A new global report warns that current carbon dioxide removal initiatives will fall 5 billion tonnes short of what’s needed to meet Paris Agreement targets.
The 3rd edition of the State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report highlights New Zealand as one of the few countries to fully integrate carbon removals through forestry into its emissions trading scheme, as well as being home to inventors of new carbon removal tech. However, the authors note carbon removal activity in NZ is still limited compared to leading regions overseas.
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment. Feel free to use these comments in your reporting.
Professor David Dempsey, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Canterbury, comments:
“As this significant report outlines, New Zealand and the world are expected to need large-scale carbon dioxide removal to achieve net-zero and limit global heating to safer levels.
“Emissions reductions will do most of the heavy lifting and so we tend to focus on removals less, but the report makes clear we will need removals to shift the hardest 20% – modern conveniences like long-haul aviation that are hard or expensive to electrify.
“New Zealand already does a lot of carbon removal: planted forests absorb around 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. But it’s mostly pine and it’s a bit of a band aid solution because ultimately these forests are exposed to large storms and wildfires that kill trees and release carbon back to the atmosphere.
“Newer removal technologies are much more likely to store their carbon dioxide for longer periods. But as the report points out, they can be a lot more expensive and have their own environment impacts to manage. New Zealand has a lot of natural assets – including deposits of carbon-capturing minerals – that make it a good place to introduce several leading options.
“These technologies often deliver other benefits. For example, farmers dispersing carbon-absorbing minerals on their land often record a moderate boost in pasture growth. Or combusting biomass (to capture and store biogenic CO₂) can help meet renewable energy goals while incentivising the collection of forestry slash.
“Overseas, we’ve seen companies such as Microsoft and the governments of Canada and Sweden pay the comparatively higher prices for carbon removal technologies to nurse fledgling projects and bring down the costs for everyone. New Zealand projects will benefit from these examples as well as research being done here: from R&D on efficiency to lessons on the benefits and risks.
“The Government recently opened a pathway for carbon removal technologies to earn national carbon credits in our Emissions Trading Scheme. Considering today’s carbon price sits around $50 per tonne, it remains to be seen whether that will be sufficient to incentivise the introduction of new removal tech here.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I receive funding from the MBIE to undertake research research into carbon dioxide removal technologies.”
Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher, Chief Scientist Changing Atmosphere, Earth Sciences New Zealand, comments:
“Ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reductions are essential if we are to meet the goals of New Zealand’s climate legislation and the Paris Climate agreement. Yet it has become increasingly clear that carbon dioxide removals (CDR) are needed alongside emissions reductions if we are to achieve these aims.
“The 3rd State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report, released today, presents a clear-eyed stock take of CDR around the world and what’s needed to raise our ambitions in climate mitigation.
“CDR efforts are currently dominated by well-established methods such as planting forests and management of soils. Globally, these conventional CDR methods offset 5% of gross carbon dioxide emissions, and this proportion is even higher for New Zealand.
“Forests and other land use offset nearly a third of our gross emissions according to Ministry for the Environment. The New Zealand government seeks to grow this by providing endorsements for privately funded projects that restore nature or remove greenhouse gases, if those projects meet defined criteria for integrity.
“The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal report highlights the fact that differences between different methods of calculating carbon removal remain a key challenge for these conventional approaches.
“Accurate, transparent, independently verified estimates of carbon removal by forests are essential to ensure the integrity of conventional CDR projects and enable both public and
“In New Zealand, forest carbon uptake estimates using atmospheric measurements suggest that carbon uptake by our native forests is underestimated by inventory methods, which are based on measurements of tree girth at forest plots.
“If the gap between these approaches could be resolved, this could open-up significant
Conflict of interest statement: “She has no conflicts of interest.”
Associate Professor David Evison, New Zealand School of Forestry, University of Canterbury, comments:
“The recently-released global independent scientific assessment of the state of carbon dioxide removal highlights some important lessons for New Zealand:
- Carbon dioxide removals are an essential tool if we are to meet global targets to mitigate the impact of greenhouse gas emission on climate change. The report states “…Science is clear that while reducing emissions is absolutely necessary, it is no longer sufficient. We must also urgently scale up approaches to actively remove legacy carbon dioxide from the atmosphere…”
- Planting new forests and using wood harvested from them in long-lived wood products are valid and widely-used methods of removal.
- The global average removal using new forests is about 5% of gross emissions. By contrast, New Zealand has used new forests very effectively – over the past 35 years we have removed about 25% of our annual gross emissions using new forests.
- Globally conventional carbon dioxide removals are mostly new forest planting (about 88%) and durable wood products (about 12%). Novel methods of carbon dioxide removal make up around 0.05% of total removals. The report highlights that some novel methods of carbon capture and storage are growing fast, but not fast enough to allow us to meet global temperature goals outlined in the Paris Agreement.
“The use of new forests for carbon dioxide removal in New Zealand has not prevented reductions in gross emissions – according to Ministry for Environment data, New Zealand’s gross emissions have reduced by about 8 million tonnes (or 10%) from 2018 to 2024.
“The New Zealand government recently introduced regulations that severely restrict planting on better-quality hill country land (Land Use Capability Class 6, or LUC 6).
“A recent study in Canterbury showed that LUC 6 land was both the most planted land class (in an unregulated environment, 56% of the land planted in exotic forest was LUC 6 and the most suitable land class for future forestry planting (over two thirds of the total suitable land was LUC 6).
“With heavy-handed land-use regulation, New Zealand has limited its ability to meet its international obligations, contribute its share to global net greenhouse gas emission reductions, and move to a more sustainable economy.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I have prepared the above statement as part of my role as an academic at the School of Forestry, University of Canterbury and I have no conflict of interest in making the above statement.”
Dr Sebastian Gehricke, Director Climate and Energy Finance Group, Otago University, comments:
“Carbon capture is dominated by forestry and soil carbon interventions. One reason is forest sequestration has good science behind it to estimate the amount of CO₂ that is being sequestered, while new technological solutions are failing to meet their targets or deliver CDR at economical costs.
“This is especially the case in New Zealand where forest sequestration can earn carbon credits (NZUs). In New Zealand planting pine trees is much cheaper than decarbonising most industrial processes, not just the hard to abate, so that is what the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is predominantly incentivising.
“In New Zealand this type of carbon capture is dominated by monocrop pine forestry and comes with significant negative externalities and risk such as soil degradation, slash risk, run off risk, fire risk, biodiversity loss (relative to native forestation) etc, rather than the positive co-benefits highlighted in the report.”
“It is my opinion that global public backing for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), the technological approach to carbon capture, increasingly functions as an expensive, state-sponsored lifeline for the fossil fuel industry, mirroring the historical failures of plastic recycling by offering a “social license” to keep polluting.
“While policymakers defend multi-billion-dollar tax credits and subsidies as essential for decarbonising “hard-to-abate” heavy industries like cement and steel, the reality is that public funds have overwhelmingly de-risked corporate fossil fuel infrastructure, sustained dying assets, and subsidised “enhanced oil recovery” to pump more crude.
“As independent bodies like the International Energy Agency steadily downgrade the role of CCS in net-zero models, the technology is increasingly exposed not as a scalable climate solution, but as an economically inefficient, heavily subsidised smoke screen designed to delay a genuine transition to renewable energy.
“One example of the failure of CCS is the Worlds largest CCS project – Gorgon project in western Australia (Chevron) has delivered far less capture and storage than expected missing its target capture rate by 45% over first 5 years of operation. Even if it met 100% of its target that would not capture any of the emissions from the burning of the LNG that is being produced, the capture is only for the emissions at extraction not consumption.
“The growing gap between the amount of CDR required for all scenarios in the Paris agreement and country CDR pledges is to be expected. In a time where carbon reduction commitments and climate policies are slowing down or reversing in many economies in the world we cannot expect governments to invest in these extremely costly solutions.
“Again this is also the case in New Zealand where over the last 2.5 years we have seen a almost systematic deletion of not just climate policies, but broader environmental policies. A non ordered list of some of the changes below:
- Shutting down New Zealand Green Investment Finance even though it was highly successful in its mandate.
- Cutting EV subsidies and adding road-user charges for EVs
- Shutting down the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund and funnelling ETS revenues into general budget
- New Fossil fuel exploration subsidies ($200 Million + 20% capex tax write off)
- Fast-tracking coal mine projects
- Highways over public transport
- Cancelling hybrid ferry contract
- Reducing number of climate reporting entities having to mandatorily report their climate risks and opportunities
- Delinking ETS from our Paris agreement Nationally Determined Contributions and announcing agriculture will never enter the ETS
- Softening the methane reduction target
- Endorsing problematic voluntary carbon market crediting schemes and opening up doc land for such projects
- removed statutory requirements for the independent Climate Change Commission to conduct broad public consultations when advising on emissions budgets
- The government signaled a complete reversal of the 2018 ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration.
- Proposing a LNG import facility that will lock in gas use and increase dependence on important energy.
- Scrapping the 2025 Carbon Neutral Government Programme
- Softened penalties for under-reporting emissions by ETS participants.
- Disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I have no conflicts.”
Jennifer Campion, Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, comments:
“The voluntary carbon market (VCM) supports investment in carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects, which can provide a major source of finance, especially for novel CDR technologies that have not yet received policy support. The report notes that CDR technologies have experienced strong growth in the VCM, although CDR credits are still a small share of total VCM activity by volume.”
“The share is higher by value, especially for more highly-priced novel CDR project credits, although the report cautions that much of this demand is being driven by a small number of corporate buyers like Microsoft, which purchased over 80% of novel CDR credits in 2024–2025. If these buyers scale back their investment, the market could quickly weaken.
“The report’s assessment of the VCM will interest Aotearoa New Zealand: last month, our government announced it would be developing an endorsement pathway for domestic voluntary market schemes and recognising reputable international schemes.
“The word “reputable” is key: questions about the credibility of VCM credits have persisted and remain unresolved globally. The report underscores the importance of robust measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) for both voluntary and compliance markets, and identifies Aotearoa as the clearest example globally of structural integration of CDR into a compliance carbon market, potentially providing a blueprint for other states.
“While the forestry provisions in our regulations are very detailed and thorough – and in that sense they are a model – forestry removals in Aotearoa rely heavily on exotic pine monocultures, and the limitations of this approach are being increasingly recognised.
“Overall, the report suggests the VCM can support early innovation and niche demand, but this is not enough by itself. For Aotearoa, the priority should be maintaining high integrity standards, carefully managing the interaction between voluntary and compliance markets, and developing clear policy frameworks for new removal methods.’
Conflict of interest statement: “I’m funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) under the 2022 Endeavour Fund Research Programme (grant number UOC2456); see also.”
Dr Andrew La Croix, Senior Lecturer, School of Science, University of Waikato, comments:
“This report confirms the point that carbon dioxide removal is not a substitute for emissions reductions, but rather is increasingly necessary to reach net zero. In New Zealand we rely heavily on land-based carbon removal, especially forestry, but the report highlights the growing need for more durable and scientifically robust approaches.
“A major theme of the report is that the next five years are critical. Technologies, policies, and carbon accounting frameworks we build now will determine whether carbon removal becomes a credible climate solution.
“Robust monitoring, reporting, and verification will be essential, as carbon removal is only as credible and valuable as our ability to measure and verify it properly.”
Conflict of interest statement: “My current research on carbon dioxide removal is funded by MBIE”
Dr Rebecca Peer, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, Civil and Natural Resources Engineering Department, University of Canterbury, comments:
“This report is a key document, summarising the state of knowledge of Carbon Dioxide Removals (CDR) across the world. Two messages that are clear throughout the report are that we are not doing enough, and we are going too slowly.
“Although this report is focused only on CDR, we could say the same is true for emissions mitigation, which must go hand in hand with CDR if we are to reach Paris Agreement targets or try to minimise damage from overshoot.
“In NZ, the current approach to CDR is forestry; however, this is not balanced with emissions reductions at a scale compatible with Paris Agreement targets. The Climate Change Commission has also highlighted the risks of overreliance on forestry for removals.
“We have started to explore the regulatory environment for other novel removals, like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage – or BECCS, but there are no current or planned projects in the country, despite research suggesting that NZ may be uniquely placed to cost-effectively deploy BECCS in combination with our geothermal power generation.
“The report suggests that increasing diversification (of CDR approaches, locations, and market actors) is key, and NZ could have a role to play here. While the government has funded research into CDR, our ambition and action for both emissions mitigation and carbon removal, like the rest of the world, are currently falling short.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I am one of the researchers that works on the Endeavour-funded research programme “Derisking Carbon Dioxide Removal at Megatonne Scale in Aotearoa””
Professor Barry Barton, School of Law, Politics and Philosophy, University of Waikato, comments:
“This study demonstrates that we need CDR, even if emission reduction must remain our primary focus. It shows that most CDR deployment internationally is in forestry, but that it is often ecosystem restoration, unlike in New Zealand where it is nearly all exotic monoculture plantations.
“We know that we must rely on forestry much less, and the report helps us understand how we can use our unique land and resource base better to devise and implement new kinds of CDR.”
Conflict of interest statement: “No conflict of interest to declare”
Dr Nathanael Melia, Senior Research Fellow (Adjunct) at Victoria University of Wellington and Founding Director of the NZ Independent Research Organisation Climate Prescience, comments:
“I remain sceptical of any framing that treats carbon removal as a substitute for cutting emissions now. The report also notes financial support from Bank of America, and while that does not invalidate the science, it is a potential red flag about framing: CDR must not become another financialised offset market that authorises business-as-usual.
“The scale problem is clear in the report: almost all current CDR is land-based, while novel removals remain tiny. But framing the 1.5°C target as in reach with rapid uptake of CDR is either naive, disingenuous, or a marketing pitch.
“I think the best and most balanced part of this package is the CEO of COP30 — Ana Toni’s Foreword. Ana names the real hierarchy: cutting emissions first; carbon removal second; and justice, governance, permanence and community impacts as central concerns.
“That is a fairer framing than the more market-oriented executive summary and press release. Ana diplomatically makes this clear, dials down any CDR excitement, gives a climate finance shout-out to the global south, and gets the 1.5°C situation spot on.
“CDR does have a role, but only as a last resort for genuinely hard-to-abate residual emissions. For fossil carbon, the gold standard is geological net zero.
“Coal, oil and gas were locked away for geological aeons until we extracted and burned them. Neutralising those emissions requires atmospheric carbon to be returned to storage with comparable durability, such as well-governed geological or mineral storage.
“Geological net zero is very different from temporary biospheric storage. Forests, soils, and some biochar may provide real climate, biodiversity, and erosion-control benefits, but they are not equivalent to cutting fossil fuel emissions. Fire, storms, pests, harvest, land-use change or natural biological processes can reverse forest carbon.
“In Aotearoa New Zealand, meeting future climate targets currently leans heavily on planned planting of vast swathes of the South Island in pines. Tree planting and other temporary forms of CDR are not fungible with gross emissions reductions.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I have long been sceptical of CDR, and its adoption by the fossil fuel industry to continue business as usual. I have provided expert evidence in climate litigation concerning New Zealand’s climate target reliance on forestry removals. I have no direct financial interest in carbon dioxide removal technologies, carbon markets, forestry offsets, or fossil-fuel companies.”