Biomass Carbon Removal & Storage

Produce Bio Oils

Sector

Industrial Carbon Removal

Mode

Remove Carbon

Cluster

Biomass Carbon Removal & Storage

Image

Coming Soon

On

Solution in Action

Speed of Action

Caveats

Risks

Consensus

Trade-offs

Action Word

Produce

Solution Title

Bio Oils

Classification

Keep Watching

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals

Updated Date

Tue, 09/09/2025 - 12:00

Coming Soon Label

Coming Soon

Read more about Produce Bio Oils

Bury Biomass

Sector

Industrial Carbon Removal

Mode

Remove Carbon

Cluster

Biomass Carbon Removal & Storage

Image

Bio-blocks for storing carbon underground

Coming Soon

Off

Key Takeaways

Biomass burial stores plant matter (logs, woody residues, bio-blocks, etc.) using technologies and practices that keep the carbon it contains out of the atmosphere for >100 years.
Biomass burial has a huge potential for storing carbon (theoretically up to 37 ± 18 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ); it also could be cheap (US$10–100/t CO₂ ).
Limited evidence on real-world efficacy prevents biomass burial from being a Highly Recommended climate solution.
Regions with abundant woody debris are among those best suited for adopting biomass burial as a climate solution.

Summary

Biomass burial involves storing plant biomass, such as logs, woody debris, agricultural and forestry residues, and engineered bio-blocks, under conditions that prevent GHG-releasing decay – underground, above ground, or at ground level. Applications range from simple wood vaults buried underground to blocks of dried, compressed plant biomass sealed in impermeable barriers. Wood preservation and engineered storage systems provide evidence that biogenic carbon can be stored for >100 years when protected from decomposition. Early studies suggest meaningful storage potential, low cost, and scalability using existing technologies. However, field validation of durability is limited, permanence is uncertain, and effectiveness depends on moisture control and feedstock sourcing. Based on this assessment, we classify Bury Biomass as a solution to “Keep Watching.”

Overview

What is our assessment?

Burying biomass offers promise for long-lasting storage of already-captured biogenic carbon and could meaningfully scale using existing technologies and low-cost plant biomass. However, little is known about real-world performance over long time scales, effectiveness depends on storage conditions, and land use impacts remain uncertain. As a result, we will “Keep Watching” Bury Biomass as a climate solution.

Plausible	Could it work?	Yes
Ready	Is it ready?	No
Evidence	Are there data to evaluate it?	Limited
Effective	Does it consistently work?	?
Impact	Is it big enough to matter?	Yes
Risk	Is it risky or harmful?	No
Cost	Is it cheap?	Yes

What is it?

Biomass burial stockpiles plant matter in conditions that limit decomposition so the stored carbon cannot return to the atmosphere (Amelse, 2025). Approaches include simple terrestrial burial (wood vaults) and treated methods (bio-block encapsulation), with typical feedstocks of logs, forestry and agricultural residues, and other processed or unprocessed plant matter.

Wood vaulting buries unprocessed, low-value woody biomass in clay-dense or powdery mineral soil, away from groundwater, while controlling conditions that could promote decay (Mohr, 2024). Mohr (2024) describes these vaults as “a layer cake of trees, gaps filled with dirt, and more trees stacked on top, finished off with a [layer] of topsoil.” Oxygen, water, and methane (biological activity) among the factors that are monitored.

Bio-blocks are a more engineered form of biomass burial with added barriers that may improve durability. Plant residues are dried to moisture levels low enough to prevent rotting driven by microorganisms, mechanically compressed into dense blocks, and encased inside nonpolluting, multilayered barriers that keep out water and oxygen (Crotty et al., 2026; Yablonovitch & Deckman, 2023; Zeng et al., 2023). The barriers often combine nontoxic geomembranes made of high-density or linear low-density polyethylene liners, compacted clay layers, and polymeric sealants (Yablonovitch & Deckman, 2023). Once packaged, bio-blocks are buried in designated sites designed to keep the material dry and sealed for long-term carbon storage (Amelse, 2025).

These approaches do not make carbon inert, but “lock” it into the organic matter.

Does it work?

Biomass burial is a physically plausible means to durably store carbon captured by plants. Microbes cannot sustain metabolism when water activity is below 0.60, preventing biomass decomposition in dry, oxygen-deprived storage (Crotty et al., 2026; Yablonovitch & Deckman, 2023). Biomass burial’s net climate benefit depends on processing emissions, biomass type and source, site characteristics, and whether the buried biomass remains dry and intact. Effectiveness is supported by peer-reviewed studies, concept papers, life-cycle analyses, and reactor studies (Crotty et al., 2026; Johnson et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2011; Ximenes et al., 2019), with the strongest support for wood vaulting, engineered dry biomass storage, and landfill-style wood preservation (Crotty et al., 2026; Yablonovitch & Deckman, 2023; Zeng & Hausmann, 2022). A 3,775-year-old wood sample found 2 meters below ground had near-perfect preservation, with less than 5% of its carbon lost due to decay (Zeng et al., 2024). Other assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest wood biomass burial could retain 99.9% of stored CO₂‑eq over a century (Gooding, 2023), and another study found anoxic biomass burial was more carbon-efficient than decomposition, pile burning, or biochar production (Clayton et al., 2026).

Despite this, biomass burial is not yet a mature carbon storage strategy. It has little real-world validation beyond concept, operating guidance, and early implementation (Crotty et al., 2026; Zeng et al., 2023), requiring further study of decay and storage controls (Clayton et al., 2026). Currently, only a handful of companies use proprietary “bio-block” or “carbon-stiffened brick” methods to sequester atmospheric carbon (Scafidi & Denvir, 2026).

Why are we excited?

Biomass burial is an inexpensive form of durable carbon storage that could be scaled up toward globally meaningful sequestration of atmospheric CO₂ (>0.1 Gt CO₂ /yr). According to one study, terrestrial photosynthesis removes six times more CO₂ each year than fossil-fuel burning emits (Zeng et al., 2024). Since most of that carbon would return to the atmosphere through biomass decomposition, storing some long term in designated sites is a major opportunity. A study in the United States estimated that about 415 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr is available for wood harvesting and storage from coarse woody debris (Hausmann et al., 2024). Broader wood-vaulting studies project gigaton-scale climate impacts, with wood burial having a theoretical ceiling of 37 ± 18 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, a level far above any sustainable deployment, supported by an estimated ~238 Gt CO₂‑eq contained in coarse woody debris currently accumulated on forest floors worldwide (Zeng, 2008; Zeng & Hausmann, 2022; Zeng et al., 2024). Furthermore, drying and compacting biomass into bio-blocks is mechanically and practically straightforward with existing technologies. Cost is favorable for wood burial including bio-blocks, ranging from US$10–50/t CO₂ stored in most studies to as high as US$100/t CO₂ (Allen, 2025; Mohr, 2024; Johnson et al., 2025; Zeng & Hausmann, 2022), but this is based on estimates rather than commercialized outcomes. Biomass burial also provides simple, high verifiability.

Why are we concerned?

Biomass burial has several limitations as a viable climate solution, including possible concerns from large-scale deployment. Dry biomass storage systems fail if the barrier is breached and internal humidity rises enough to restart microbial activity and anoxic digestion of biomass, forming and leaking methane (Crotty et al., 2026; Johnson et al., 2025). This reversibility concern is highest for feedstocks with larger degradable fractions, such as agricultural residues, and lower for coarse woody debris (Crotty et al., 2026; Ximenes et al., 2019). Therefore, the durability of this type of carbon storage depends on sealing requirements, site selection, and gas monitoring (Zeng et al., 2023).

Burying plant matter from forest floors can lead to forest nutrient depletion, habitat removal, and biomass diversion from better climate uses (Burns, 2025; Mohr, 2024). Permanence concerns include uncertain long-term barrier integrity (Crotty et al., 2026), the need for decades’ worth of monitoring to ensure stored carbon doesn’t leak (Crotty et al., 2026; Zeng et al., 2023), and potential soil-carbon release from excavating deep burial pits (Johnson et al., 2025; Zeng et al., 2023). For biomass burial to sustainably store carbon, the feedstocks are ideally sourced from low-conflict waste streams in limited amounts, protect soil health, and are evaluated for land use changes (Denvir & Leslie-Bole, 2025).

Solution in Action

References

Allen, M. (2025, June 3). Bury it, don’t burn it: Turning biomass waste into a carbon solution. Physics World. Link to source: https://physicsworld.com/a/bury-it-dont-burn-it-turning-biomass-waste-into-a-carbon-solution/

Amelse, J. A. (2025). Terrestrial storage of biomass (biomass burial): A natural, carbon-efficient, and low-cost method for removing CO2 from air. Applied Sciences, 15(4), Article 2183. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15042183

Burns, W. (2025, June 3). Woody biomass burial. Illuminem. Link to source: https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/woody-biomass-burial

Clayton, L. K., Wyckoff, A. S., & Crotty, S. M. (2026). Near-term, geospatial opportunity for biomass carbon storage to address the wildfire and climate crises. Science Advances, 12(35), Article eaee6185. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aee6185

Crotty, S. M., Reiners, P. W., Clayton, L. K., Young, E., Jones, A., Cregger, M. A., Starace, A. K., & Harman-Ware, A. E. (2026). Nonenergy biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS): Assessing durability of nongaseous carbon products across terrestrial storage fates. Chemical Reviews, 126(8), 4375–4404. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.5c00618

Denvir, A., & Leslie-Bole, H. (2025). Biomass can fight climate change, but only if you do it right [Explainer]. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/sustainable-biomass-carbon-removal

Gooding, J. L. (2023). Geologic perspective for carbon sequestration by woody biomass burial. Science and Technology for Energy Transition, 78, Article 17. https://doi.org/10.2516/stet/2023014

Hausmann, H., Cai, Q., & Zeng, N. (2024). Quantification of biomass availability for wood harvesting and storage in the continental United States with a carbon cycle model. Carbon Balance and Management, 19(1), Article 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00270-4

Johnson, D., Voorhis, J., & Porder, S. (2025). Life cycle emissions associated with vault storage of wood cleared for fire management in the Western United States. Carbon Balance and Management, 20(1), Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-025-00309-0

Mohr, K. (2024, July 23). ‘Wood vaulting’: A simple climate solution you’ve probably never heard of. Grist. Link to source: https://grist.org/solutions/wood-vaulting-carbon-storage-solution/

Scafidi, A. I., & Denvir, A. (2026). Companies are finding new ways to use waste and fight climate change [Vignette]. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/biomass-carbon-removal-storage-companies-fight-climate-change

Wang, X., Padgett, J. M., De la Cruz, F. B., & Barlaz, M. A. (2011). Wood biodegradation in laboratory-scale landfills. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(16), 6864–6871. https://doi.org/10.1021/es201241g

Ximenes, F. A., Björdal, C., Kathuria, A., Barlaz, M. A., & Cowie, A. L. (2019). Improving understanding of carbon storage in wood in landfills: Evidence from reactor studies. Waste Management, 85, 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.004

Yablonovitch, E., & Deckman, H. W. (2023). Scalable, economical, and stable sequestration of agricultural fixed carbon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(16), Article e2217695120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2217695120

Zeng, N. (2008). Carbon sequestration via wood burial. Carbon Balance and Management, 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1

Zeng, N., & Hausmann, H. (2022). Wood vault: Remove atmospheric CO2 with trees, store wood for carbon sequestration for now and as biomass, bioenergy and carbon reserve for the future. Carbon Balance and Management, 17(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-022-00202-0

Zeng, N., Sanchez, D., Belmont, E., & Hausmann, H. (2023). Implementation guidance for wood harvesting and storage [Preprint]. arXiv. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.06529

Zeng, N., Zhao, X., Poisson, G., Clifford, B., Liu, Y., Liu, H., Meng, T., Picard, L., Zeng-Mariotti, E., Zaitchik, B., & Hu, L. (2024). 3775-year-old wood burial supports “wood vaulting” as a durable carbon removal method. Science, 385(6716), 1454–1459. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adm8133

Credits

Lead Fellow

Nina-Francesca Farac, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

Sarah Gleeson, Ph.D.

Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Speed of Action

Caveats

Risks

Consensus

Trade-offs

Action Word

Bury

Solution Title

Biomass

Classification

Keep Watching

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals

Updated Date

Thu, 10/01/2026 - 12:00

Coming Soon Label

Coming Soon

Read more about Bury Biomass

Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking

Sector

Nature-Based Carbon Removal

Mode

Cut Emissions and Remove Carbon

Cluster

Biomass Carbon Removal & Storage

Image

Coming Soon

Off

Summary

Ocean biomass sinking involves sinking terrestrial plant material and/or seaweed in the deep sea, where the carbon it has converted into biomass can be stored. Using terrestrial material diverts biomass that might otherwise break down on land and release CO₂, while using seaweed removes carbon by cultivating and sinking new biomass produced in the ocean. This practice might be able to remove over 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, but estimates remain highly uncertain due to limited data, and the adoption levels needed to reach this threshold are probably impractical. Advantages include the use of terrestrial biomass that might otherwise degrade on land and emit CO₂, and the ability to reduce nutrient pollution in some ocean areas when cultivating marine biomass. Disadvantages include its unclear effectiveness and durability, potentially high environmental risks, limited feasibility to operate at scale (particularly for seaweed biomass), and complex monitoring and verification. We conclude that Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking is “Not Recommended” as a climate solution.

Overview

What is our assessment?

Our analysis finds that Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking could have high potential environmental risks, including unknown impacts on marine ecosystems. It is also unclear how effective or durable carbon storage in the deep sea is from this approach. There are likely better alternative uses for terrestrial biomass, and cultivating seaweed at climate-relevant scales is probably not feasible. Even if it were, seaweed would probably provide greater value through other applications. Therefore, Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking is currently “Not Recommended” as a climate solution.

Plausible	Could it work?	Yes
Ready	Is it ready?	No
Evidence	Are there data to evaluate it?	Limited
Effective	Does it consistently work?	No
Impact	Is it big enough to matter?	No
Risk	Is it risky or harmful?	Yes
Cost	Is it cheap?	?

What is it?

Ocean biomass sinking relies on sinking terrestrial plant material and/or seaweed grown in the ocean to the deep sea or seafloor where it can be stored long-term. Cultivating and sinking seaweed removes carbon from the surface ocean, whereas sinking terrestrial biomass material can help reduce emissions that might otherwise occur if the material instead decomposed on land. While not a current practice, terrestrial biomass grown explicitly for sinking would also constitute a form of carbon removal. When biomass sinks naturally, most of it is degraded into CO₂ or other forms of carbon before reaching the deep sea. Deliberate sinking of biomass might avoid some of this degradation by expediting its delivery to the deep sea, depending on the method used. Once sunk, the biomass and any CO₂ or other forms of carbon produced from its degradation can be isolated from the atmosphere for decades to centuries due to the ocean’s slow circulation times at depth. Biomass sinking can be accomplished using active methods, like submersibles, or passive methods, like letting weighted bundles sink on their own. There has been a recent focus on sinking material in low-oxygen ocean basins (e.g., the Black Sea), which might help further minimize degradation, while improving the durability of sequestered carbon due to the long circulation time-scales typical of these regions.

Does it work?

Global estimates suggest that ~11% of carbon produced in natural seaweed ecosystems might be sequestered at depth, generally defined as below the mixed layer at around 1,000 m. However, very few studies have documented the export efficiency, or the fraction of carbon in surface waters that makes its way to the deep sea, of purposefully sunk terrestrial and seaweed biomass, as this practice is currently in the early stages of development and research. If biomass is quickly sunk, most carbon might make its way to the deep sea, while passive sinking techniques, if slower, could result in higher degradation rates. Sequestration also depends on the storage efficiency and durability of carbon once at depth. Some initial research suggests that biomass degradation may be slowed in low-oxygen basins, but this also remains poorly characterized in field studies. It is similarly unclear how durable the carbon stored below the mixed layer will be over climate-relevant timescales, both in the deep sea in general and in low-oxygen basins specifically.

Why are we excited?

The advantages of ocean biomass sinking include its potential ability to use land-based biomass that might otherwise be degraded in landfills or incinerated, both of which lead to CO₂ emissions. In some regions, seaweed cultivation could help reduce nutrient pollution, provide habitat for marine organisms, and locally buffer against ocean acidification. Estimates of potential climate impacts suggest that ocean biomass sinking using biomass from seaweed farms could theoretically exceed 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Still, those estimates remain highly speculative and require more research. Costs are poorly quantified, but some estimates suggest they could be low to moderately expensive compared to other marine carbon dioxide removal approaches, close to US$100/t CO₂.

Why are we concerned?

Ocean biomass sinking has many environmental and social risks that, though not currently fully understood, could make it unfeasible to deploy the technology at scale. Deep-sea and seafloor ecosystems are highly understudied, and it's unclear how new biomass might alter these unique environments. Potential impacts include increased acidification, nutrient pollution, and oxygen depletion of the deep sea, which could affect diverse marine life. Large-scale seaweed cultivation could reduce phytoplankton abundance, disrupt food webs, and deplete nutrients needed by other ecosystems. Cultivation in open ocean areas might relieve demand for coastal space, but they are often nutrient-poor, and adding nutrients raises serious concerns (see Deploy Ocean Fertilization). Terrestrial biomass sources could introduce contaminants into the ocean due to inadvertent inclusion of plastics or other pollutants in sunken biomass. This practice also comes with social risks. Some countries might disproportionately bear negative impacts wherever biomass is cultivated and/or sunk, as it could alter marine food webs and livelihoods. There could also be issues with public perception due to historical injustices around ocean dumping, potentially impeding future projects without meaningful community engagement and transparency.

Moreover, there are numerous technical challenges relating to the effectiveness and durability of carbon sequestration. Biomass sources differ in how easily they break down, affecting how much carbon is stored at depth. Sunk biomass could also potentially release other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide. The location where biomass is disposed of also matters, impacting how much carbon reaches and stays at depth. However, all of these factors remain poorly constrained. Operational and technical challenges are also significant. To remove at least 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr using marine biomass, nearly 7 million ha of ocean – over 60% of the global coastline – could be needed for seaweed cultivation, which is impractical. Measurement and verification pose additional hurdles. In the case of seaweed cultivation, tracking carbon removal requires monitoring both CO₂ uptake at the ocean’s surface and export as well as storage at depth across large spatial and temporal scales. In addition, the opportunity cost of sinking terrestrial biomass is high due to competing land-based uses, as waste biomass and crop residues are finite resources. Growing new biomass explicitly for ocean sinking would introduce new risks, given that land is also a finite resource. Similarly, seaweed probably has higher value and carbon benefits as food, fertilizer, and other products.

Solution in Action

References

Arzeno-Soltero, I. B., Saenz, B. T., Frieder, C. A., Long, M. C., DeAngelo, J., Davis, S. J., & Davis, K. A. (2023). Large global variations in the carbon dioxide removal potential of seaweed farming due to biophysical constraints. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 185. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00833-2

Bach, L. T., Tamsitt, V., Gower, J., Hurd, C. L., Raven, J. A., & Boyd, P. W. (2021). Testing the climate intervention potential of ocean afforestation using the Great Atlantic Sargassum Belt. Nature Communications, 12(1), 2556. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22837-2

Boettcher, M., Chai, F., Canothan, M., Cooley, S., Keller, D. P., Klinsky, S., ... & Webb, R. M. (2023). A code of conduct for marine carbon dioxide removal research. Link to source: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/a-code-of-conduct-for-marine-carbon-dioxide-removal-research/

Chopin, T., Costa-Pierce, B. A., Troell, M., Hurd, C. L., Costello, M. J., Backman, S., ... & Yarish, C. (2024). Deep-ocean seaweed dumping for carbon sequestration: Questionable, risky, and not the best use of valuable biomass. One Earth, 7(3), 359-364. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.01.013

Duarte, C. M., Wu, J., Xiao, X., Bruhn, A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2017). Can seaweed farming play a role in climate change mitigation and adaptation?. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 100. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00100

Hurd, C. L., Gattuso, J. P., & Boyd, P. W. (2024). Air‐sea carbon dioxide equilibrium: Will it be possible to use seaweeds for carbon removal offsets?. Journal of Phycology, 60(1), 4-14. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13405

Hurd, C. L., Law, C. S., Bach, L. T., Britton, D., Hovenden, M., Paine, E. R., ... & Boyd, P. W. (2022). Forensic carbon accounting: Assessing the role of seaweeds for carbon sequestration. Journal of Phycology, 58(3), 347-363. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13249

Jones, D. C., Ito, T., Takano, Y., & Hsu, W. C. (2014). Spatial and seasonal variability of the air‐sea equilibration timescale of carbon dioxide. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 28(11), 1163-1178. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004813

Keil, R. G., Nuwer, J. M., & Strand, S. E. (2010). Burial of agricultural byproducts in the deep sea as a form of carbon sequestration: A preliminary experiment. Marine Chemistry, 122(1-4), 91-95. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2010.07.007

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). A research strategy for ocean-based carbon dioxide removal and sequestration. Link to source: https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/a-research-strategy-for-ocean-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-sequestration

Raven, M. R., Crotteau, M. A., Evans, N., Girard, Z. C., Martinez, A. M., Young, I., & Valentine, D. L. (2024). Biomass storage in anoxic marine basins: Initial estimates of geochemical impacts and CO2 sequestration capacity. AGU Advances, 5(1), e2023AV000950. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2023AV000950

Raven, M. R., Evans, N., Martinez, A. M., & Phillips, A. A. (2025). Big decisions from small experiments: observational strategies for biomass-based marine carbon storage. Environmental Research Letters, 20(5), 051001. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adc28d

Ricart, A. M., Krause-Jensen, D., Hancke, K., Price, N. N., Masqué, P., & Duarte, C. M. (2022). Sinking seaweed in the deep ocean for carbon neutrality is ahead of science and beyond the ethics. Environmental Research Letters, 17(8), 081003. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac82ff

Ross, F. W., Boyd, P. W., Filbee-Dexter, K., Watanabe, K., Ortega, A., Krause-Jensen, D., ... & Macreadie, P. I. (2023). Potential role of seaweeds in climate change mitigation. Science of the Total Environment, 885, 163699. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163699

Sheppard, E. J., Hurd, C. L., Britton, D. D., Reed, D. C., & Bach, L. T. (2023). Seaweed biogeochemistry: Global assessment of C: N and C: P ratios and implications for ocean afforestation. Journal of Phycology, 59(5), 879-892. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13381

Strand, S. E., & Benford, G. (2009). Ocean sequestration of crop residue carbon: recycling fossil fuel carbon back to deep sediments. Environmental Science and Technology. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/es8015556

Visions, O. (2022). Answering Critical Questions About Sinking Macroalgae for Carbon Dioxide Removal: A Research Framework to Investigate Sequestration Efficacy and Environmental Impacts. Link to source: https://oceanvisions.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Ocean-Visions-Sinking-Seaweed-Report_FINAL.pdf

Wu, J., Keller, D. P., & Oschlies, A. (2023). Carbon dioxide removal via macroalgae open-ocean mariculture and sinking: an Earth system modeling study. Earth System Dynamics, 14(1), 185-221. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-185-2023

Xiao, X., Agusti, S., Lin, F., Li, K., Pan, Y., Yu, Y., ... & Duarte, C. M. (2017). Nutrient removal from Chinese coastal waters by large-scale seaweed aquaculture. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 46613. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46613

Xiao, X., Agustí, S., Yu, Y., Huang, Y., Chen, W., Hu, J., ... & Duarte, C. M. (2021). Seaweed farms provide refugia from ocean acidification. Science of the Total Environment, 776, 145192. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145192

Credits

Lead Fellow

Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Speed of Action

Caveats

Risks

Consensus

Trade-offs

Action Word

Deploy

Solution Title

Ocean Biomass Sinking

Classification

Not Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Practitioners

Business Leaders

Nonprofit Leaders

Investors

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Thought Leaders

Technologists and Researchers

Communities, Households, and Individuals

Updated Date

Thu, 09/18/2025 - 12:00

Coming Soon Label

Coming Soon

Read more about Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking

Produce Biochar

Sector

Industrial Carbon Removal

Mode

Remove Carbon

Cluster

Biomass Carbon Removal & Storage

Image

Coming Soon

On

Key Takeaways

By transforming carbon absorbed by plants and animals into a highly stable form, large-scale biochar production and application to soils could potentially remove 0.13–0.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.
The carbon permanence of biochar can range from hundreds to thousands of years when applied to soil, but more research is needed to understand durability in response to real-world soil and environmental factors.
Biochar increases soil health and nutrient availability. This can increase yields of a variety of staple crops, but benefits vary across soil types.

Summary

Producing biochar is the process of taking organic matter such as crop residues, animal manure, and forest residues and converting it into a charcoal-like substance known as biochar. Producing biochar removes carbon from the atmosphere by transforming carbon absorbed by plants and animals and into a highly stable form, preventing it from quickly returning to the atmosphere (Belmont & Sanchez, 2025). Biochar can be used as a soil amendment, a replacement for certain construction materials, or for filtration or pollution remediation. This solution focuses on large-scale production of biochar for soil application.

Overview

Biochar is a charcoal-like substance that is mainly produced by burning organic matter in an oxygen-deficient environment, a process called pyrolysis (Spears, 2018; Figure 1). Biochar production converts the carbon in the organic matter into a stable form that is not readily released into the atmosphere.

This solution considers producing biochar from agricultural (crop residue, manure) or industrial (forest residue) waste feedstocks. It does not include using purpose-grown plants, edible portions of food or feed crops, or other non-waste feedstocks, which could compete for land use and reduce the climate benefits. We focused on biochar facilities that process 1,000 or more metric tons of waste per year (Amonette et al., 2021). We included both pyrolysis and gasification in our analysis; however, the proportion of carbon that is turned into biochar can differ between processes (NorthX, 2025). We excluded hydrothermal processing of wet biomass that produces hydrochar from our analysis because the carbon storage properties differ from those of typical biochar (Lehmann & Joseph, 2015).

Co-products such as bio-oil or syngas can be produced during biochar production and used as energy or sold. Using biochar can have climate benefits in addition to storing carbon, such as avoiding the production of methane from waste (Afshar & Mofatteh, 2024) and enhancing soil carbon sequestration in certain soil types (Yang et al., 2025). This solution focuses only on the carbon sequestered in biochar. We do not quantify potential avoided waste emissions, reduced energy use from co-products, or any enhanced sequestration after soil application.

This solution focuses on biochar use as a soil additive in soils where it can improve soil organic matter as well as help retain water and nutrients. The carbon permanence of biochar can range from hundreds to thousands of years when applied to soil (Belmont & Sanchez, 2025). Biochar also can be used in filtration or remediation applications or as a filler material in building materials such as asphalt or concrete (Amonette et al., 2022).

References

Afshar, M., & Mofatteh, S. (2024). Biochar for a sustainable future: Environmentally friendly production and diverse applications. Results in Engineering, 23, Article 102433. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102433

Agegnehu, G., Bass, A. M., Nelson, P. N., & Bird, M. I. (2016). Benefits of biochar, compost and biochar–compost for soil quality, maize yield and greenhouse gas emissions in a tropical agricultural soil. Science of The Total Environment, 543, 295–306. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.054

Alayaki, F. M., Hajikarimi, P., Meky, N., Rashid, S., & Fini, E. H. (2025). Global applications of biochar in sustainable cities of the future: A perspective. Biochar X, 1(1), Article e010. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.48130/bchax-0025-0009

Aman, A. M. N., Selvarajoo, A., Lau, T. L., & Chen, W.-H. (2022). Biochar as cement replacement to enhance concrete composite properties: A review. Energies, 15(20), Article 7662. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207662

Amonette, James. E., Archuleta, J. G., Fuchs, M. R., Hills, K. M., Yorgey, G. G., Flora, G., Hunt, J., Han, H.-S., Jobson, B. T., Miles, T. R., Page-Dumroese, D. S., Thompson, S., Trippe, K. M., Wilson, K., Baltar, R., Carloni, K., Christoforou, C., Collins, D. P., Dooley, J., … Wheeler, E. (2021). Biomass to biochar: Maximizing the carbon value. Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington State University, Pullman WA. Link to source: https://csanr.wsu.edu/biomass2biochar/

Baek, N., Lee, S.-I., Pia, H. I., Park, S.-W., Shin, E.-S., Lee, J., Kim, H.-Y., & Choi, W-.J. (2025). Biochar effects on methane emission from rice paddy differ with nitrogen fertilization, organic inputs, and water management. Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer, 58(1), 133-143. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2025.58.1.133

Belmont, E. L., & Sanchez, D. L. (2025, July 8). Biochar’s long game: Unraveling the science of carbon permanence. Carbon Direct. Link to source: https://www.carbon-direct.com/research-and-reports/biochars-long-game-unraveling-the-science-of-carbon-permanence

Bhuvaneshwari, S., Hettiarachchi, H., & Meegoda, J. N. (2019). Crop residue burning in India: Policy challenges and potential solutions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5), Article 832. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050832

Bijay-Singh, & Craswell, E. (2021). Fertilizers and nitrate pollution of surface and ground water: An increasingly pervasive global problem. SN Applied Sciences, 3(4), Article 518. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04521-8

British Columbia Centre for Innovation & Clean Energy & Deloitte. (2023). Carbon management blueprint report: Attracting investments in British Columbia. Link to source: https://northx.ca/intelligence/bc-carbon-management-blueprint-report

British Columbia Centre for Innovation & Clean Energy & Innovative Breakthrough Energy Technologies. (2024). Catalyzing carbon dioxide removal at scale. Link to source: https://northx.ca/announcements/catalyzing-carbon-dioxide-removal-at-scale-new-report-released

Buss, W., Wurzer, C., Manning, D. A. C., Rohling, E. J., Borevitz, J., & Mašek, O. (2022). Mineral-enriched biochar delivers enhanced nutrient recovery and carbon dioxide removal. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(67). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00394-w

Energy Transitions Commission. (2022). Mind the gap: How carbon dioxide removals must complement deep decarbonisation to keep 1.5°C alive. Link to source: https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/mind-the-gap-cdr/

Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., Beringer, T., de Oliveira Garcia, W., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., Luderer, G., Nemet, G. F., Rogelj, J., Smith, P., Vicente, J. L. V., Wilcox, J., del Mar Zamora Dominguez, M., & Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions—part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f

Genesio, L., Vaccari, F. P., & Miglietta, F. (2016). Black carbon aerosol from biochar threats its negative emission potential. Global Change Biology, 22(7), 2313–2314. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13254

Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., … Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645–11650. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114

Grossi, G., Goglio, P., Vitali, A., & Williams, A. G. (2019). Livestock and climate change: Impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies. Animal Frontiers, 9(1), 69–76. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy034

Gupta, S. (2019). Agriculture crop residue burning and its consequences on respiration health of school-going children. Global Pediatric Health, 6, Article 333794X19874679. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/2333794X19874679

Huang, T., Ma, J., Song, S., Ling, Z., Macdonald, R. W., Gao, H., Tao, S., Shen, H., Zhao, Y., Liu, X., Tian, C., Li, Y., Jia, H., Lian, L., & Mao, X. (2022). Health and environmental consequences of crop residue burning correlated with increasing crop yields midst India’s green revolution. Npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 5(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-022-00306-x

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Strengthening and implementing the global response (Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 ^oC). Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Chapter 7: Agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU). Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/

International Biochar Initiative. (n.d.). Why Biochar. Retrieved 6 March 2026, from https://biochar-international.org/why-biochar/

International Biochar Initiative. (2014). State of the biochar industry 2013. Link to source: https://biochar-international.org/state-of-the-biochar-industry-2013/

International Biochar Initiative. (2015). State of the biochar industry 2014. Link to source: https://biochar-international.org/state-of-the-biochar-industry-2014/

International Biochar Initiative. (2016). State of the biochar industry 2015. Link to source: https://biochar-international.org/state-of-the-biochar-industry-2015/

International Biochar Initiative. (2024). 2023 Global biochar market report. Link to source: http://145249425.hs-sites-eu1.com/2023-global-biochar-market-report

International Biochar Initiative & HAMERKOP. (2025). Announcing the updated manual for biochar carbon removal. Link to source: https://biochar-international.org/news/announcing-the-updated-manual-for-biochar-carbon-removal/

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2018). Biogas for road vehicles technology brief. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/publications/2017/Mar/Biogas-for-road-vehicles-Technology-brief

Joseph, S., Cowie, A. L., Van Zwieten, L., Bolan, N., Budai, A., Buss, W., Cayuela, M. L., Graber, E. R., Ippolito, J. A., Kuzyakov, Y., Luo, Y., Ok, Y. S., Palansooriya, K. N., Shepherd, J., Stephens, S., Weng, Z. (Han), & Lehmann, J. (2021). How biochar works, and when it doesn’t: A review of mechanisms controlling soil and plant responses to biochar. GCB Bioenergy, 13(11), 1731–1764. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12885

Kabir, E., Kim, K.-H., & Kwon, E. E. (2023). Biochar as a tool for the improvement of soil and environment. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1324533

Krause, M., Kenny, S., Stephenson, J., & Singleton, A. (2023). Quantifying methane emissions from landfilled food waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/quantifying-methane-emissions-landfilled-food-waste

Kumar, P., Kumar, S., & Joshi, L. (2015). The extent and management of crop stubble. In P. Kumar, S. Kumar, & L. Joshi (Eds), Socioeconomic and Environmental Implications of Agricultural Residue Burning: A Case Study of Punjab, India (pp. 13–34). Springer India. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2014-5_2

Lan, R., Eastham, S. D., Liu, T., Norford, L. K., & Barrett, S. R. H. (2022). Air quality impacts of crop residue burning in India and mitigation alternatives. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 6537. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34093-z

Lefebvre, D., Fawzy, S., Aquije, C. A., Osman, A. I., Draper, K. T., & Trabold, T. A. (2023). Biomass residue to carbon dioxide removal: Quantifying the global impact of biochar. Biochar, 5(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-023-00258-2

Lehmann, J., Cowie, A., Masiello, C. A., Kammann, C., Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Cayuela, M. L., Camps-Arbestain, M., & Whitman, T. (2021). Biochar in climate change mitigation. Nature Geoscience, 14, 883–892. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00852-8

Lenton, T. M. (2010). The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration. Carbon Management, 1(1), 145–160. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.12

Liang, P.-C., & Chen, W.-H. (2025). Present and future prospects of biochar. ACS Sustainable Resource Management, 2(5), 684–686. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssusresmgt.5c00139

NorthX. (2025). Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. Link to source: https://northx.ca/intelligence/biocarbon-rising

Petersen, S. O., Blanchard, M., Chadwick, D., Del Prado, A., Edouard, N., Mosquera, J., & Sommer, S. G. (2013). Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation. Animal, 7, 266–282. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000736

Porter, E. M., Bowman, W. D., Clark, C. M., Compton, J. E., Pardo, L. H., & Soong, J. L. (2013). Interactive effects of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment and climate change on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Biogeochemistry, 114(1), 93–120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-012-9803-3

Porter, S. (2020). Manure overload: Manure plus fertilizer overwhelms Minnesota’s land and water. Environmental Working Group. Link to source: http://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-manure-overload/

Prateep Na Talang, R., Na Sorn, W., Polruang, S., & Sirivithayapakorn, S. (2024). Alternative crop residue management practices to mitigate the environmental and economic impacts of open burning of agricultural residues. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 14372. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65389-3

Ravi, S., Sharratt, B. S., Li, J., Olshevski, S., Meng, Z., & Zhang, J. (2016). Particulate matter emissions from biochar-amended soils as a potential tradeoff to the negative emission potential. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 35984. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35984

Raza, M. H., Abid, M., Faisal, M., Yan, T., Akhtar, S., & Adnan, K. M. M. (2022). Environmental and health impacts of crop residue burning: Scope of sustainable crop residue management practices. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084753

Russell, P. (2025, September 1). Locating the sweet spot for biochar carbon removal. Counteract. Link to source: https://counteract.vc/perspectives/locating-the-sweet-spot-for-biochar-carbon-removal

Sanchez, D., & Belmont, E. (2025, July 2). What is biochar? A carbon removal solution gaining ground. Carbon Direct. Link to source: https://www.carbon-direct.com/insights/what-is-biochar-a-carbon-removal-solution-gaining-ground

Sayara, T., & Sánchez, A. (2021). Gaseous emissions from the composting process: Controlling parameters and strategies of mitigation. Processes, 9(10), Article 1844. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9101844

Searchinger, T., Peng, L., Zionts, J., & Waite, R. (2023). The global land squeeze: Managing the growing competition for land. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/research/global-land-squeeze-managing-growing-competition-land

Simon, M. (2024, August 22). This simple farming technique can capture carbon for thousands of years. Grist. Link to source: https://grist.org/climate/biochar-farming-capture-carbon-thousands-of-years/

Singh, G., Gupta, M. K., Chaurasiya, S., Sharma, V. S., & Pimenov, D. Y. (2021). Rice straw burning: A review on its global prevalence and the sustainable alternatives for its effective mitigation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(25), 32125–32155. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14163-3

Smith, P., Calvin, K., Nkem, J., Campbell, D., Cherubini, F., Grassi, G., Korotkov, V., Le Hoang, A., Lwasa, S., McElwee, P., Nkonya, E., Saigusa, N., Soussana, J.-F., Taboada, M. A., Manning, F. C., Nampanzira, D., Arias-Navarro, C., Vizzarri, M., House, J., … Arneth, A. (2019). Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? Global Change Biology, 26(3), 1532–1575. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878

Spears, S. (2018, May 16). What is biochar? Regeneration International. Link to source: https://regenerationinternational.org/2018/05/16/what-is-biochar/

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

The Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy. (2020). Fact sheet: Biochar. American University. Link to source: https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/fact-sheet-biochar.cfm

Viger, M., Hancock, R. D., Miglietta, F., & Taylor, G. (2014). More plant growth but less plant defence? First global gene expression data for plants grown in soil amended with biochar. GCB Bioenergy, 7(4), 658–672. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12182

Weng, Z. H., & Cowie, A. L. (2025). Estimates vary but credible evidence points to gigaton-scale climate change mitigation potential of biochar. Communications Earth & Environment, 6(259). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02228-x

Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott, F. A., Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2010). Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications, 1(56). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1053

Woolf, D., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Kishimoto-Mo, A. W., McConkey, B., & Baldock, J. (2021). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model for Biochar Additions to Soil. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21), 14795–14805. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02425

Woolley, S., & Hallowell, B. (2018). Biochar: An overview. Biomass Controls. Link to source: https://biomasscontrols.com/biochar-overview/

Xiao, L., Feng, L., Yuan, G., & Wei, J. (2020). Low-cost field production of biochars and their properties. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 42(6), 1569–1578. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-019-00458-5

Yang, J., Xia, L., van Groenigen, K. J., Zhao, X., Ti, C., Wang, W., Du, Z., Fan, M., Zhuang, M., Smith, P., Lal, R., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Han, X., Meng, J., Liu, J., Cai, H., Cheng, Y., Liu, X., Shu, X., … Yan, X. (2025). Sustained benefits of long-term biochar application for food security and climate change mitigation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(33), Article e2509237122. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2509237122

Credits

Lead Fellow

Jason Lam

Contributors

Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.
James Gerber, Ph.D.
Daniel Jasper
Megan Matthews, Ph.D.
Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.
Emily Cassidy

Effectiveness

We estimated that 1 metric ton of biochar produced and incorporated into soil will remove 0.84 t CO₂‑eq (0.82 t CO₂‑eq , 20-yr), after subtracting production emissions (Table 1). This assumes the primary feedstock is agricultural waste and forestry residue. Due to very limited direct production emissions data, we estimated that any carbon not stabilized in biochar is emitted as CO₂ or methane.

Producing and using biochar may have various additional benefits after application in different soil types (Yang et al., 2025). Afshar & Mofatteh (2024) found biochar applied to soils can reduce the production of methane from rice paddies, and Kabir et al. (2023) observed decreased nitrous oxide emissions from some soils treated with biochar. Because these additional benefits of biochar are context specific, our analysis of effectiveness in reducing GHGs focused only on the amount of carbon sequestered with biochar.

Biochar's carbon sequestration potential depends in part on the feedstock used, because carbon content varies with type of organic waste. Woolf et al. (2021) examined several globally abundant feedstocks and found that the carbon content of biochar can also vary depending on how the biochar is produced, ranging from 10–81% of the carbon found in the dry mass feedstocks.

Table 1. Effectiveness at sequestering carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /t biochar, 100-yr basis

25th percentile	0.81
Mean	0.63
Median (50th percentile)	0.84
75th percentile	1.30

Left Text Column Width

Cost

To sequester 1 t CO₂‑eq with biochar, a biochar production facility will have an initial cost of around US$200/t biochar, an operating cost of roughly US$510/t biochar, and revenue of US$120/t biochar. However, these values do not include potential costs for applying biochar to soils. Globally, the net cost of producing and using biochar is roughly US$190/t biochar, based on literature estimates of abatement costs. Table 2 shows the cost per unit climate impact, based on net cost.

Our cost data only include revenue from the sale of biochar for soil amendment and do not include revenue from increased crop yield, carbon credit systems, or other by-products such as the thermal energy, syngas or bio-oils, which can be used to reduce energy costs or sold as fuel (Amonette et al., 2021). We found limited capital cost and revenue data; many sources (Buss et al., 2022; British Columbia Centre for Innovation & Clean Energy [CICE] & Deloitte, 2023; Fuss et al., 2018; IPCC, 2018; Liang & Chen, 2025; Russel et al., 2025) focused on the overall costs of biochar production. Operating costs include labor, feedstocks, transportation, and application of biochar, and can vary significantly (Liang & Chen, 2025; Shackley et al., 2014; Xiao et al, 2019). Xiao et al. (2019) found that it is possible to achieve low-cost biochar production at small scales. Some facilities may have a feedstock cost near zero with local organic waste, while others may have a high cost due to transportation and processing (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2018).

We considered the baseline scenario where biomass is left to naturally decompose or is collected and processed for conventional disposal. We assumed baseline initial costs, operational costs, and revenue to be 0.

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median

230

Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

The processes and technologies for producing biochar are mature, and we were unable to find literature suggesting the costs to implement these solutions will fall in the future (The Institute for Carbon Removal, 2020). Even if technology costs drop over time, competition for feedstocks with bioenergy producers or composters could also increase production costs.

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Producing biochar is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere.

Caveats

Biochar properties may vary depending on the feedstock and production process. The carbon content of biochar can range from 10–81% of the carbon found in the feedstock (Woolf et al., 2021). Production processes also affect what co-products are produced: Slow pyrolysis generates more biochar, while fast pyrolysis boosts bio-oil production, and producing biochar with gasification will have syngas as the largest output (Afshar & Mofatteh, 2024).

While strong evidence suggests that biochar sequesters carbon for hundreds to thousands of years, some uncertainties about permanence remain. Short-duration experiments have shown carbon loss over years or decades due to exposure to oxygen, water, and ultraviolet light, but these might not reflect real-world soil and environmental factors (Belmont & Sanchez, 2025). There is also evidence that co-application of biochar with nitrogen fertilizer can mitigate methane emissions in rice paddies (Baek et al., 2025).

Current Adoption

We estimated that 380,000 t of biochar were produced in 2023 (Table 3).

We found only one source for current global annual production of biochar (International Biochar Initiative, 2024). These data were based on voluntary surveys of biochar producers with more than 1,000 respondents in 2023; we assumed it is an underestimate because it likely doesn’t include all biochar production facilities.

Table 3. Current adoption level (2023).

Unit: t biochar produced and added to soil/yr

25th percentile	370,000
Mean	380,000
Median (50th percentile)	380,000
75th percentile	400,000

Left Text Column Width

Adoption Trend

We were only able to find adoption trend data for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2021, and 2023, all from the International Biochar Initiative (2014, 2015, 2016, 2024). These data rely on voluntary surveys; the source noted that some companies did not respond to the survey every year and that some biochar producers did not respond to the survey.

These adoption data show that biochar production has increased over time; however, it’s not clear whether this is due to increasing biochar production or increasing response rates from producers.

Adoption Ceiling

Producing biochar has an estimated adoption ceiling of 1.3 billion t/yr (Table 4) based on reports from Energy Transition Commission (2022), Fuss et al. (2018), International Biochar Initiative (2024), IPCC (2022), Lehmann et al. (2021), Lenton (2010), NorthX, (2025), Smith et al. (2019), and Woolf et al. (2010).

The adoption ceiling for biochar is often stated in terms of CO₂‑eq/yr removed. To convert this into metric tons of biochar we used the value of 1.9 t CO₂‑eq removed per mewtric ton of biochar produced given by the International Biochar Initiative (2024). In practice, the amount of carbon sequestered will depend on the feedstock used as well as the method used for producing biochar.

We based our analysis on the current level of organic waste produced by agriculture and industry. Many projections (Energy Transition Commission, 2022; Fuss et al., 2018; International Biochar Initiative, 2024; IPCC 2022; Lehmann et al., 2021; Lenton, 2010; NorthX, 2025; Smith et al., 2019; Woolf et al., 2010) show the technical potential of biochar production using all available waste biomass from agriculture or industry feedstocks. If biochar production is increased, we would expect to see more waste feedstocks used for biochar and less available for other climate solutions that use organic waste feedstocks.

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: t biochar produced and added to soil/yr

25th percentile	530,000,000
Mean	1,100,000,000
Median (50th percentile)	1,300,000,000
75th percentile	1,600,000,000

Left Text Column Width

Achievable Adoption

Biochar production depends on the source and volume of feedstock. We estimate an achievable adoption of 160–570 Mt of biochar (Table 5). The low value was based on the projected biochar ceiling from Griscom et al. (2017), which excludes avoided emissions and partially accounts for restrictions in biomass availability. The high value aligns with IPCC (2022)’s estimate for the mitigation potential of biochar based on a US$100/t CO₂‑eq carbon price. The US$100/t CO₂‑eq carbon price is an indicator that biochar production will require economic support for widespread adoption and assumes that achievable biochar production is constrained more by economics than by biomass availability.

Large-scale biochar production will likely be limited by biomass competition with other climate solutions. Many sources do not specify how they calculated the amount of biomass available for biochar production, making it difficult to determine where achievable adoption would fall between the current adoption and the full technical adoption ceiling. We have chosen to be conservative for the high achievable adoption to reduce the chance of biochar production being restricted by feedstock constraints.

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: t biochar produced and added to soil/yr

Current adoption	380,000
Achievable – low	160,000,000
Achievable – high	570,000,000
Adoption ceiling	1,300,000,000

Left Text Column Width

Producing and using biochar has the potential to sequester a large amount of carbon emissions. While biochar currently sequesters 0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, we estimated 0.13–0.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr on a 100-yr basis (0.13–0.46 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr) could be sequestered (Table 6). The economics of building, operating, and maintaining biochar production facilities, along with biomass feedstock availability, will greatly affect how biochar production and use grows in the future.

Producing biochar requires the use of biomass as a feedstock. Multiple climate solutions require biomass, and projected demand across solutions greatly exceeds supply. The deforestation that would be required to meet demand would produce emissions far greater than any mitigation gains from full deployment of these solutions (Searchinger, 2024). In addition to deforestation, there would also be costs and emissions incurred to transport biomass from where it is produced to where it can be processed and used. Thus, the estimated climate impacts presented here are only possible if feedstocks are prioritized for this solution. If feedstocks are instead prioritized for other climate solutions (see Interactions for examples), adoption and impact will be lower for this solution. It is not possible to set all biomass-dependent solutions to high adoption levels, add up their impacts, and determine an accurate combined emissions impact.

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption	0.00
Achievable – low	0.13
Achievable – high	0.47
Adoption ceiling	1.10

Left Text Column Width

Additional Benefits

Food Security

When used as a soil amendment, biochar has been found to increase soil health and yields of a variety of staple crops (Agegnehu et al., 2016; Kabir et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2025).

Health

Producing biochar can benefit health by mitigating the impacts of crop residue burning. Poor air quality from crop residue burning is harmful to health and can lead to premature mortality, especially in Southeast Asia, where residue burning is more common (Lan et al. 2022). Air pollution from burning crop residue has been linked to eye irritation, headaches, nausea, skin irritation, allergies, respiratory infections, increased risk of lung cancer, and reduced lung function (Gupta, 2019; Huang et al., 2022; Raza et al., 2022).

Nature Protection

Using biochar can reduce nutrient-rich runoff from manure that can lead to eutrophication and hypoxic zones in aquatic ecosystems (Bijay-Singh & Craswell, 2021). Nitrogen pollution also harms terrestrial biodiversity through soil acidification and increases the productivity of fast-growing species, including invasives, which can outcompete native species (Porter et al., 2013).

Land Resources

By using crop residues instead of burning them, producing biochar can improve soils that would otherwise be degraded from crop residue burning (Bhuvaneshwari et al., 2019).

When used as a soil amendment, biochar has been found to increase soil quality (Agegnehu et al., 2016). Biochar can aid in nutrient retention, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and soil organic carbon, and can improve soil water content (Agegnehu et al., 2016; Kabir et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2025). Some benefits depend on soil type; for example, amending biochar to mineral soils can increase soil pH, organic matter, and nutrient availability, especially in sandy and acidic soils, but soils with high pH could see a reduction in micronutrient availability (Yang et al., 2025).

Water Resources

Amending soil with biochar can increase soil water content, which can improve plant growth (Agegnehu et al., 2016; Kabir et al., 2013).

Water Quality

Producing biochar can mitigate the use of manure on agriculture fields, which can improve water quality. Manure contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus as well as drug residues, heavy metals, and pathogens (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Manure can also leach into water sources when used as a fertilizer on croplands (Porter & Cox, 2020).

Air Quality

Producing biochar can benefit air quality by mitigating crop residue burning and the use of manure as fertilizer. Reducing the amount of manure applied as a fertilizer on croplands can improve air quality by reducing nitrogen and ammonia emissions associated with manure application (Grossi et al., 2019; Peterson et al., 2013; Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Crop residue burning is a major source of air pollution, including fine particulate matter, CO₂, and carbon monoxide, in South and Southeast Asia (Lan et al., 2022; Na Talang et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2021). Because fine particulate matter and black carbon make up a large part of the pollution, crop residue burning can lead to poor air quality far from agricultural fields (Kaskaoutis et al., 2014). Poor air quality associated with burning crop residues could be improved by instead producing biochar.

Risks

The environmental impact of high adoption of biochar application in soils is unknown. Feasibility, long-term mitigation potential, side effects, and trade-offs are uncertain. Resolving these uncertainties will require biochar application on different soil types, environments, and management conditions in real-world settings for long periods (Fuss et al., 2018; Belmont & Sanchez, 2025).

The application of biochar could potentially change the microbial composition of the soils or lower the ability of plants to defend against insects, pathogens, and environmental stresses (Viger et al., 2014). It also could darken the soil surface, altering the land surface radiation balance. Fine biochar particles could get released into the atmosphere during production, transportation, or handling, leading to poor air quality, disrupted local hydrological cycles, and potential health concerns (Genesio et al., 2016; Ravi et al., 2016). GHG emissions from producing biochar differ across scales and technologies. Strategies to minimize the potentially negative impacts of biochar will need to be developed in order to guarantee that biochar has an overall positive impact on global climate change.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Sayara & Sánchez (2021) observed reduced nitrogen emissions when biochar was added to compost.

Increase Centralized Composting

Competing

Biochar production can compete with solutions that use biomass, specifically wood and crop residues, in other processes. Because the total projected demand for biomass for climate solutions exceeds the supply, not all of these solutions will be able to achieve their potential adoption. This solution competes with the following solutions for raw material:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

Adoption Unit

t biochar produced and added to soil

Effectiveness

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr

00.810.84median

Adoption

units/yr

Current 380,000 01.6×10⁸5.7×10⁸

Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Carbon Removed

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr

Current 0 0.130.47

Cost

US$ per t CO₂-eq

230

Speed of Action

Gradual

Climate Pollutants Mitigated

CO₂

Trade-offs

To preserve soil health and nutrient recovery, some agricultural and industrial forestry waste must be left on the land. If revenues from biochar production are very high, producers may be incentivized to convert additional land to grow crops for biochar. This could affect food security and soil health (CICE & Innovative Breakthrough Energy Technologies [IBET], 2023).

Pyrolytic production of biochar can generate heat and power. However, different processes produce different outputs, and it is important to understand the economic considerations for biochar production (Afshar & Mofatteh, 2024).

Biochar can be used to replace a small amount of cement in concrete production or incorporated into other building materials (Aman et al., 2022), but this limits its usage as a soil amendment and potential for enhanced soil carbon sequestration. However, using biochar in durable building materials stores carbon for multiple decades, while some agricultural applications could involve further combustion or decomposition of biochar and so release stored carbon back into the atmosphere within a few years.

Action Word

Produce

Solution Title

Biochar

Classification

Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers

Create strong regulatory frameworks and streamline permitting processes; if necessary, revise classification schemes for biochar production systems from “incinerators” to “carbon stabilizers”; fund necessary scientific assessments and convenings to develop robust regulatory framework.
Provide financial incentives such as payment for ecosystem services (PES), tax breaks, subsidies, or tax exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; offer subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
Limit incentives for eligible feedstocks and biochar production to avoid unintended consequences such as land grabbing, deforestation, and land conversion.
Institute a carbon tax to incentivize the production of biochar while also discouraging burning crop residue and biomass.
Create or improve robust certification schemes for biochar – include clear governance models, standards for testing, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms.
Work with industry to develop products, supply chains, and markets; use public procurement when possible to help stabilize biochar markets.
Offer or subsidize biomass collection services; seek to establish local production and supply chains, aiming to minimize transportation of biomass and biochar products.
Co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC); codify FPIC into legal systems.
Invest in R&D to optimize feedstock collection, biochar production, and biochar application to meet needs of local soils and/or rice paddies.
Invest in R&D for other uses of biochar beyond soil amendments, such as building materials and water treatment; research other land use applications, such as flood mitigation in upstream soils.
Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, benefits of biochar, best practices, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying close attention to language barriers.
Offer demonstration projects at relevant events and venues; expand agricultural extension services and ensure farmers are aware of biochar options, benefits, and incentives.
Work with industry to create high-integrity carbon markets that do not allow for deforestation and/or incentivize growing trees or crops solely for the production of biochar.
Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Global biochar market report. International Biochar Initiative (2024)
Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. NorthX (2025)
Government relations and public policy job function action guide. Project Drawdown (2022)
Legal job function action guide. Project Drawdown (2022)

Practitioners

Fuel pyrolysis with by-products such as syngas and bio-oils and low-emission fuels.
Work to achieve consistent product quality; experiment with different equipment designs, feedstocks, applications, and products to identify locally optimal processes.
Produce and/or invest in R&D to develop a variety of products beyond soil amendments, such as building materials and water filtration systems.
Invest in short- and long-term market analyses on entry points and possible products to meet local needs; help coordinate long-term research between public and private stakeholder groups.
Secure written contracts for biomass feedstocks from suppliers to ensure consistent delivery.
Create and promote technical workforce and professional development programs; develop the full range of capacity to address every step of the value chain, including engineering, collection, biochemical sciences, product design, and business development.
Foster consumer awareness of biochar’s use and benefits through advertising and professional relationships.
Rent equipment for onsite production; offer a range of products that can accommodate different budgets and needs; offer services or rent equipment for post-production treatment processes and application.
Co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; codify FPIC into legal systems.
Create or improve robust certification schemes for biochar – include clear governance models, standards for testing, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms.
Advocate for favorable regulatory frameworks and incentives such as PES, tax breaks, subsidies, or exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; advocate for subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of biochar, best practices, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying close attention to language barriers.
Offer demonstration projects at relevant events and venues; work with or advocate to expand agricultural extension services to ensure stakeholders are aware of biochar options, benefits, and incentives.
Work with policymakers and other stakeholders to create high-integrity carbon markets that do not allow for deforestation and/or incentivize growing trees or crops solely for the production of biochar.
Seek to establish local production and supply chains, aiming to minimize transportation of biomass and biochar products.
Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Global biochar market report. International Biochar Initiative (2024)
Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. NorthX (2025)

Business Leaders

If relevant, establish long-term procurement contracts with biochar producers; work with local producers to develop products and services.
Take advantage of government incentives such as tax credits, if possible; seek to gradually reduce reliance on these incentives to create long-term market stability.
Participate in community engagement processes; help co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support biochar initiatives.
Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets, and do not use them as replacements for reducing emissions.
Support workforce development programs, offer employee scholarships, and/or sponsor training for careers in biochar.
Offer pro bono business advice or general support for community biochar projects using structures such as cooperative business models.
Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Global biochar market report. International Biochar Initiative (2024)
Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. NorthX (2025)
Climate solutions at work. Project Drawdown (2021)
Drawdown-aligned business framework. Project Drawdown (2021)

Nonprofit Leaders

Help operate or establish biochar collection, distribution, production, and/or processing facilities; advocate for government support in these areas when necessary; help ensure production and supply chains remain local, aiming to minimize transportation of biomass and biochar products.
If relevant, establish long-term procurement contracts with biochar producers; work with local producers to develop products and services.
Advocate for and help develop strong regulatory frameworks and streamlined permitting processes; if necessary, suggest revising classification of biochar production systems from incinerators to carbon stabilizers; advocate for funding necessary scientific assessments and convenings to develop a robust regulatory framework.
Advocate for favorable regulatory frameworks and incentives, such as PES, tax breaks, subsidies, or exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; advocate for subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products, such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
Advocate for carbon taxes and for restrictions, taxes, or bans on burning crop residue and biomass.
Help create or improve robust certification schemes for biochar; include clear governance models, standards for testing, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms.
Work with industry to develop products, supply chains, and markets; help coordinate public procurement when possible to help stabilize biochar markets.
Participate in community engagement processes; help co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPICt; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
Conduct R&D to match biochar production and post-treatment processes that can produce the type of biochar that meet the needs of local soils and/or rice paddies; help collect and share optimal feedstock, production, methods, and application combinations for various soil types.
Research other uses for biochar, such as building materials and water treatment; research other land use applications such as flood mitigation in upstream soils.
Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of biochar, best practices, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying close attention to language barriers.
Offer demonstration projects at relevant events and venues; work with or advocate to expand agricultural extension services to ensure stakeholders are aware of biochar options, benefits, and incentives.
Work with industry to create high-integrity carbon markets that do not allow for deforestation and/or incentivize growing trees or crops solely for the production of biochar.
Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Global biochar market report. International Biochar Initiative (2024)
Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. NorthX (2025)

Investors

Invest in companies involved in the production biochar; ensure projects include thorough community engagement.
Offer low-interest loans and concessional financing for companies developing biochar production facilities.
Invest in green bonds and/or explore blended finance structures to mobilize capital for companies involved in the production of biochar.
Align investments with existing public-private partnerships, voluntary agreements, or voluntary guidance that may apply in the location of the investment (including those that apply to biodiversity).

Further information:

Global biochar market report. International Biochar Initiative (2024)
Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. NorthX (2025)

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies

Award grants directly to companies involved in biochar production; ensure projects include thorough community engagement.
Offer low-interest loans and concessional financing for companies developing biochar production facilities.
Invest in or offer green bonds and/or explore blended finance structures to mobilize capital for companies involved in biochar production.
Help operate or establish biochar collection, distribution, production, and/or processing facilities; advocate for government support in these areas when necessary; help ensure production and supply chains remain local to minimize transportation of biomass and biochar products.
If relevant, establish long-term procurement contracts with biochar producers; work with local producers to develop products and services.
Advocate for and help develop strong regulatory frameworks and streamlined permitting processes; if necessary, suggest revising classification of biochar production systems from incinerators to carbon stabilizers; advocate for funding scientific assessments and convenings needed to develop a robust regulatory framework.
Advocate for favorable regulatory frameworks and incentives, such as PES, tax breaks, subsidies, or exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; advocate for subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products, such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
Advocate for carbon taxes and for restrictions, taxes, or bans on burning crop residue and biomass.
Help create or improve robust certification schemes for biochar – include clear governance models, standards for testing, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms.
Work with industry to develop products, supply chains, and markets; help coordinate public procurement when possible to help stabilize biochar markets.
Participate in community engagement processes; help co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
Conduct R&D to match biochar production and post-treatment processes that can produce the type of biochar that meet the needs of local soils and/or rice paddies; help collect and share optimal feedstock, production, methods, and application combinations for various soil types.
Research other uses for biochar, such as building materials and water treatment; research other land use applications, such as flood mitigation in upstream soils.
Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of biochar, best practices, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying close attention to language barriers.
Offer demonstration projects at relevant events and venues; work with or advocate to expand agricultural extension services to ensure stakeholders are aware of biochar options, benefits, and incentives.
Work with industry to create high-integrity carbon markets that do not allow for deforestation and/or incentivize growing trees or crops solely for the production of biochar.
Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Global biochar market report. International Biochar Initiative (2024)
Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. NorthX (2025)

Thought Leaders

Help operate or establish biochar collection, distribution, production, and/or processing facilities; advocate for government support in these areas when necessary; help ensure production and supply chains remain local to minimize transportation of biomass and biochar products.
Advocate for and help develop strong regulatory frameworks and streamlined permitting processes; if necessary, suggest revising classification of biochar production systems from incinerators to carbon stabilizers; advocate for funding necessary scientific assessments and convenings to develop a robust regulatory framework.
Advocate for favorable regulatory frameworks and incentives such as PES, tax breaks, subsidies, or exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; advocate for subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
Advocate for carbon taxes and for restrictions, taxes, or bans on burning crop residue and biomass.
Help create or improve robust certification schemes for biochar – include clear governance models, standards for testing, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms.
Work with industry to develop products, supply chains, and markets; help coordinate public procurement when possible to help stabilize biochar markets.
Participate in community engagement processes; help co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
Conduct R&D to match biochar production and post-treatment processes that can produce the type of biochar that meet the needs of local soils and/or rice paddies; help collect and share optimal feedstock, production, methods, and application combinations for various soil types.
Research other uses for biochar, such as building materials and water treatment; research other land use applications, such as flood mitigation in upstream soils.
Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of biochar, best practices, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying close attention to language barriers.
Offer demonstration projects at relevant events and venues; work with or advocate to expand agricultural extension services to ensure stakeholders are aware of biochar options, benefits, and incentives.
Work with industry to create high-integrity carbon markets that do not allow for deforestation and/or incentivize growing trees or crops solely for the production of biochar.
Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Global biochar market report. International Biochar Initiative (2024)
Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. NorthX (2025)

Technologists and Researchers

Help standardize production and post-treatment processes; identify feedstocks and processes that align with needs such as soil additives, construction material, and water filtration.
Help measure pollutants and GHGs from the biochar production process, including black carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Create publicly accessible databases of biochar production processes and products; help model production methods to identify optimal engineering.
Collect and catalog data on biophysical processes, biochar properties, feedstock formulas, application procedures, and biochar supply chains and markets.
Investigate potential impacts of biochar use on crops yields and biomass production; impacts on soil carbon stocks; GHG emissions reductions and fluxes; competition for biomass availability; carbon permanence; effects on nature, air quality, and biodiversity; and changes in application of other agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and herbicides.
Improve understanding of the role biochar can play in regenerating soils and microbial life.
Research and seek to improve the ability of biochar to remove heavy metals, plastics, PFAS, and other contaminants from soils.
Run long-term field investigations on the performance of biochar in asphalt and concrete; examine impacts on the urban heat island effect.

Further information:

Global biochar market report. International Biochar Initiative (2024)
Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. NorthX (2025)

Communities, Households, and Individuals

Explore uses for biochar in your garden or lawn; use biochar building materials or other biochar products.
Advocate for and help develop strong regulatory frameworks and streamlined permitting processes; if necessary, suggest revising classification of biochar production systems from incinerators to carbon stabilizers; advocate for funding necessary scientific assessments and convenings to develop a robust regulatory framework.
Advocate for favorable regulatory frameworks and incentives such as PES, tax breaks, subsidies, or exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; advocate for subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
Advocate for carbon taxes and for restrictions, taxes, or bans on burning crop residue and biomass.
Help ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
Participate in community engagement processes; help co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.

Further information:

Global biochar market report. International Biochar Initiative (2024)
Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. NorthX (2025)

“Take Action” Sources

Biochar for a sustainable future: Environmentally friendly production and diverse applications. Afshar & Mofatteh (2024)
Global applications of biochar in sustainable cities of the future: A perspective. Alayaki et al. (2025)
Biomass to biochar: Maximizing the carbon value. Amonette et al. (2021)
Crop residue burning in India: Policy challenges and potential solutions. Bhuvaneshwari et al. (2019)
Biochars improve agricultural production: The evidence base is limited. Chaplot et al. (2025)
‘Biochar’ danger. Down to Earth (2009)
Global biochar market report. International Biochar Initiative (2024)
How biochar works, and when it doesn’t: A review of mechanisms controlling soil and plant responses to biochar. Joseph et al. (2021)
Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. NorthX (2025)
Alternative crop residue management practices to mitigate the environmental and economic impacts of open burning of agricultural residues. Prateep Na Talang et al. (2024)
Particulate matter emissions from biochar-amended soils as a potential tradeoff to the negative emission potential. Ravi et al. (2016)
Locating the sweet spot for biochar carbon removal. Russell (2025)
This simple farming technique can capture carbon for thousands of years. Simon (2024).
What is biochar? Spears (2018)
Biochar: An overview. Woolley & Hallowell (2018)
Sustained benefits of long-term biochar application for food security and climate change mitigation. Yang et al. (2025)

Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in sequestering carbon: High

A wide variety of organic feedstocks can be used to produce biochar, mainly from the agricultural and industrial forestry sectors. Converting biomass into biochar using pyrolysis converts a portion of the carbon into a stable form, thereby slowing its release into the atmosphere. When biochar is used as a soil amendmen,t it improves soil fertility by retaining water and nutrients (Woolley & Hallowell, 2018).

The process used to create biochar can have varying efficiencies because the conversion of organic carbon in the feedstock to biochar can range from 30–55% with slow pyrolysis or be as low as 3% with regular combustion (Amonette et al., 2021). In addition, different biomass feedstocks contain different amounts of carbon, which will affect the carbon content of the biochar (Joseph et al., 2021).

Using biochar can also have additional benefits. Biochar can be used as filter material for remediation of soil or water pollution, an additive for composting or anaerobic digestion (Alayaki et al., 2025), or a supplement to concrete and other building materials, packaging, and bio-oils (Russell, 2025).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 21 reviews and meta-analyses and 17 original studies reflecting current evidence from two countries (the United States and Canada) and from sources examining global biochar production. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and we hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Updated Date

Thu, 09/24/2026 - 12:00

Coming Soon Label

Coming Soon

Read more about Produce Biochar