If just 1% of German air passengers purchased durable carbon removal to offset their flights, global annual CDR purchases would jump by 50%. That single statistic, from a recent essay by Dirk Paessler of the Carbon Drawdown Initiative, captures why system-level thinking matters more than individual purity.

The Purity Trap

Paessler’s argument is blunt: your personal net-zero goal is almost certainly going to fail. So is his. Not because of a lack of effort, but because the systems we live inside have not changed fast enough. When you skip a flight or cut out meat, you make a personal sacrifice. But global air traffic hit 9.5 billion passenger journeys in 2024 and is projected to reach roughly 19.5 billion by 2042. That growth is driven overwhelmingly by people in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa gaining the economic freedom and mobility that Western nations have enjoyed for decades. No realistic demand-reduction scenario stops that growth. The systemic answer, Paessler argues, has to work for a world with more flights, not fewer.

What “System Change” Actually Means Here

Paessler is not saying emissions reductions do not matter. He is saying the order of operations matters. His framework:

  1. Reduce emissions where it is technically feasible today. Electric vehicles, green electricity, emissions-free heating. These are available now and should be adopted.
  2. Push hard for structural policy changes. Kerosene taxes, rail investment, ending fossil fuel subsidies. These remain essential.
  3. For the residual emissions that current technology cannot eliminate, purchase durable carbon removal. Aviation is the clearest example. There is no viable path to zero-emission flight at scale today. Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) will help but likely never cover all flights. The gap needs CDR. This framing aligns with the Paris Agreement’s own logic: reach 80 to 90 percent emissions reduction through fossil fuel phase-out and renewables, then balance the remainder with carbon removal by mid-century. A critical point deserves emphasis here. CDR is for those residual, hard-to-abate emissions only. It is not a permission slip to delay decarbonization. Paessler himself calls for legally binding regulations on SAF and contrail avoidance alongside removal purchases. The two strategies are complements, not substitutes.

The Math on Aviation CDR

The numbers Paessler presents are striking. Adding durable CDR to a flight would make tickets roughly 10 to 20 percent more expensive. That is not trivial, but it is far from prohibitive for most passengers in high-income countries. And the demand signal it would send to the removal industry would be enormous. Today, the CDR industry is tiny. Global purchases of durable removal are measured in the low hundreds of thousands of tonnes per year. A 50% increase from one country’s air passengers alone would be a meaningful acceleration for an industry that needs to reach gigatonne scale by mid-century.

Early Adoption Carries Risk. That Is the Point.

Paessler is honest about the uncertainty. Some of today’s removal approaches, whether enhanced rock weathering (spreading crushed minerals to accelerate natural CO2 absorption), direct air capture, or others, may not prove viable at scale. But he frames that risk as a feature, not a bug. If your money and effort help establish that a particular method does not work, you have still contributed real knowledge. The only way to find out what scales is to try it. This is a useful mental model for companies and individuals deciding where to put climate dollars. Waiting for perfect certainty means waiting too long. The removal industry needs demand now to drive down costs, improve measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV), and build supply chains.

What This Means for CDR Buyers

Paessler’s essay is ultimately a reframing exercise. Stop measuring yourself against an impossible personal net-zero target in 2026. Start asking: where can my money create the most systemic leverage? For many people and organizations, the answer will include CDR purchases, not as a substitute for cutting emissions, but as a complement for the emissions they genuinely cannot yet eliminate. The goal is not moral absolution. It is building an industry that the world will desperately need at scale in 25 years. The invitation is simple. You do not have to become a climate purist to contribute. You just have to put money into the parts of the system that are small today and need to grow fast. That is a more honest, more effective, and more inclusive ask than demanding everyone ground themselves while 9.5 billion flights happen anyway.

Source: Dirk Paessler — Chasing Net Zero Is Futile (For Now)