Take on a podcast episode from The CDR Policy Scoop, originally published Tue, 02 Ju. Listen: https://shows.acast.com/the-cdr-policy-scoop/episodes/the-state-of-cdr-2026-the-cdr-policy-scoop-verdict

TL;DR

  • Third edition of the State of CDR report drops: 300 pages, 75+ authors, two-year cadence now established as the canonical reference doc.
  • Global novel CDR sits at 2.1 Mt gross — but the report finally shows per-pathway net/gross gaps (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) net is 68–98% of gross, DACCS 23–90%). Material for anyone quoting headline tonnages.
  • 2025 reality check: first edition projected 11 Mt novel by 2025; actual is ~2 Mt. Hosts flag 2030 announcements (42 Mt) vs estimated delivery capacity (8.4 Mt) as the next gap to watch.
  • Across IAM scenarios that actually reach net-zero CO2, CDR averages 16% of mitigation effort — higher than the 10% figure often cited in corporate target-setting.
  • CDR captures 2.6% of climate-tech funding. Low enough to puncture the “CDR is eating climate’s lunch” narrative.

Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme got an embargoed copy of the third State of CDR report and spent 30 minutes pulling out what surprised them rather than re-reading the executive summary. It’s a useful filter episode if you don’t have time for 300 pages this week.

The gross-vs-net point is the one to internalize. The report’s 2.1 Mt novel CDR headline is gross removals, calculated for consistency with national greenhouse gas inventory conventions. But the per-method tables show how much shrinks once you draw the system boundary around the full facility: BECCS at an ethanol plant can collapse from a small net removal to a net emission reduction depending on where you put the LCA fence. Biochar retains 60–92% net, BECCS 68–98%, DACCS a wild 23–90%. If you’re a buyer comparing a project credit (typically net, project-boundary) to the report’s tonnage, you’re comparing different things. Sebastian’s framing — VCM accounting vs national inventory accounting are two parallel worlds, and the EU’s CRCF is currently trying to bridge them — is the right one.

The 2030 reality check matters more than the 2050 fantasy. The first State of CDR predicted 11 Mt novel by 2025; we got ~2 Mt. For 2030, the report layers three numbers: estimated delivery capacity (8.4 Mt), corporate announcements (42 Mt), and the higher modelled need. The hosts are appropriately skeptical that the 57%/year growth required to hit 30 Mt by 2030 has any analogue beyond lithium-ion and internet traffic — sectors with consumer pull CDR structurally lacks. The other underappreciated finding: through 2030, the sector is overwhelmingly biomass-based. Biochar leads today, BECCS scales next, and biomass burial (Graphyte, Vaulted Deep) is the surprise third pillar — all three concentrated in the US. DAC and enhanced weathering matter later, not this decade.

For context on the funding picture the episode flags, CDR.fyi’s 2021–2025 funding tracker and Sylvera/CDR.fyi delivery dashboards give the project-level view that complements the report’s macro numbers. For the gross/net accounting weeds, Eve and Paul Zakkour’s earlier writing on CRCF-vs-inventory reconciliation is worth pulling up. And the report’s communications chapter finding — that 1-in-2 CDR articles conflate fossil CCS with removals — is a problem worth taking seriously if you’re writing or briefing media.

Useful for: buyers and policy folks who want the report’s signal compressed before deciding which chapters to actually read.