With support from the Julia R. Brown Education and Research Fund, MAS Climate Science and Policy student Naomi Howard attended Carbon Unbound East Coast in New York City to learn how carbon dioxide removal is shaping the future of climate action and corporate accountability. The conference deepened her understanding of the opportunities and challenges in the carbon removal space, from market trust and project durability to the importance of clearer communication between project developers and buyers. Naomi left the experience with new insight into how stronger science communication, better data, and more tailored project strategies can help scale effective climate solutions.
Purpose/Overview
Carbon Unbound is a globally recognized carbon dioxide removal conference (CDR) that occurs in many regions of the world each year. The purpose of Carbon Unbound is to bring people working in every stage of carbon markets together to discuss the new challenges and opportunities emerging in the carbon removal space, including CDR buyers, carbon credit sellers, CDR project managers and more. This conference was held in New York City specifically to discuss CDR on a gigaton scale of making CO2 emissions disappear, and how to keep organizations accountable to stay on track to reaching targets outlined in the Paris Agreement and the IPCC reports while maintaining trust in carbon markets for investors.
Lessons Learned
Carbon Unbound East Coast contributed to both my understanding of CDR’s contribution to decarbonization as well as the several knowledge gaps that are occurring in the CDR space regarding both its impacts and its several benefits projects provide for emission offsets. CDR is now used as a supplemental pathway to get companies that are already shifting towards using clean energy in supply chains, buildings and electricity an extra offset to get their operations to net zero instead of carbon neutral. How CDR projects are used is that a consulting firm does a valuation of how many carbon credits the operation provides and from there it is added to a portfolio for corporations to choose which CDR projects they want to invest in to offset emissions. Therefore, CDR is an opportunity to go beyond the clean tech space and try to get us to net negative when deployed on a larger scale.
While the notion of CDR is inherently good and is something corporations should be investing in in good faith, CDR projects are not always adopted because of the high capital they require, the lack of communication around the durability of the carbon credits, and the disconnect between projects on the ground and corporation evaluations. I learned three solutions from Carbon Unbound to solve these barriers to CDR adoption: take buyers to the CDR project sites, tailor CDR pathways to corporation portfolios, and break down CDR terminology for more people to better understand what these projects actually do for the public and for corporations seeking permanent emissions reductions. This is because the phrasing and language used around CDR, such as co benefits, durability, and nature based solutions are not as widely known or accepted as I previously thought. Additionally, people that are pitching these projects are not always considering what the companies goals are and are only giving general pitches for CDR projects that may not fit with individual targets or climate goals. Therefore, consultants and CDR project managers need to pitch projects that align with companies goals and portfolios to actually get them off the ground.
Most Striking Aspect
What was most surprising for me was how recent the CDR discourse has been going on for and how much it has left to evolve on both the investor and production side. CDR has most recently become serious around the shift in the markets around CDR with Science Based Target Initiative (SBTi) which was created to distinguish carbon credits as a net zero pathway and not as a carbon neutral or a carbon offset. The benefits of SBTi are highly debated, where some people believe that it makes CDR more compliance based, therefore requiring CDR to be integrated into more companies while some believe that SBTi is more strict, therefore deterring people away from purchasing anything since they will be expected to buy a certain amount, which most durable CDR technologies still require a high amount of capital. From my perspective, I am definitely in favor of SBTi and the creation of compliance markets, since it moves away from viewing CDR as only a voluntary credit basis that the market is mostly relied upon in this moment and I am optimistic that with increased CDR interest, policymaking, communication and regulation like SBTi increases accountability and more carbon reductions in the long run.
Professional Takeaways
From my experience at Carbon Unbound, I plan to incorporate better scientific communication in my career as well as emphasizing the importance of data and evidence collection in any climate project proposal. Bridging the gap between dense science and businesses is quite difficult but it is worth taking the time for a client to completely understand their impact on the climate, what they can do about it, and what a project actually will do in terms that they can understand like return on investment and cost benefit analysis, even if it is frustrating to put nature into these terms. People also want to see proof that climate solutions are actually working, and data is an invaluable resource for doing this, especially in new projects like mCDR, which I am most excited about in the CDR space. These companies need to see the exciting evidence, and see the potential of these technologies to encourage investment to work on these technologies on a large scale and pay upfront for these opportunities.
Further Reading
- Deep Dive: The Role of Carbon Credits in SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2
- Carbon Removal Program | Microsoft CSR
Blog content and images provided by Naomi Howard – thank you!
Ella Coulson also attended the 2026 Carbon Unbound East Coast summit. Read about Ella’s experience here.