“Over the years we’ve invested significantly in our field data team - focusing on producing trusted ratings. While this ensures the accuracy of our Ratings, it doesn’t allow the scale across the thousands of projects that buyers are considering.”
For more information on carbon credit procurement trends, read our "Key Takeaways for 2025" article. We share five, data-backed tips to improve your procurement strategy.
One more thing: Connect to Supply customers also get access to the rest of Sylvera's tools. That means you can easily see project ratings and evaluate an individual project's strengths, procure quality carbon credits, and even monitor project activity (particularly if you’ve invested at the pre-issuance stage.)
Book a free demo of Sylvera to see our platform's procurement and reporting features in action.
As we look beyond 2030 towards 2050 net-zero deadlines, the CDR market is poised to transform from an early-adopter industry into a multi-hundred-billion-dollar sector essential for global climate goals.
But this transformation hinges on regulatory clarity, clear cost reductions, and a fundamental shift in how corporations approach residual emissions.
How much CDR capacity do we need?
We know that current trajectories fall well short. Today's commitments total only around 10 million tons of CO₂, while the IPCC estimates we need 5-16 billion metric tons annually by 2050.
The CDR market, currently valued at approximately $2 billion, is projected to expand to $50 billion by 2030 and potentially exceed $250 billion by 2035. However, the cumulative investment required to deliver net zero in 2050 ranges from $6 trillion to $16 trillion, with an investment gap between $400 billion and $1.6 trillion by 2030.
Will Nature-Based or Durable CDR Dominate Post-2030 Markets?
Our 2025 CDR Market Survey reveals a significant shift in buyer portfolios. Today, nature-based removals dominate purchases at a 6:1 ratio over durable CDR. But by 2050, survey respondents project this gap narrowing dramatically to just 1.2:1, signaling growing recognition that durable removals will be essential for neutralizing hard-to-abate fossil emissions.
According to Boston Consulting Group research, buyers aim for durable CDR to comprise approximately 35% of their portfolios by 2030 and up to 48% by 2040.
This portfolio diversification reflects the scientific consensus that different removal approaches serve different purposes. While nature-based solutions remain critical for land-use emissions and biodiversity co-benefits, durable technological removals will be necessary to balance the likes of persistent industrial and transportation emissions.
What's Really Driving Corporate Demand for CDR?
One of the clear findings from our 2025 survey was that 65% of purchasers identified clear net-zero standards from bodies like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as the primary factor that would increase their motivation to purchase durable CDR. This exceeded even price considerations (46%) and government policy incentives (46%).
Corporate commitments exist because of investor expectations, stakeholder pressure, and voluntary standard-setting frameworks. When these frameworks remain ambiguous about CDR's role, demand stagnates. When they provide clarity, markets can scale.
SBTi's Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2 illustrates both progress and ongoing uncertainty. The new framework allows companies to use CDR credits for residual Scope 1 emissions until they reach net zero, but only for hard-to-abate emissions through near-term durable targets. While this represents movement toward CDR inclusion, SBTi remains cautious about broader carbon credit use, leaving corporate buyers with limited clarity on when and how they can deploy removals in their decarbonization strategies.
Meanwhile, ISO is developing its own comprehensive Net-Zero Standard. These decisions will fundamentally shape market development in the post-2030 landscape.
How Will Article 6 Transform CDR from Voluntary to Compliance?
Compliance mechanisms - particularly Article 6 of the Paris Agreement - should also be effective here. And, though COP30 won't feature formal Article 6 negotiations, the groundwork for implementation is moving.
Article 6 establishes two pathways for international carbon trading: bilateral agreements between countries (Article 6.2) and a centralized UN-supervised mechanism called the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism or PACM (Article 6.4).
For CDR, this could represent a game-changing expansion beyond voluntary corporate purchases to government-backed compliance demand.
The recent Article 6.4 decision on non-permanence and reversals marks a pivotal moment. Rather than imposing blanket rules, the framework allows methodologies to define permanence requirements tailored to specific project types. This flexibility makes both nature-based solutions and durable CDR more viable within the PACM framework, though it also increases the importance of methodology rigor and independent quality assessment.
However, significant implementation challenges remain. Many potential host countries lack the data infrastructure and technical capacity to engage effectively. Only one Article 6.2 transaction has been completed to date, despite numerous bilateral agreements being signed. The gap between ambition and implementation underscores that readiness is essential before compliance mechanisms can unlock gigaton-scale markets.
What Future Scenarios Could Reshape CDR Markets Post-2030?
The trajectory of CDR markets remains uncertain, shaped by regulation, technology, finance, and corporate behavior. Here are four plausible scenarios that could define the post-2030 landscape:
Scenario 1: The Compliance Catalyst (High Ambition)
In this scenario, Article 6 implementation accelerates dramatically after 2028, with major economies integrating CDR into national climate policies. Governments take increasing actions to stimulate demand through mechanisms such as subsidies, removal mandates and procurement models, shifting durable CDR demand from voluntary markets to compliance markets.
SBTi's standards clarify that companies use durable CDR for fossil-based residual emissions, creating immediate demand signals. The EU implements CDR procurement requirements for heavy industry by 2032, while the U.S. expands tax credits and widens scope of removal targets for aviation and shipping.
By 2040, heavy-emitting sectors emerge as major demand sources, dramatically expanding the buyer base beyond early-adopter tech companies.
This policy certainty unlocks financing for CDR infrastructure, lowering costs across the industry and increasing the number of companies with ability to pay. By 2050, compliance demand exceeds voluntary purchases 3:1, and the market reaches $650 billion annually.
Scenario 2: A Fragmented But Moving Market (Moderate Ambition)
Standards evolve gradually across regions and frameworks. SBTi allows limited CDR use for residual emissions but maintains restrictive definitions, while ISO develops parallel guidelines that differ in key details. Article 6 continues at moderate pace, with uneven implementation. Some bilateral agreements flourish while PACM struggles with bureaucratic delays and host country readiness gaps.
Companies working together to increase transparency on CDR pricing and contractual terms help build confidence despite regulatory fragmentation. Regional clusters emerge: Nordic countries lead with government procurement; North America develops compliance-driven markets in California and Quebec; developing nations struggle with capacity constraints but a few become successful Article hubs.
Technology advancement proceeds at current pace. DAC costs fall to $450/ton by 2030 and reach $250-300/ton by 2040, enabling broader adoption but not breakthrough scale. Biochar maintains 40-50% market share through 2040 due to reliability. Market value reaches $120 billion by 2040, but fragmentation creates quality concerns and prevents the ecosystem needed for gigaton-scale deployment.
Scenario 3: The Critically Slow Decade (Low Ambition)
Standards bodies remain cautious. SBTi's guidelines prove conservative, requiring absolute permanence that effectively excludes most approaches except DAC and BECCS. Article 6 implementation stalls due to technical disputes, country readiness shortfalls, and geopolitical tensions. The 2028 milestone reveals major gaps - but generates limited political momentum for strengthening commitments.
Corporate enthusiasm plateaus. Major buyers continue with current investment agreements, but several other early movers quietly reduce commitments, while new potential new buyers seek other alternatives.
A financing crunch materializes, with those needing to raise funds by 2026 facing skeptical investors, so consolidation and closures follow. By 2035, the market stagnates at $20 billion, dominated by small-scale biochar projects and a handful of large BECCS facilities.
What Does Success Look Like for CDR After 2030?
The 2030s will determine whether CDR fulfills its essential role in the post-Paris climate framework. The conditions for success are emerging: costs are declining, compliance mechanisms are being established, and the ecosystem of potential buyers is showing signs of expansion.
But success is not certain. It requires sustained investment despite current market uncertainties, regulatory frameworks that provide clarity without stifling innovation, and quality infrastructure that builds buyer confidence.
Most critically, it demands recognition that the next five years - when most projected price declines and regulatory developments will occur - represent a unique window for positioning CDR as a mainstream climate solution.
