Measuring carbon dioxide removal for climate justice
This piece was originally published by NWF.
As the planet continues to warm and climate targets slip further out of reach, a growing chorus of voices—from policymakers to investors to technologists—is turning to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as an essential part of the climate solutions portfolio.
Carbon removal means taking carbon dioxide (CO₂) out of the atmosphere and storing it in plants, soils, oceans, or rocks. Unlike emissions reduction, which slows the rate of climate change, carbon removal is the only way to directly address the carbon dioxide that has been building up in our atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution.
Interest in carbon removal has expanded rapidly. Investments have increased and new state and federal policies are taking shape. Companies like Microsoft and buyer alliances like Frontier are leading the way with bold purchase commitments that build strong demand for these pathways and send positive signals to those looking to invest. Yet, as this new field grows, so do the tensions at its core.
Rapid scale up versus equitable development
Within the CDR world, we often separate that chorus into two dominant, largely separate conversations. On one hand, there is the market-oriented discussion: how to create demand for CDR, scale supply, support innovation, and ensure policy frameworks encourage rapid deployment. On the other hand, there is the justice-oriented conversation: how to avoid perpetuating new harms and remedying historic harms in vulnerable communities, prevent mitigation deterrence (where CDR is used as an excuse to delay emissions cuts), and ensure fair outcomes.
These conversations rarely intersect. When they do, it is almost always around project siting—where carbon removal facilities are built, who is involved in the decision-making process and the potential for other impacts they could face beyond climate modification.
While well-intentioned, this model borrows heavily from the playbook used in other industries like power generation, chemical plants, and waste facilities. But here’s the thing: carbon removal is not like those industries. And if we treat it that way, we miss its most transformative potential.
How is CDR different from other industries?
First, CDR is a public good. When carbon is removed anywhere, the benefit is felt everywhere. There is no natural market for this; it exists only because we choose to build it.
Second, CDR is a tool for climate justice. The only reason to do this at all is to reduce climate harm—harm that disproportionately affects the people least responsible for it.
Third, CDR is a system of accountability. If someone pollutes the atmosphere with carbon, and there is a way to clean it up, they should clean it up. Carbon removal becomes a way to hold polluters accountable to the planet and to future generations, while robust measuring systems ensure their investments are doing what they claim rather than just offsetting business as usual.
This reframing reveals a unique opportunity. We are not building a repeat of other industries. We are creating something new: an industry where justice and accountability are the purpose, not the problem.
But this vision only works if you can prove that the carbon was actually removed.
This is where monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) comes in. In carbon markets, MRV is often treated as a technical tool to enable crediting: it tracks how much carbon was removed, for how long, and with what degree of certainty, so it can be sold as a commodity.
To build a different kind of industry and achieve the potential of carbon removal as a tool for climate justice, MRV must be more than a mechanism for market transactions. It must be treated first and foremost as a tool for public accountability.
If you are telling the world you are cleaning up your carbon mess, you need to show your work, as well as demonstrate that it is not just effective for carbon removal but also safe for people and other species. And the public needs to be able to see and trust those results.
Building MRV systems that support both justice and scale
First, we must move beyond a narrow crediting mindset. Current carbon markets—both voluntary (where companies and NGOs choose to offset their emissions with credits) and compliance (where governments set limits on emissions)—are limited in scale and vulnerable to credibility issues.
Instead, we should integrate CDR into broader policies, such as conservation initiatives that reward practices like river alkalinity enhancement which support fisheries while removing carbon and would contribute to bodies of research that still need investigating. These programs can sell carbon credits, but they do not have to.
Second, we must choose the right CDR solution for the right place. Trying to force every technology into the same MRV mold—just to create fungible carbon credits—leads to poor outcomes. A direct air capture plant and a regenerative agriculture project should not be evaluated by the same standards because they require different inputs, have different goals, and possess different levels of risk at scale. We need context-appropriate quantification tools that reflect the realities, risks, and potential impacts of each approach and place.
Finally, we need MRV systems designed not just to serve buyers and sellers, but to build public trust. That means open methodologies, transparent data, and mechanisms for community participation–diversifying actors beyond more traditional models of engagement. It also means using MRV to check ourselves: Is this actually reducing harm? Is it contributing to justice, or just replicating past inequities under a new name?
At its best, carbon removal can be a tool of repair—not just for the climate, but for the broken systems that got us here. But that requires designing every part of the industry, especially MRV, with justice, transparency, and accountability at the core.
To learn more about NWF’s work on carbon removal and environmental justice, check out the Carbon Management Toolkit. To dive deeper into how the Carbon Removal Standards Initiative is thinking about MRV, check out the Quantification Resources Database.
Anu Khan, Founder & Executive Director, Carbon Removal Standards Initiative and lead author on this blog.
