Public Perceptions on Carbon Removal: Insights from 22 Countries

Redacción HC
04/10/2025

As the world grapples with the urgency of climate change, the conversation around carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is gaining momentum. While reducing emissions remains the top priority, most scientific projections suggest that removing carbon directly from the atmosphere will also be essential to limit global warming. But how does the public perceive these solutions?

A recent study published in Nature Communications by Low et al. (2024) provides rare insights into this question. Conducted across 22 countries with 44 focus groups, the study explored how people view different CDR methods, from nature-based solutions like reforestation to advanced technologies such as direct air capture. The findings reveal a complex picture: trust in nature, skepticism toward technology, and a strong demand for fair and transparent governance.

Why Carbon Removal Matters

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached levels that threaten planetary stability. Even if emissions were drastically reduced today, the legacy of accumulated CO₂ would persist for centuries. This has led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to emphasize that CDR may play a critical role in achieving net-zero targets.

However, deploying carbon removal strategies requires more than technical feasibility. Acceptance by citizens and communities is essential. Without public trust, even the most advanced technologies may face resistance.

How the Study Was Conducted

The research team led by Sean Low and colleagues designed a qualitative, multi-country study. They organized 44 focus groups across 22 nations, ensuring diversity in geography, culture, and socio-economic background. Participants discussed five key CDR approaches:

• Forests and reforestation
• Soil management
• Direct air capture (DAC)
• Enhanced weathering
• Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)

Guided discussions covered technical effectiveness, permanence of CO₂ removal, potential risks to land and biodiversity, justice between generations, and governance models. Transcripts were thematically coded, allowing the researchers to identify recurring concerns and regional variations.

While not statistically representative, the qualitative approach provided a nuanced view of how ordinary people weigh the trade-offs of carbon removal.

Nature Wins More Trust than Technology

The study found a clear trend: people tend to trust and prefer nature-based solutions such as reforestation and soil management. Participants described these as familiar, tangible, and offering co-benefits like biodiversity protection and rural jobs.

By contrast, industrial approaches like DAC and BECCS often triggered skepticism. Questions arose about whether these technologies truly work, how permanent the carbon storage is, and what unintended consequences might occur. Concerns about large-scale land use, impacts on food security, and the dominance of corporate interests were repeated across different regions.

“Public acceptance of carbon removal is not binary; it is conditional upon robust evidence, safeguards for local communities, and transparent decision-making” (Low et al., 2024).

Governance: The Decisive Factor

Beyond the technical aspects, governance emerged as a central theme. Participants expressed little trust in purely private or corporate-led governance of CDR. Instead, they favored systems involving governments, independent experts, and communities. Multilateral frameworks and accountability mechanisms were seen as crucial for legitimacy.

The study warns that positioning carbon removal as a substitute for emissions reduction is widely unacceptable to the public. Instead, participants supported CDR only as a regulated complement to cutting emissions.

Researchers recommend a “stepwise testing” approach: pilot projects should undergo independent review, with findings openly shared, before large-scale deployment.

Implications for Latin America and the Amazon

For regions like Latin America, where forests and soils are central to climate strategies, the study carries important lessons. Large-scale reforestation and soil carbon projects could bring significant social and ecological benefits, but they also risk land conflicts and exclusion if governance frameworks are weak.

In the Amazon, where conservation and restoration projects intersect with issues of indigenous rights and rural livelihoods, public trust will hinge on equity and transparency. Who controls the credits from carbon markets? Who bears the risks if projects fail? These questions are critical for avoiding social backlash.

Policy Takeaways

The findings underline that the road to carbon removal deployment is paved with conditions:

1. Robust evidence – Technologies must be tested, with transparent data on efficacy and permanence.
2. Fair governance – Communities must be included in decision-making, with safeguards against harm.
3. Complement, not substitute – CDR should reinforce, not replace, emission reduction targets.
4. Communication – Public campaigns should be honest about trade-offs, limitations, and risks.

Without these safeguards, carbon removal risks losing legitimacy before it can contribute meaningfully to climate goals.

Conclusion: Building Trust for the Future

The study by Low et al. (2024) makes clear that carbon removal is not just a technical or scientific challenge—it is a social one. Trust, justice, and governance will determine whether these solutions succeed or fail. Policymakers, scientists, and businesses must recognize that public acceptance is conditional, and that legitimacy depends on transparent, inclusive, and equitable governance.

As the climate clock ticks, the debate over carbon removal will only intensify. The public has spoken: solutions must be fair, proven, and accountable.

Topics of interest

Climate