Recent news about Microsoft halting CDR has hit the deadlines. However, the carbon removal market is not slowing down. It is actually repricing and maturing. Microsoft’s reported pause in procurement does not reflect retreat. Microsoft has been explicit that its CDR program continues to underpin its 2030 carbon negative and 2050 historical removal commitments.

Given Microsoft’s outsized role in early offtake, any shift inevitably moves the market. But the underlying change is structural. The CDR ecosystem is transitioning away from a single dominant buyer toward a broader demand base, tighter procurement criteria, and increasing pressure on cost curves. The shift is from market creation to market discipline. In this environment, the focus is shifting from volume to quality. Durability, reliable measurement, and delivery certainty now drive procurement decisions. This is where different approaches start to separate.

Biochar is well positioned because it already satisfies many of these second-phase requirements. Its carbon is thermochemically stabilised, with residence times that meaningfully outperform most nature-based approaches and begin to approximate engineered durability classes. For buyers increasingly focused on permanence-adjusted accounting, that distinction is material.

At the same time, biochar avoids one of the core bottlenecks facing engineered CDR. It is not constrained by first-of-a-kind infrastructure or high energy intensity. Feedstocks are abundant, conversion technology is proven, and deployment can scale in a distributed manner. The estimated 0.3 to 1.3 GtCO2 per year potential from residues alone places it among the few pathways with credible near-term volume.Equally important are the co-benefits, which are no longer peripheral to procurement decisions. Soil carbon enhancement, improved nutrient retention, and water dynamics translate into tangible agronomic value. As corporate buyers move toward claims frameworks that emphasise broader environmental impact, these attributes increase credit attractiveness and defensibility.

Cost is still a key factor. Biochar is cheaper than most engineered carbon removal methods and does not depend on complex infrastructure or long development timelines. As more price-sensitive buyers enter the market, this gives it a clear advantage.

Permanence is often raised as a concern, but biochar sits in a different category. It is not as permanent as geological storage, but it is far more stable than typical nature-based carbon. Biochar breaks down very slowly, with carbon stored for hundreds to thousands of years. This makes it a practical middle ground between short-lived nature-based solutions and expensive engineered approaches.

The implication is straightforward. As the market shifts toward higher integrity and broader participation, procurement will favour pathways that can deliver durable, scalable, and cost-efficient tonnes with low execution risk.

Biochar already meets that bar.