Effective Carbon Removal Requires Transparency, Says New Georgia Tech Research

Carbon dioxide continues to push global temperatures toward dangerous thresholds that affect everything from public health to economies. To mitigate these effects, researchers are looking into carbon removal methods such as direct air capture machines that can chemically bind with carbon or simple ecological strategies like adding trees to unwooded areas. These approaches could potentially supplement the decarbonization of transport, industry, and the energy system.

But as carbon removal grows, so does a core problem: The carbon removal industry is largely unregulated, particularly for more novel technologies without long-standing norms around reporting and verification. In today’s “voluntary carbon market,” a private company can claim it removed a certain amount of carbon, list that amount for sale, and allow another company to buy it to offset its emissions — with little independent oversight or transparency.

A new Nature NPJ Climate Action article argues that this system isn’t enough to meet global climate goals, and could even end up causing harm. In the paper, Chris Reinhard, Georgia Power Chair and associate professor in Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and Noah Planavsky of the Yale Center for Natural Carbon Capture call for a fundamental shift: Carbon removal should be quantifiable, economically viable, and pursued in ways that create benefits for local communities — and greater transparency in carbon removal practice is necessary.

“We argue that it’s important to understand and quantify carbon removal practices that can benefit local communities, like better crop yields, and that this understanding is really only possible if these practices are pursued transparently,” Reinhard said. “The data used to quantify carbon removal and how much it costs need to be transparent — the surest route toward learning what works and building public trust in carbon removal as a solution.”

Transparency Trouble

Reinhard and Planavsky bring a unique technical and policy perspective to the issue. As geochemists, they study how Earth’s chemical composition and geological processes control the carbon cycle. Reinhard also co-founded a carbon removal startup he has since divested from. That insider experience and academic background helped them see the disconnect between what’s technologically possible and what market logic culturally or commercially incentivizes.

Today’s carbon removal startups often guard their methods and data as proprietary intellectual property. Without regulatory requirements or pressure from corporate carbon buyers, these startups have little reason to disclose carbon accounting practices, cost structures, or actual long-term impacts. The researchers argue that policy guidance and advocacy are needed to shift the industry toward meaningful openness.

“Our expertise is most firmly grounded in the technical dimensions of these carbon removal processes,” Reinhard said, “but we saw an opportunity here to push for better policy and start this dialogue about what transparency really means, in part to foster more public debate about what carbon removal ought to be doing for society.”

Community Beyond Carbon

The authors also stress that carbon removal should deliver benefits beyond atmospheric cleanup that communities can see and advocate for. For example, liming, or adding limestone to soil, can remove carbon while also improving crop yields and reducing erosion. Coastal ecosystem restoration can sequester carbon while strengthening shorelines and supporting fisheries. Georgia Tech’s own direct air capture work builds community engagement into the process to ensure that carbon removal is equitable. 

Reinhard and Planavsky say the next best step for the carbon removal industry is to identify which removal pathways offer the clearest benefits, what they cost, and where transparency gaps are most damaging. This foundation will help create policies that make carbon removal reliable, verifiable, and community-centered. 

Without oversight, they argue, carbon removal risks remaining a niche, market-defined practice — when the climate challenge demands a trusted, scalable, and democratically governed solution.

CITATION: Reinhard, C.T., Planavsky, N.J. The importance of radical transparency for responsible carbon dioxide removal. npj Clim. Action 5, 7 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00324-4