Funding for Carbon Removal RD&I in the EU and US

Table of contents

In a Nutshell

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) encompasses a wide range of methods and technologies, all aimed at removing CO2 in concrete to chemically scrubbing CO2 out of the air. These methods differ in their technological readiness level (TRLs). 

See morechevron

What’s on the Horizon?

In its communication on an Industrial Carbon Management Strategy (ICMS), the EU Commission signalled that it would increase RD&I funding for carbon removal across its existing programmes. In the ICMS, the Commission also announced a new legislative package for CO2 transport, which might have positive implications for unlocking funding for such projects. In parallel, the next funding packages for Horizon Europe, CEF Energy and LIFE are starting to be discussed as the current funding packages expire in 2027.  

See morechevron

Deep Dive

Comparison of US and European funding programmes:

Key similarities 
  • Funding across various TRLs and CDR methods 
  • Different kinds of funding available (research, innovation, demonstration, etc.) 
  • Among higher-durability removals, methods with a CCS component such as DACCS and BECCS are the main focus so far.  
Key differences 
  • The US has CDR-specific RD&I programmes, whereas the EU does not yet.  
  • The US provided large-scale demonstration funding for higher-durability removals, DACCS more specifically.  
  United States of America  Europe 
Main actors involved  Congress votes to enact funding levels through the annual budget appropriations process and votes on funding that can come through standalone bills like the BIL. Once funding is voted on, government agencies then use the funding directly or provide grants to other researchers such as those in academia, NGOs, and/or the private sector.  

The European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) is in charge of administering the budget of most EU funding programmes (Horizon Europe, Innovation Fund) 

For Horizon Europe, DG RTD publishes the workplans, with significant inputs from DG ENV and DG CLIMA on the CDR-related parts.  

At the national level, the main actors are ministries of climate and energy and ministries related to RD&I. 

Approach  In the US, there has been a significant increase in the level of research, development and demonstration (RD&D) funding for carbon removal over the past five years. Funding for research and development has come from annual budget appropriations, with the DOE being the main recipient so far. Incentives for demonstration projects to help kickstart the industry have come through the landmark 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.   At the EU level, RD&I funding for CDR has mostly been dispersed and unfocused. While there have been a few CDR-only projects, most calls for proposals are quite vague and open to other types of climate technologies as well. In April 2024, the Commission issued some CDR-focused calls, which is an improvement.  

See morechevron

Summary and reflections

The EU has yet to tackle several issues before being able to provide a robust RD&I funding environment: 

  • There are currently no dedicated RD&I funding programmes for CDR in Europe, and funding opportunities are scattered across many sources. 
  • CDR projects currently compete with other clean technologies in most funding programmes. 
  • There is a lack of coordination between the EU and member states, leaving some CDR methods uncovered. 
  • No clear overview of available funding sources and little tracking of funding going to CDR. 

To address these points, the European Commission should produce a CDR funding roadmap, as described in Carbon Gap’s Vision for an EU CDR Strategy. The calls for proposals for CDR issued in April 2024 under LIFE and the Soil Mission in Horizon Europe are good steps in the right direction. Furthermore, the evaluation process for projects applying to calls under the Innovation Fund has been changed since the last call, giving extra points to CDR projects.  

In the United States, RD&D funding for CDR has increased considerably over the past five years, both in annual appropriations funding and through other legislation. The majority of funding, particularly for demonstration projects, has been disproportionately oriented toward direct air capture technology (DAC), yet much more basic research funding will be needed for approaches beyond DAC, along with research into improving measurement, reporting and verification of approaches and improved social science around CDR. 

Current funding allocations are beginning to encompass other CDR methods such as enhanced rock weathering, ocean carbon removal and biomass with carbon removal and storage (BiCRS) approaches. By one estimate, BiCRS specifically, is expected to provide an outsized amount of CDR through 2050 compared to other approaches. Yet given competing demand for biomass across sectors, BiCRS research should assess the opportunity cost of using biomass for different mitigation purposes with greater focus on the use of waste biomass.   

Contributors

Katie Lebling, Associate II, Carbon Removal and Industrial Decarbonization, World Resource Institute

Danielle Riedl, Research Analyst II, Industrial Innovation & Carbon Removal, World Resource Institute

Last updated: 16 Oct 2025

This deep-dive is part of our EU-US comparison. For other comparisons, see our full list of thematic EU-US comparisons