4 min. read
Last updated Jun 24, 2025
Key takeaways
First-of-its-kind environmental justice report: Published by Carbon Direct, in collaboration with McKnight Foundation, Carbon Dioxide Removal and Environmental Justice in the United States: A landscape analysis of race, class, and environmental burden metrics.
No current pattern of environmental injustice in CDR siting: Our analysis of 342 carbon removal projects found no systemic overrepresentation in low-income or BIPOC communities, unlike legacy infrastructure like hazardous waste.
Some frontline communities are still impacted: Project-level analysis shows that individual nature-based, hybrid, and engineered projects are located near overburdened communities, underscoring the need for place-based engagement.
A narrow window to shape equity: With most removal credits yet to be delivered, the sector remains nascent. Decisions made today will shape equity outcomes for decades.
A new baseline for environmental justice in CDR: This is the first empirical foundation to inform siting, policy, and benefit-sharing practices in carbon removal.
Introduction
Carbon removal projects are scaling across the United States—but who lives near them? Until now, no research has comprehensively answered that question. In our new report, Carbon Direct, in collaboration with McKnight Foundation, provides the first environmental justice landscape analysis of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects in the US. The findings offer a crucial foundation for equitable climate infrastructure development before the CDR buildout accelerates.
A critical landscape analysis at an inflection point for carbon removal
Meeting the 2015 Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target requires not only deep emissions reductions, but also large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR). By 2050, global capacity must increase fivefold to remove 10 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually. As CDR technologies evolve from theory to implementation, a key question emerges: will these projects scale equitably, or repeat past patterns of environmental injustice?
History shows that important environmental infrastructure projects have not always advanced equitable outcomes. Take hazardous waste facilities, for example. The landmark 1987 report, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States, found that hazardous waste facilities were disproportionately located in low-income communities of color. Nearly four decades later, race remains a strong predictor in the US for toxic exposure from hazardous waste facilities.
Researchers now ask: Should society approach CDR as a form of waste management? Given the legacy of hazardous waste siting, it's essential to examine whether carbon removal projects might follow similar patterns of environmental injustice.
To investigate, Carbon Direct, in collaboration with McKnight Foundation, conducted the first comprehensive analysis of CDR siting and its proximity to frontline communities in the US. Even as federal priorities shift, the intersection of carbon removal and environmental justice remains critical. Our findings offer an evidence-based foundation to shape equitable CDR deployment as the industry scales over the coming decades.
Environmental justice insights into the US carbon removal landscape
Our research examined 342 CDR projects across major voluntary carbon market registries and paired them with environmental justice data from the EPA’s EJScreen tool. At the census tract level, we analyzed demographics, environmental burden metrics, and proximity to project sites. This yielded three high-level insights:
1. No systemic environmental justice siting patterns—yet
Unlike the concerning patterns found with hazardous waste facilities, our analysis reveals no systematic relationship between CDR project locations and frontline communities. Current CDR projects are not disproportionately located in low-income communities of color, nor are they concentrated in areas with significantly higher pre-existing environmental burdens.
This finding is noteworthy. However, the absence of current patterns doesn't guarantee future trends as the industry scales. This presents a major opportunity for CDR developers and advocates to deploy new CDR projects in ways that equitably distribute benefits to frontline communities.
2. Place-based impacts require nuance
While there's no systematic pattern, individual CDR projects do exist near frontline communities with higher environmental burdens. Our project-level analysis revealed important nuances including:
Nature-based CDR projects may intersect with Indigenous populations that face disproportionate environmental challenges.
Hybrid CDR projects may sit in proximity to urban areas, where census tracts show high concentrations of disadvantaged communities.
Engineered CDR projects such as emerging direct air capture technologies may interact with communities of color.
These findings highlight that while systemic patterns may not exist, place-based impacts and community contexts remain critically important.
3. CDR’s early stage is an opportunity for action
CDR represents approximately 4% of all voluntary carbon market projects, with most removal credits yet to be delivered. This nascency presents both opportunity and urgency. The choices made today about how CDR scales will shape generational environmental justice outcomes.
Currently, 95% of CDR credits come from nature-based projects, with hybrid and engineered approaches still in early stages. As these technologies mature and deploy at scale, the patterns the CDR industry establishes now will determine whether CDR follows a path toward equity or repeats historical injustices.
Looking ahead
These findings provide a foundational baseline for understanding how carbon removal infrastructure intersects with environmental justice. But the real opportunity lies in how we act on them.
Learn what these insights mean for developers, policymakers, investors, and frontline communities, and how we can shape a carbon removal industry that centers equity from the ground up.
Acknowledgements
Grant Gutierrez, Leslie Aguayo, Sarah Braverman, Liam Kilroy, and Jared Stapp authored Carbon Dioxide Removal and Environmental Justice in the United States. We appreciate Zara Ahmed and Matthew Potts for their valuable technical insights. Adrianna Sutton, Jasper Croome, Britt Warthen, and Chi Thorsen provided essential editorial and production support.
We are especially grateful to Sarah Christiansen, Tenzin Dolkar, Ben Passer, and Dan Thiede at McKnight Foundation for their support of this report, collaborating, and engaging in thought leadership with the Carbon Direct Science Team.
