Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Economy

The U.S. Government Will Pay to Remove Carbon From Atmosphere

The key climate technology lands a big customer.

Vacuuming pollution.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The federal government is preparing to pay companies to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, launching a first-of-its-kind program that could transform the market for the nascent climate technology, according to people familiar with the matter.

The program would mark a global first: Never before has any government paid to remove climate pollution from the atmosphere.

The effort will be managed by the Department of Energy and will initially have a budget in the tens of millions, the people said. It will use one of the government’s most potent tools — its power as a customer — to accelerate a technology that experts say is essential to fighting climate change.

A spokesperson for the Department of Energy declined to comment.

The government has previously used its power as a purchaser to speed up the development of semiconductors, titanium, and — most recently — COVID-19 vaccines. As a piece of industrial strategy, the new program will give the government a lever to shape the market and set standards for the emerging climate technology.

But it could also help establish a precedent that carbon dioxide is a waste product that — like other forms of waste — must sometimes be managed by the public. By a rough estimate, the carbon-removal industry must grow thousands of times larger by the end of this decade in order for the world to hit its climate goals.

Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:

* indicates required
  • The program, which is expected to be announced soon, was quietly approved by Congress last year. The 2023 appropriations law told the Energy Department to “establish a competitive purchasing pilot program for the purchase of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere or upper hydrosphere.”

    The department has been working on the program since then. In February, it requested public input for a plan to provide “demand-side support for clean energy technologies,” including for “carbon dioxide removal.”

    The Bipartisan Policy Center, a centrist think tank, later held a closed-door meeting with companies and nonprofits about how to best design such a program.

    Carbon removal is a rare bright spot for bipartisanship in climate policy. A handful of Republicans and Democrats — including Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, as well as Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Maria Cantell of Washington — have co-sponsored bills that would significantly expand the government’s support for removing carbon from the atmosphere.

    The government has already unveiled powerful programs meant to encourage the industry’s growth. The bipartisan infrastructure law contained $3.5 billion to fund a set of large-scale, industrial facilities that will specialize in scrubbing carbon out of the ambient air. And the Inflation Reduction Act contained a tax credit that compensates companies for every ton of carbon that they inject underground rather than release into the atmosphere.

    The new procurement program would broaden the government’s approach. Unlike pre-existing policies, the new program could support any kind of technology that removes carbon from the air — not just an industrial direct-air-capture facility or a technology that injects carbon underground.

    Some carbon-removal companies, for instance, seek to “remineralize” carbon, turning it into rocks on the Earth’s surface. That technique is not covered by existing subsidies or grants, but it may be covered by the new procurement program.

    The new program would also change how the government interacts with the nascent market. While the government has previously granted money to carbon-removal companies, funded R&D, or subsidized their activities, it has never pledged to buy their services directly.

    Even with the new program, carbon removal will remain one of the trickiest problems in the fight against climate change.

    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, humanity needs carbon removal to become much cheaper and more widely deployed if we are to have any hope of keeping global temperatures from rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

    Even if humanity reaches that mark, it will still need to bring annual carbon pollution — and the unabated burning of fossil fuels — down to near zero. But carbon removal will also allow humanity to carry on a few so-called hard-to-decarbonize activities, such as chemical production or long-distance air travel, that can’t be done right now without fossil fuels.

    Even so, the math is daunting. Last year, the world removed several thousand tons of carbon at a cost of about $200 to $2,000 per ton, by one estimate.

    But by 2050, the world must remove perhaps 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year if it hopes to maintain its climate goals. Even if the cost of carbon removal were to fall significantly — to, say, just over $100 a ton — the bill would exceed $1 trillion. That is roughly 1 percent of global GDP in 2023.

    Read more about climate technology:

    Climate Tech Hits a Bit of Turbulence

    Blue

    You’re out of free articles.

    Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
    To continue reading
    Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
    or
    Please enter an email address
    By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
    Energy

    The Department of Energy Is Spending a Tiny Fraction of Its Money

    Deep cuts to the department have left each staffer with a huge amount of money to manage.

    A big pile of cash.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    The Department of Energy has an enviable problem: It has more money than it can spend.

    DOE disbursed just 2% of its total budgetary resources in fiscal year 2025, according to a report released earlier this year from the EFI Foundation, a nonprofit that tracks innovations in energy. That figure is far lower than the 38% of funds it distributed the year prior.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Green
    Spotlight

    How Trump’s Speed-to-Power Push for Data Centers Could Backfire

    Will moving fast and breaking air permits exacerbate tensions with locals?

    Donald Trump and Rick Perry.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    The Trump administration is trying to ease data centers’ power permitting burden. It’s likely to speed things up. Whether it’ll kick up more dust for the industry is literally up in the air.

    On Tuesday, the EPA proposed a rule change that would let developers of all stripes start certain kinds of construction before getting a historically necessary permit under the Clean Air Act. Right now this document known as a New Source Review has long been required before you can start building anything that will release significant levels of air pollutants – from factories to natural gas plants. If EPA finalizes this rule, it will mean companies can do lots of work before the actual emitting object (say, a gas turbine) is installed, down to pouring concrete for cement pads.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Yellow
    Hotspots

    South Carolina County Mulls Lifting Solar Ban

    And more of the week’s top fights around development.

    The United States.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    1. Berkeley County, South Carolina – Forget about Richland County, Ohio. All eyes in Solar World should be on this county where officials are trying to lift a solar moratorium.

    • Berkeley County instituted a solar moratorium in 2023. Now RWE is asking the county to lift the moratorium and the county’s land use committee voted this week at a hearing to recommend doing so, citing concerns from state utility Santee Cooper about energy prices. The county has seen electricity prices rise roughly 20% over the past three years, according to our Electricity Price Hub.
    • “They flat out said they need more power. They’re not going to have enough power by 2029,” councilmember Amy Stern said at a hearing Monday. “We are going to have more of this [discussion]. The moratorium lift[ing], all it does is allow us to get more information.” RWE wants to rezone land for a utility-scale solar farm the company claims would provide 198 megawatts, enough power for 37,000 homes.
    • Some most vocally supportive of the moratorium packed the hearing room, becoming so boisterous the council threatened local sheriff intervention. This shouldn’t be surprising; public opinion modeling indicates overall support for renewable energy in Berkeley County but the area has a substantial opposition risk score – 62 – in the Heatmap Pro database.
    • I’m closely monitoring whether the outcry overrules concerns about energy prices and Berkeley County supervisor Johnny Cribb told attendees of the hearing he’s against lifting the moratorium: “I’m against large-scale solar farms in this county, because of the reality of our county.”

    2. Hill County, Texas – We have our first Texas county trying to ban new data centers and it’s in one of the more conservative pockets of the state.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Yellow