Market insight

2025 CDR Market Survey - Key Findings

No items found.

CDR.fyi’s mission is to accelerate durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) worldwide. Sylvera’s mission is to incentivize investment in real climate action. We jointly believe transparent data, ratings, and tools will accelerate meaningful climate investments and help the world reach net zero faster.

In January of 2024, CDR.fyi published its first Market Outlook Summary Report. Its purpose was to provide a detailed look at where the industry was at the time, as well as expectations for the medium and long term (2030 and 2050 specifically). At a similar time, Sylvera published ‘Looking Ahead at Demand and Supply in the VCM: Sylvera’s 2023 Survey’, which covered all project types within the VCM. Those who spent time with these publications overwhelmingly expressed that they found them useful.

This year, we partnered to repeat the effort from December 2024 to January 2025. And now, we’re providing a refreshed market outlook in the wake of all that has changed over the past year. With Sylvera’s expertise across all project types and CDR.fyi’s expertise on durable CDR, we included questions for buyers of nature-based carbon credits. However, durable CDR remained the primary focus of the survey. Together, we distilled the survey results and provided commentary, which was also informed by external experts and reviewers.

This Summary Report blog is a free resource to educate and inform all CDR stakeholders and accelerate durable carbon removal worldwide.

If you have any questions or want to be included in future surveys, email us at team@cdr.fyi or projectdata@sylvera.io, or connect with CDR.fyi and Sylvera on LinkedIn.

Happy reading!

‍

Highlights

Standards: Forthcoming decisions from net-zero standard setters will have substantial consequences for the CDR industry. They were cited as the primary factor to increase motivation to purchase durable removal credits.
Portfolios: Purchasers aim to achieve their climate goals with mixed portfolios of reduction and removals, with the latter projected to increase in proportion across both nature-based and durable CDR.
Durable CDR Growth: The next five years will be pivotal. Suppliers in the survey anticipate a significant expansion of durable CDR’s share of carbon credit purchases, narrowing the current 6:1 ratio of nature-based to durable CDR to 1.2:1 by 2030.
Pricing: Buyers of durable CDR expect to pay less than what sellers anticipate receiving for credits, both today and in future years. However, suppliers (excluding biochar) expect durable CDR prices to decline as much in the next five years as over the following two decades – increasing accessibility and scalability for durable removals.
Business Case: Purchasers highlighted the need for a clear business case for durable CDR purchases, both on the financials and to de-risk the supply gap.

Analysis

The 2025 market survey captures the perspectives of durable CDR suppliers and purchasers of durable and nature-based CDR, and reduction credits. This offers insight into how corporate carbon removal strategies are evolving. While the market for durable removals continues to expand, most purchasers are set to use mixed portfolios. The uncertainty around net-zero standards continues to restrain demand. And high prices remain a significant barrier to wider adoption, with a clear gap between supplier expectations and what most purchasers are willing to pay.

Nature-Based and Durable CDR in Net Zero Planning
Today, the nature-based removals market is significantly larger than the market for durable CDR, with 11 million credits retired in 2024 compared to approximately 200K, respectively. Purchasers plan to buy more carbon removal over time, with nature-based removals maintaining the majority of projected volumes. The survey results show that nature-based volumes are projected to outpace durable volumes at a 6:1 ratio in 2025, with durable CDR narrowing the gap to 1.2:1 by 2050.

The predominance of nature-based removals raises questions about long-term compatibility with net-zero standards. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) currently requires only “permanent” removals for neutralizing residual emissions but does not provide further clarity on how lower durability removals fit within corporate targets. However, SBTi is set to release its Net-Zero Standard 2.0 this year, following a public consultation. It is expected to include interim removal targets and a dedicated Expert Working Group for CDR from March 2025. ISO is also developing a full Net-Zero Standard following their Net Zero Guidelines.

There is a growing consensus among NGOs, standard-setters, and climate researchers that durable removals are needed to balance fossil emissions, while nature-based removals may be more appropriate for land-use emissions or short-lived climate pollutants.

The survey shows that many are planning to continue to buy a mix of credit types through 2050. Rather than viewing durable and nature-based as binary options, companies need clear and structured strategies, using different credit types such that each credit compensates for a corresponding climate effect. Nature-based removals and other types of carbon credits can also be used as part of a beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM) approach. A well-defined approach aligned with best practices will ensure credible and impactful climate action.

‍

Net Zero Standards Essential for Driving Durable CDR Demand

‍Corporate demand for durable CDR is closely tied to net-zero target-setting frameworks. In this survey, 65% of respondents identified clear net-zero standards (such as SBTi) as the main factor that would increase their motivation to purchase durable removals. Another 62% cited clear business benefits or ROI, while 46% mentioned lower prices and government policy support.

‍

Compared with other corporate expenditures, the potential or expected investment return on carbon credits is far more uncertain or indirect. Reputational benefits, future possible regulatory compliance, and alignment with long-term decarbonization goals are the sorts of motivators that are typically mentioned. That clear net-zero framework was the most cited factor driving durable CDR demand is evidence that companies are committed to removals because of external standards and expectations. If standard-setting bodies create strict and enforceable net-zero definitions, corporate purchases of durable CDR will increase. If standards remain weak or ambiguous, demand for removals is at risk of stagnating.

Companies are not legally required to purchase CDR; further, most do not face strict mandates to reduce emissions or set net-zero targets. Yet, many large companies have set emission reduction and net-zero targets in recent years due to investor expectations, business-to-business pressure, and broader corporate responsibility trends.

A recent study in Nature Climate Change found that among 1,041 companies with 2020 emissions targets, 9% failed and 31% silently abandoned them. Companies with failed targets faced no significant consequences: no measurable market reaction, minimal media coverage, and no impact on environmental scores or shareholder proposals.

Coupled with the neutral to negative posture of the new US Administration that has already led some companies to reduce their climate engagement, we see net-zero commitments holding only if inexpensive emissions mitigation measures are available. With lower costs, leadership motivation, investor and employee pressure, and customer expectations could be enough to cause companies to maintain their commitments.

Still, standards remain the central mechanism for ensuring demand. Without robust and enforceable frameworks, companies may deprioritize removals in favor of lower-cost mitigation strategies. As these standards take shape, businesses need assurance that the removals they invest in align with future compliance requirements. Strengthening quality assurance now helps reduce long-term risks and protects the value of carbon credit investments.

This need for certainty is also reflected in CDR purchasing decisions. The second most cited factor (with 62% of respondents) was the need for a clear business case and ROI. Many durable CDR suppliers have highlighted this challenge as well, noting that finance departments are often involved in transactions and require a strong financial and business rationale. This hurdle has also been seen with nature-based credits—buyers seek to acquire credits as assets rather than liabilities and must be confident in their value. That value is shaped not only by future standards and regulations but, critically, by the quality of the project itself.

‍

The Need for Lower Durable CDR Prices

‍Price remains the most significant factor in CDR procurement decisions. 52% of purchasers ranked price as a top factor when selecting a durable CDR supplier, while 46% said lower costs would increase their motivation to buy durable CDR. This Market Survey highlighted a gap between what purchasers expect to pay and what suppliers expect to receive, with purchasers being more optimistic about declining prices than suppliers. The price mismatch between buyers and sellers is covered in more detail by method in the CDR.fyi & OPIS Pricing Survey: for 2030, suppliers indicated a ”breakeven” sale price range of $140-$340/mt, while the range suppliers said they needed for “a reasonable profit” was $180-$430/mt.

‍

The next wave of buyers will likely be more price-sensitive than early adopters. The early corporate buyers of durable CDR have been primarily large technology firms willing to pay a premium to support market development. As the buyer base expands to more cost-driven sectors, the price per ton becomes more important. This is risky. As highlighted in the CDR.fyi Year in Review, the CDR sector is not ready to compete on price. If promising but immature CDR methods fail due to short-term cost pressures, this could make CDR more expensive in the long run.

Still, suppliers must align with demand. Companies with mature technologies can focus on cost reductions, while those with novel approaches should provide their partners with clear cost curves and identifiable levers for future scalability. Lowering prices will not only secure more buyers but also help durable removals compete with lower-cost alternatives, including nature-based removals and carbon credit avoidance projects. While standards emerge as a key driver of corporate demand, price remains the largest barrier to scaling durable CDR beyond early adopters.

While cost is certainly a barrier, companies must also be confident that higher-priced removals deliver real, verifiable impact. Independent quality assessments and certifications help buyers understand what they are paying for and make informed decisions based on price and quality. Without trust in quality, price reductions alone won’t bring widespread adoption. Companies hesitate to buy at scale not only because of cost but also uncertainty in credit integrity. This is the role of registries, protocols, MRV, and ratings agencies. By providing rigorous assessments of carbon projects across key attributes – such as permanence, additionality, and co-benefits – independent quality assessments help build confidence in credit quality, making price differences more meaningful.

Financing the Growth of Durable CDR Supply

The next two years will be critical for responding suppliers: 64% plan to raise financing in 2025, and 85% by the end of 2026. Demonstrating traction is very beneficial to raising financing. However, 55% of suppliers have not sold any credits, 73% have yet to deliver a single credit, and 55% of respondents have raised less than $1M. This is against a backdrop where durable CDR equity financing declined 30% in 2024, and financial institutions looking to provide debt facilities will need deep due diligence to identify and mitigate project risks before funding facilities can be approved. Targeted assessments of projects yet to issue credits (pre-issuance) will be key to opening up this important funding stream.

For these suppliers to survive and contribute to the long-term growth of the ecosystem, they will require purchases and, as we have seen previously, this is most likely to occur with clear CDR targets from standard-setters.

ERW Scale-up

Based on our limited sample, purchasing intentions are rising sharply for Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). For example, respondent interest in ERW is expected to increase from 15% to 42%. However, for this momentum to translate into large-scale adoption, the field must overcome critical hurdles in measurability, scalability, and operational execution. By 2050, ERW and BECCS are projected to be leading methods of durable CDR, along with Biochar Carbon Removal (BCR). That said, all methods show increases, which is to be expected as we approach the 2050 milestone.

Conclusion

The 2025 market survey underscores the growing importance of trust in net-zero standards, business cases for removals, cost reductions, and evolving corporate climate strategies in shaping demand for durable CDR. Purchasers continue to rely on nature-based removals and reduction credits, but durable methods are gaining traction as standards evolve and prices fall. Clearer guidelines on net-zero alignment will be essential for increasing durable CDR commitments. The price gap between supplier costs and purchaser expectations remains a significant hurdle, and one that will need to narrow for the market to scale. To transition from an early-adopter market to broader corporate adoption, durable CDR suppliers must focus on cost reductions, regulatory alignment, and demonstrating long-term value to corporate buyers.

‍

Get the PDF version here.

To get the downloadable PDF version of this report, click here.

‍

Join the upcoming webinar

To help you better understand where the CDR market is heading, we'll be hosting a joint webinar with CDR.fyi in April.

To join the webinar, register here.

‍

Methodology

This 2025 CDR Market Survey was conducted between Dec 18, 2024 and Jan 27, 2025. We invited two main groups of respondents: (1) suppliers focused on durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) with verifiable multi-century storage, and (2) purchasers who have already bought or plan to buy CDR credits. All participation was voluntary. After screening out invalid submissions, we were left with:

Purchasers: 26 valid responses
Suppliers: 73 valid responses

We asked each supplier to identify their primary durable CDR method. Of the 73 qualified supplier responses, Biochar was the most common (40 respondents), followed by BECCS (11), Other Biomass Storage (10), Enhanced Weathering (6), DACCS (4) and one each of mCDR and Mineralization. (A small subset (11) reported pursuing multiple methods; for categorization purposes, we counted only their primary method.)

Of the purchasers’ responses, financial firms (11 respondents) and consumer services companies (8) made up the largest share of buyers, followed by industrials (5), oil & gas (3), consumer goods (2), technology (2), and one each from health-care and utilities. Half of the responses were from companies with over $100M in annual revenue.

All numeric results refer specifically to participants in this survey and may not reflect the entire industry. Although indicative, the findings rely on self-reported data and should be interpreted in that context. The findings should not be seen as representative of all suppliers and/or purchasers. Where applicable, we compare these results to historical data or other publicly available figures to illustrate year-over-year changes in buyer and supplier behavior, but these comparisons should be seen as informative data points rather than statistically significant changes or differences.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the survey respondents and our many friends in the CDR community for contributing to this comprehensive study of the durable carbon removal market.

We are grateful for the external review, guidance, and feedback of Sebastian Manhart and Phil De Luna.

We also thank key contributors from CDR.fyi and Sylvera for their efforts on this report - led by Robert Höglund, Matt Soens, and Alexander Rink from CDR.fyi and Shona-Crawford-Smith at Sylvera, with contributions from Charles Ma, Ekaterina Larina, Hugo Lakin, Jason Grillo, Mark Hogan, Nadine Walsh, Simon Manley, and Tank Chen.

‍

Are you a project developer?

You can proactively reach out to us about getting your project rated and share relevant data to maximise the chances of having your project assessed and streamline the engagement process. Get your project rated here.

‍