New technologies aim to erase decades of damage—but can they scale fast enough?
As the world scrambles to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, one high-tech solution is drawing global attention: direct air capture (DAC), or what some call “vacuuming carbon from the sky.”
These technologies are designed to pull carbon dioxide straight from the atmosphere, storing it underground or using it in other industries. With emissions still rising despite international pledges, the urgency to reduce atmospheric CO₂ has never been greater.
Governments, investors, and scientists are racing to scale these carbon-sucking systems—but can they really make a dent in global warming? With promises of negative emissions and fears of false hope, DAC stands at a critical crossroads. It’s a bold gamble on our planetary future—and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
1. Direct air capture removes CO₂ straight from the atmosphere.
Unlike traditional carbon capture methods that target smokestacks, direct air capture systems pull carbon dioxide directly from ambient air. These machines use fans to draw in air and chemical filters to trap CO₂ molecules.
Once captured, the gas can be stored underground or reused in products like synthetic fuels. This approach is critical because it targets legacy emissions already in the atmosphere. Trees do this naturally, but DAC aims to scale that process quickly and in places where forests can’t thrive.
Removing CO₂ this way is expensive and energy-intensive, but it offers a crucial tool for offsetting hard-to-decarbonize sectors like aviation and cement. If perfected and widely adopted, DAC could become an essential part of our climate response toolkit, helping bring atmospheric carbon levels down to safer thresholds.
2. The largest DAC plant in the world just opened in Iceland.
In 2024, Swiss company Climeworks launched Mammoth, the world’s biggest direct air capture facility in Iceland. Powered by renewable geothermal energy, Mammoth is designed to capture up to 36,000 metric tons of CO₂ per year—about what 8,000 cars emit annually.
While that’s a drop in the global carbon bucket, the plant represents a crucial scaling milestone. It also showcases how DAC can be paired with renewable energy to reduce its carbon footprint. Iceland’s geology makes it ideal for permanent CO₂ storage, with basalt rock formations that naturally mineralize carbon.
Mammoth’s success or failure could influence investment and policy decisions worldwide. It’s both a proof of concept and a reminder of how much farther we must go to make a global impact.
3. Big Tech and oil companies are funding carbon removal.
Tech giants like Microsoft and Alphabet, along with oil companies such as Occidental Petroleum, are pouring billions into carbon removal. Microsoft pledged to be carbon negative by 2030 and has signed contracts to remove hundreds of thousands of tons of CO₂ through DAC.
Oil companies, meanwhile, see carbon removal as a way to clean up their emissions and sustain business models under pressure. While critics question the motives—arguing it allows polluters to delay cuts—others say such funding accelerates innovation.
The massive capital needed to scale DAC won’t come from public funds alone. Private sector involvement brings speed, scale, and technological refinement. Still, oversight is key to ensure this doesn’t become a license to pollute but rather a bridge to a decarbonized future.
4. DAC could help reverse some climate damage—but only at scale.
Pulling CO₂ from the air sounds promising, but doing it at meaningful scale is the challenge. Experts estimate that to stabilize climate warming, we’ll need to remove billions of tons of CO₂ annually by mid-century.
Today, DAC removes just thousands of tons globally. The gap is massive. Scaling up means building thousands of plants, sourcing clean energy, and reducing costs. Critics warn that focusing too much on DAC could distract from cutting emissions. Proponents counter that both are necessary.
Even if emissions stop today, the atmosphere would still hold too much carbon. DAC isn’t a silver bullet, but it’s a potentially powerful piece of the climate solution puzzle—if it’s deployed alongside aggressive mitigation and with global coordination.
5. Current costs are sky-high—but falling fast.
Right now, direct air capture costs anywhere from $600 to $1,200 per ton of CO₂ removed, depending on the technology and location. That’s far too expensive for mass adoption. But just like solar panels and batteries, prices are expected to fall with innovation, scale, and policy support.
Climeworks and Carbon Engineering, two leading companies, are working to cut costs below $100 per ton—the rough threshold for large-scale viability. Government subsidies, tax credits like the U.S. 45Q incentive, and carbon markets are also helping close the gap.
If these trends continue, DAC could become financially competitive with other climate solutions. The big question is: can we lower costs fast enough to make a meaningful difference before climate tipping points are crossed?
6. Some worry DAC gives polluters an excuse to delay action.
One of the loudest criticisms of DAC is that it might create a moral hazard: if polluters believe they can “clean up later,” they may not feel pressure to cut emissions now. This concern isn’t theoretical—some industries are already banking on future offsets rather than changing their operations.
Climate scientists stress that DAC should complement, not replace, decarbonization. The priority must be stopping emissions at the source. But managing perception and accountability is tricky.
Governments and watchdogs will need to ensure DAC use is targeted at sectors that truly need it, not as a loophole. In short, DAC could either be a climate crutch—or a critical rescue tool. How we frame and regulate it will determine the outcome.
7. Storing carbon underground is a major logistical hurdle.
Capturing CO₂ is only part of the equation—you also have to store it safely and permanently. Most DAC systems aim to inject carbon deep underground into rock formations, where it mineralizes over time. But finding suitable storage sites is complicated.
Not all regions have the right geology, and public opposition to underground storage (or “carbon pipelines”) is growing. There are also questions about long-term monitoring and potential leakage. Building a global CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure will be a massive endeavor, comparable to today’s fossil fuel networks.
Without reliable storage, DAC can’t fulfill its promise. Solving this logistical challenge is just as important as improving the machines that pull CO₂ from the air.
8. DAC uses a lot of energy—so the source matters.
Direct air capture requires significant energy to run fans, regenerate chemical filters, and compress CO₂ for storage. If that energy comes from fossil fuels, it undermines the climate benefits. That’s why co-locating DAC with renewables—like geothermal in Iceland or solar in the American Southwest—is essential.
Some startups are designing low-energy systems or integrating DAC into industrial processes that already produce waste heat. Others are exploring “modular” units powered by off-grid clean energy. Making DAC carbon-negative, not just carbon-neutral, is a design imperative.
As grids transition to renewables, DAC’s emissions footprint will shrink. But until then, its climate math remains delicate. To truly vacuum carbon from the sky, the system needs to run clean from top to bottom.
9. Policymakers are finally paying attention.
DAC has gone from fringe fantasy to policy priority. The U.S. Inflation Reduction Act included major tax incentives for carbon removal, and the Department of Energy has invested heavily in pilot projects. The EU is drafting carbon removal certification rules to boost trust and transparency. Canada and the UK are also funding DAC development.
These moves reflect growing recognition that emissions cuts alone aren’t enough. To reach net zero—and potentially go “carbon negative”—we need technologies that remove existing CO₂. Still, regulation is evolving slowly.
Questions remain about verification, double-counting, and equity. Effective policy can drive innovation, but it must ensure fairness and accountability. Governments now face the task of turning DAC from a moonshot into a mainstream climate tool.
10. Nature-based solutions still matter.
While DAC is grabbing headlines, natural carbon removal—like reforestation, soil restoration, and wetland protection—remains crucial. These methods are often cheaper, more accessible, and provide co-benefits like biodiversity and flood control.
However, they have limits. Land is finite, and trees take decades to mature. Fires, droughts, and disease can reverse gains. That’s where DAC steps in—not as a replacement, but as a supplement. In an ideal scenario, we use natural and technological solutions together.
Nature buys us time and resilience, while machines tackle the hardest emissions. The two approaches should work in tandem, not compete. Relying on one or the other is risky. In the race to fix the climate, every viable tool needs a seat at the table.
11. The future of DAC depends on trust, equity, and urgency.
For DAC to succeed, it needs more than just innovation—it requires global trust, fair governance, and rapid deployment. Communities near storage sites need assurances that safety comes first. Developing countries must have access to the technology and not be left behind.
Companies must prove their carbon removal is real, verified, and permanent. That means rigorous standards and third-party oversight. Time is also a factor. Every year of delay increases the amount of CO₂ we’ll eventually need to remove. The longer we wait, the harder—and more expensive—the job becomes.
Direct air capture isn’t a sci-fi fantasy anymore. It’s a real option with massive potential. But whether it becomes a lifeline or a lost opportunity depends on what we do next—and how fast we act.