Advanced Carbons vs. Carbon Capture & Sequestration

ADVANCED CARBONS COUNCIL

POSITION PAPER

May 2026

From Burial to Brilliance

Why Carbon Credits Should Build an Advanced Materials Economy,

Not a Geological Landfill

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We are directing billions of dollars of climate capital into a geological landfill. Carbon capture and sequestration — the dominant recipient of carbon credit financing — buries CO₂ underground, consumes vast quantities of energy to do so, produces no commercial value, and relies on permanent subsidy to remain viable. When the subsidies end, as they always eventually do, the carbon stays buried and the investment is gone.

There is a better use for the same capital and the same policy tools. Captured carbon — from waste methane, industrial exhaust, direct air capture, and recycling streams — can be converted into advanced carbon materials: graphene, carbon nanotubes, carbon fiber, biochar, synthetic graphite, and their derivatives. These materials do not bury the problem. They solve it. A kilogram of graphene displaces multiple kilograms of higher-carbon alternatives in batteries, construction, and aerospace. A tonne of biochar sequesters carbon in agricultural soil for centuries while improving crop yields. Carbon fiber lightweights structures that would otherwise require energy-intensive metals.

The Advanced Carbons Council calls on governments and carbon market regulators to redirect a meaningful share of carbon credit eligibility toward carbon-to-materials conversion projects. This is not a rejection of carbon credits as a policy tool — it is a demand that they be applied to use cases that are commercially self-sustaining, industrially productive, and genuinely transformative. The carbon credit should be the ignition, not the engine.

“The carbon credit should be the ignition, not the engine.”

The Carbon Burial Mistake

The voluntary carbon market was built on a powerful idea: price the externality, and the market will find the most efficient path to reduction. In practice, the largest recipient of that capital — carbon capture and sequestration — represents a fundamental misapplication of the tool.

Consider the energy economics. Direct air capture technologies currently require between 1.5 and 2.5 gigajoules of energy per tonne of CO₂ captured. At average grid carbon intensity, this means that for every tonne of CO₂ sequestered, a significant fraction of a tonne is generated in the capture process itself. [DATA NEEDED: Current net CO₂ removal per tonne for leading DAC projects at grid average and renewable energy mix — request ACC Technical Committee validation.] The net removal figure, once honestly accounted, is considerably smaller than the headline number.

The financial picture is equally sobering. The cost of sequestration via direct air capture currently ranges from $300 to over $1,000 per tonne of CO₂, depending on technology and scale. [DATA NEEDED: Validated range from published project economics — Climeworks Orca/Mammoth, Occidental 1PointFive, Carbon Engineering.] At these prices, the economics depend entirely on carbon credit revenues and government grants. Remove the subsidy, and every project stops. This is not a transition pathway — it is a dependency.

“Remove the subsidy, and every project stops. This is not a transition pathway — it is a dependency.”

The credibility of the voluntary carbon market has been further damaged by a pattern of fraud, overstatement, and methodological weakness that has accelerated in recent years. In 2024, US prosecutors charged two individuals in a $100 million scheme involving the sale of fictitious emissions savings. The carbon marketplace Nori shut down. Running Tide, which had sought to sink carbon into the ocean, dissolved citing insufficient demand and structural market failure. A 2023 investigation found that more than 90% of rainforest offset credits approved by Verra, the world’s largest carbon standard, may be ‘phantom credits’ that did not represent real carbon reductions.

These are not isolated failures. They are symptoms of a market directed toward outputs that are difficult to verify, commercially inert, and permanently subsidy-dependent. The carbon credit mechanism is sound. Its current application is not.

The Alternative: Carbon as an Industrial Platform

Advanced carbon materials are not a niche academic curiosity. They are the material substrate of the next industrial era — already present in the batteries powering the energy transition, the aircraft structures reducing aviation’s footprint, the construction additives extending the lifespan of concrete infrastructure, and the thermal management components making AI data centres viable.

The feedstocks for these materials include precisely the carbon streams that sequestration projects attempt to capture and bury. Waste methane — one of the most potent greenhouse gases — can be converted via pyrolysis into graphene and hydrogen, producing two commercially valuable outputs from what would otherwise be a warming liability. Industrial CO₂ streams can be converted to carbon monoxide and subsequently to carbon precursors. Biomass waste streams yield biochar at scale through relatively low-technology pyrolysis processes accessible to developing economies.

The downstream emissions impact of these materials compounds over their working life:

• A 1% addition of graphene to concrete has been demonstrated to increase compressive strength by up to 30%, allowing structural engineers to use less concrete per project — reducing the embedded carbon of the world’s most-produced industrial material. [DATA NEEDED: Life cycle assessment figures for graphene-enhanced concrete — ACC Technical Committee to validate.]

• Carbon fiber composites in aircraft structures reduce airframe weight by 20–25% compared to aluminium equivalents, with direct fuel burn and emissions reductions across the aircraft’s multi-decade operating life.

• Biochar applied to agricultural soils sequesters carbon in a stable form for decades to centuries, while simultaneously improving soil water retention, reducing fertiliser requirements, and increasing crop yields — creating positive economic returns for farmers without any ongoing subsidy requirement.

• Carbon nanotubes in battery electrodes increase energy density and charge cycle longevity, extending battery life and reducing the embedded carbon cost of battery replacement over the lifetime of an electric vehicle. [DATA NEEDED: CNT battery life extension data — request from ACC member companies in battery sector.]

“A kilogram of graphene in concrete does more climate work over a building’s lifetime than a kilogram of CO₂ buried underground.”

The crucial difference is commercial viability. Advanced carbon materials have buyers. Graphene commands $50–300 per gram at high purity. Carbon fiber sells at $15–25 per kilogram at commercial grade. Biochar markets are growing at over 30% annually as agricultural and horticultural buyers recognise the agronomic benefits. These are not subsidy-dependent markets — they are commercially self-sustaining industries with real customers and real price signals.

The Economics: Investment Per Tonne

A rigorous life cycle comparison between investment in carbon sequestration and investment in carbon-to-materials conversion does not yet exist in the published literature — this is itself a gap that ACC is positioned to fill. The following framework sets out the analytical structure; the validated numbers require ACC Technical Committee input before publication.

For carbon sequestration, the relevant metric is: cost per tonne of CO₂ permanently removed from the atmosphere, net of energy-related emissions from the capture process, over the project lifetime.

For carbon-to-materials conversion, the relevant metric is: cost per tonne of CO₂ equivalent mitigated, calculated as: (carbon permanently fixed in the material product) + (lifecycle emissions avoided by the material in its application) – (energy cost of conversion process), divided by total project investment.

[DATA NEEDED: Worked example for three conversion pathways: (1) methane pyrolysis to graphene, (2) biomass pyrolysis to biochar for agricultural use, (3) CO₂ conversion to carbon fiber precursor. For each: energy input per tonne of feedstock, carbon fixed in product, downstream emissions avoided per tonne of product in primary application, market value of product. ACC Technical Committee and member company data required.]

The qualitative case is already compelling. An investment in sequestration produces: CO₂ underground, no commercial output, permanent subsidy dependency. An investment in carbon-to-materials conversion produces: CO₂ fixed in a durable material product, commercial revenue from the product, downstream emissions savings across the product’s working life, and a commercially self-sustaining business that does not require continued credit support once at scale.

“Sequestration produces CO₂ underground and nothing else. Advanced carbon conversion produces materials, revenue, jobs, and ongoing emissions reductions.”

The Policy Recommendation

The Advanced Carbons Council calls for the following reforms to carbon credit policy and climate capital allocation:

1. Eligibility reform for carbon credits

Carbon credit standards — including Verra VCS, Gold Standard, and the Article 6 mechanisms under the Paris Agreement — should develop and adopt a Carbon-to-Materials Conversion methodology. Projects that capture carbon and convert it to durable advanced materials should be eligible to generate carbon removal credits based on: (a) the carbon permanently fixed in the material product, and (b) the verified lifecycle emissions avoided by the material in its primary application.

2. A minimum permanence standard

Carbon credits should carry a mandatory permanence classification. Credits from geological sequestration and from durable material fixation (carbon fiber, graphite, structural composites) represent genuinely permanent removal. Credits from biological sequestration (forests, soils) represent conditional and reversible storage. Policy should reflect this hierarchy — and should price permanent material fixation accordingly.

3. Industrial strategy alignment

Governments directing public capital into carbon removal should require that a minimum share — ACC proposes 25% as an opening position — of funded projects demonstrate commercial viability without ongoing credit support within a defined transition period (10 years). This screens out permanently subsidy-dependent sequestration projects while preserving the credit mechanism for genuinely transformative uses.

4. Critical materials designation

Advanced carbon materials — graphene, CNTs, carbon fiber, synthetic graphite — should be formally designated as critical materials in the EU Critical Raw Materials Act, the US Inflation Reduction Act critical materials framework, and equivalent national legislation. This designation unlocks industrial strategy support, preferential financing, and supply chain security investment that currently flows to metals and rare earths but not to carbon.

Conclusion: The Carbon Age

Carbon is the most versatile element on the periodic table. In its engineered forms, it is stronger than steel, lighter than aluminium, more conductive than copper, and more thermally stable than most ceramics. The same substance that we are currently directing enormous capital toward burying underground is, in its advanced forms, the material foundation of the next industrial era.

The choice before policymakers and carbon market regulators is not between action and inaction on climate. It is between two fundamentally different theories of what climate capital should accomplish. One theory says: remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it where it cannot do harm. The other says: take that same carbon and build something with it — something that reduces emissions for decades, creates commercial value, supports industrial sovereignty, and does not need a subsidy cheque to survive.

The Advanced Carbons Council exists to make the case for the second theory, and to build the institutional, technical, and policy infrastructure that makes it possible. We invite policymakers, investors, and industrial partners to join us in redirecting carbon capital toward its highest use: not burial, but brilliance.

“Carbon is not the problem to be buried. It is the material of the solution.”

Appendix: Data Validation Required

The following quantitative claims in this paper require validation by the ACC Technical Committee and/or member company data before formal publication. All are flagged [DATA NEEDED] in the body text above.

Item

Description

Source needed

DAC net removal rate

Net CO₂ removal per tonne for leading DAC projects at grid average and renewable energy mix

ACC Technical Committee / published project disclosures

DAC cost range

Validated cost-per-tonne range from Climeworks, Occidental 1PointFive, Carbon Engineering published economics

Public project disclosures / SEC filings

Graphene concrete LCA

Life cycle assessment for graphene-enhanced concrete: CO₂ equivalent saved per tonne of graphene used at 1% addition rate

ACC Technical Committee / member company data

CNT battery life extension

Battery life extension data for CNT electrode applications vs. standard electrodes: cycle count, energy density, calendar life

ACC member companies in battery sector

Methane pyrolysis pathway

Energy input per tonne of feedstock, carbon fixed in graphene product, market value per tonne of product at commercial scale

ACC Technical Committee / member company data

Biomass to biochar pathway

As above for biochar: energy input, carbon fixation rate, agricultural emissions avoided per tonne applied, market price

ACC Technical Committee / member companies

CO₂ to CF precursor

As above for CO₂ → carbon monoxide → carbon fiber precursor pathway

ACC Technical Committee

Advanced Carbons Council · Position Paper · May 2026

[email protected] · advancedcarbonscouncil.com · © 2026 Advanced Carbons Council. All rights reserved.