparency creates trust.

If you work in CDR, you’ll recognize many of these names. David Beerling in enhanced weathering. Lennart Bach in ocean CDR. Yakov Kuzyakov in soil carbon. Seeing names you know confirms the data is real. And where you see names you don’t expect — that’s where my methodology has gaps, and I want you to help me find them.

Every name below links to their ORCID profile (where available), so you can independently verify their work.

Enhanced Weathering

What’s interesting: The top 4 researchers (Planavsky, Beerling, Vicca, Vienne) form a tight intellectual cluster around silicate weathering and soil carbon dynamics. Planavsky and Beerling are big names, but Vienne (#4) is a younger researcher with an h-index of 7 yet 35 CDR papers — a true specialist.

The commitment gap: Phil Renforth (#8) has 54% of his work in CDR — genuinely rare. Compare that to Planavsky (55%), and you see two different researcher archetypes: pure-play specialists vs. geological generalists who’ve pivoted CDR-ward.

Direct Air Capture

What’s interesting: DAC is a US-dominated field at the top — 6 of 10 are US-based. Jay Fuhrman leads with 13 papers and 46% CDR commitment, working at the nexus of integrated assessment modeling and DAC deployment scenarios. The Georgia Tech cluster (Realff, plus Christopher W. Jones and Ryan Lively who rank just outside the top 10) is a powerhouse for sorbent chemistry. ETH Zurich places two researchers (Guillén-Gosálbez and van der Spek), reflecting Europe’s growing process-engineering angle on DAC.

The commitment gap: Noah McQueen (36% CDR) is the industry bridge — now at a DAC company. Contrast with Sovacool (3% CDR, h-index 132), whose DAC work is a small slice of a massive energy policy portfolio. DAC attracts both deep specialists and heavyweight generalists dipping in.

Biochar

The standout: Daniel Tsang (h=154!) has the highest h-index of any researcher on this entire list. Yet biochar is only 6% of his work — he’s a pollution chemist who touches biochar as one tool among many.

The commitment outlier: Ondřej Mašek (#1) dedicates 22% of his research to biochar CDR. That’s higher than most researchers in any pathway. By commitment level, he’s essentially a specialist despite the lower absolute paper count.

Ocean CDR

The standout: Lennart Bach (#1) has 65 CDR papers — the highest count of any researcher across any single pathway in this dataset. He’s also 63% committed to CDR, making him a rare hybrid: prolific and dedicated.

The cluster: Three researchers (Bach, Riebesell, Oschlies) are deeply embedded in the GEOMAR/Tasmania ocean research ecosystem. This is a community that’s thinking systemically about ocean CDR.

The outsider: Michael Tyka (#8) at Google is one of the few corporate researchers in the top 10 of any pathway. CDR is no longer just academia.

BECCS

Why only top 5: BECCS has the fewest dedicated researchers across all pathways. That’s partly because BECCS sits at the intersection of biomass energy and carbon capture — researchers tend to specialize in one or the other, not both. The field is smaller and less organized than DAC or enhanced weathering.

The giant: Philippe Ciais (h=221) is one of the most cited climate scientists alive. BECCS is less than half his focus, but his engagement signals that integrated energy-CDR thinking is moving from niche to mainstream.

Soil Carbon

The titan: Yakov Kuzyakov (94 papers, h=142, 98% committed) is soil carbon research. His commitment level is the highest of any researcher in any pathway in this entire dataset. He doesn’t dabble — he’s fundamentally dedicated to understanding how soil captures and holds carbon.

The interesting pattern: Peñuelas, Lal, and Smith are all towering figures (h-indices 167–183) who got into CDR relatively late in their careers. They bring decades of soil science expertise to carbon removal.

General CDR

This is new in v2 — papers that discuss CDR broadly without specializing in a single pathway. They often compare methods, discuss policy, or cover systems-level questions.

(Showing top 5 — full top 10 available in the dataset)

What this tells us: The same people showing up across pathways are exactly who you’d expect — system thinkers who see CDR as a portfolio challenge, not a single-pathway problem.

The Polymaths: Publishing Across 6 Pathways

In v2, the max is 6 pathways (nobody spans all 7). These 12 researchers publish on everything — they’re the strategic thinkers:

These 12 have genuinely thought through CDR as a portfolio problem, not a single bet.

What This List Tells Us About Our Method

Seeing familiar names builds confidence. But the list also exposes limitations:

1. LLM classification is better than keyword search, but not perfect. Edge cases remain — sorbent chemistry papers without explicit “direct air capture” language may slip through. Domain experts would catch misclassifications that even a good LLM misses.
2. “CDR papers” is still a messy metric. A paper about soil microbiology that mentions carbon sequestration once gets counted the same as a paper specifically designing a new sorbent. We’re working on citation-weighted scoring.
3. Missing researchers. If someone’s seminal CDR work uses different terminology than our search strategy, they won’t appear. The field’s vocabulary is still evolving — feedback from readers helps us find these gaps.
4. Commitment levels now reflect research focus as a %. More transparent than the old “dabbler/focused/dedicated” buckets, but it relies on author self-reported data and publication counts. Outliers exist.

These are solvable problems. Better expert validation, feedback from the community, and iterative improvements will strengthen v3. That’s why I’m publishing this now rather than waiting for perfection — and why I’m flagging DAC as incomplete.

Next: The Dabbler Problem — 88% of CDR researchers have it as less than 50% of their work. Is that a problem?

Data from the CDR Researcher Census (v2, 24,749 papers). Corrections welcome on Bluesky or X.

🔗 Related Reading

• Mercedes F1 Goes All-In on Carbon Removal — 7 New Projects Across 6 Pathways
• Canada Becomes First Government to Buy CDR Credits
• Why Carbon Removal Needs More Than Trees