The results challenge the longstanding assumption of diminishing returns. When the model doubled afforestation efforts—from 464 million hectares to 927 million hectares—the carbon captured also nearly doubled, with an 85% efficiency rate holding in both scenarios. Ocean alkalinity enhancement performed similarly, maintaining consistent removal levels whether 8 or 16 petamoles of alkalinity were added.
This linear scaling behavior has implications for financial and operational planning. For businesses, the key takeaway is predictability. Moving from a pilot to a full-scale implementation won't suddenly undercut performance. That gives climate-focused firms a firmer foundation for projecting long-term carbon impacts, allocating capital, and managing investor expectations.
For investors, this minimizes one of the major risks often tied to emerging climate technologies—scale uncertainty. The data shows that businesses can plan large-scale CDR deployments without facing an efficiency penalty, making the economics of scaling more straightforward.
Beyond individual methods, the study also explored combined CDR approaches. Running both AR and OAE side by side produced additive benefits—neither technique interfered with the other. That finding is particularly relevant to multinational companies managing climate targets across different regions and environments.
A portfolio approach allows organizations to tailor carbon removal strategies to local contexts—land-based methods in forest-friendly regions and marine-based solutions near coastal hubs—while maintaining the integrity of overall outcomes. That flexibility helps mitigate geographic, regulatory, and operational risks.
Diversification also supports resilience in supply chains. Businesses no longer need to depend on a single CDR approach that could become resource-constrained or face policy pushback. Instead, they can spread commitments across multiple technologies, using a model similar to diversified financial investing.
Still, localized application calls for nuance. The global modeling results don’t erase the need for region-specific planning. In forest projects, for example, carbon capture rates can vary based on climate, soil, and forest type. The research notes that projecting outcomes using average carbon density figures may overlook meaningful variability at the site level.
For accurate reporting and compliance with evolving standards, robust monitoring remains essential. Forest-based initiatives must distinguish between new growth and natural forest fluctuations, while OAE projects need tools to isolate direct effects from natural ocean cycles. Reliable tracking systems and verification protocols will be critical for proving impact and maintaining transparency.
