One thing that we’ve learned working at the nexus of CDR and community outreach: the need to come to a shared understanding of foundational terms. We find ourselves circling the same central question, in conversations with carbon removal practitioners: what does equity and justice actually look like in carbon removal — not just in theory, but as a real standard? Before we could address these external conversations, we aligned internally on concrete practices that, to us, signal dedication to equity and justice. We started with technological CDR, where we see the most urgent need for equity-focused interventions.
Ultimately, we agreed that equitable and just CDR must be transparent, inclusive, accountable, and enforceable — words that aren’t interchangeable synonyms but core, load-bearing principles that carry their own weight. These principles have distinct applications across research, community engagement, and community capacity building. With an early focus on practices most relevant to communities, developers, and researchers, here are some misconceptions we’ve heard in talking to CDR stakeholders.
Misconception: Community engagement is a project cost, a benefit rather than necessary process, or a box to check.
At its best, community engagement facilitates community involvement and power in project governance. At its worst, community engagement can be a tiresome and extractive affair that’s imposed onto the community. Developers looking to simply meet basic requirements, or satisfy funders, may take the approach of: “We’ve completed our environmental impact statement. We’ve budgeted no more than $X for engagement. Our project is endorsed by the local board of economic development. So, we’re good.” Even with the best intentions, this checklist approach can leave communities feeling sidelined and overlooked.
Low-effort community engagement looks like information that’s communicated just one way (e.g., fact sheets and presentations). It can also be defined by a project’s lack of dedicated time, money, and appropriately trained engagement staff. Engagement activities that are inaccessible (e.g., held during traditional work hours, difficult to access by public transportation, or offered only in English) or unpaid for community members (who provide their time and expertise) can be signals of low-effort engagement, too.
Good engagement should be a proactive exchange of information and insights between stakeholders to make big decisions. Good engagement seeks to understand a community’s history and dynamics. It tailors engagement plans to community characteristics like access to internet, regional languages, and industry relationships; offers meaningful compensation to community members; and incorporates veto points throughout a project’s lifecycle. Good engagement is made transparent and enforceable by project labor and community benefits agreements negotiated in good faith.
Misconception: Carbon removal is already accessible to communities.
The best projects are community-driven efforts, wherein communities are active in governance, profit sharing, and high-quality employment. To meet that standard, developers must form meaningful partnerships with communities. This process is called community capacity exchange — the ongoing and long-term facilitation of mutual learning, resource sharing, and skills training.
Traditionally, project deployment charges ahead without considering a community’s willingness and readiness to take part. We’ve found that many potential host communities aren’t very familiar with carbon removal yet — and those who are, often hold mixed opinions. On top of that, these communities are commonly dealing with fatigue and limited resources, after years of managing the impacts of legacy energy projects, as well as multiple emerging industries. In such cases, hesitation toward new projects, especially those that feel risky or extractive, is wholly understandable. To make things more challenging, the local organizations that developers typically tap to initiate engagement are often stretched thin, understaffed, and operating with limited and tightly restricted funding.
Rather than showing up with a fully baked project plan, we recommend meeting communities where they are and building something together from the ground up. Co-creating a project means forging partnerships that respect, uphold, and contribute to local knowledge, needs, talent, skills, institutions, and leadership. This kind of approach opens up important possibilities. First, it helps shift the dynamic from “us and them” to a true partnership, which can be a major driver of long-term success. Second, when you build with a community — rather than around or against it — you’re less likely to encounter costly delays and local resistance. Finally, it gives communities the chance to shape whether and how carbon removal fits into their bigger picture economically, socially, and environmentally, and move toward goals that actually matter to them.
Misconception: Researchers should engage a community with a pre-designed research plan.
Inviting community members to complete surveys, share specialized local knowledge, or express their views on key issues can quickly become extractive — especially if the information only flows one way. This approach, known as non-participatory research, is efficient and cost-effective, but it positions communities as subjects of study rather than active contributors. Over time, this can lead to fatigue, reduced participation, and ultimately, disengagement. While offering compensation for people’s time is an important way to acknowledge their contributions, it’s more meaningful to engage with communities as partners in the research process. This approach, known as community co-developed research, involves co-investigating issues, priorities, and solutions together, promoting trust and shared ownership of the work.
What we’ve learned so far about community co-developed research is that it’s based in practices that genuinely reflect and support local priorities. Research questions should be co-designed with community members to ensure they align with local interest; affirm the community’s right to access, use, and benefit from their own data; and collaboratively plan how research findings will be presented. It also requires addressing practical barriers to participation, like lack of transportation, translation services, or childcare, so no one is left out of the process. When done well, co-developed research can lay a strong foundation for carbon removal research and development by integrating community expertise and perspectives as early as the feasibility study stage. We’re still learning more about different forms of research that center communities, in addition to community co-developed research.
Conclusion
This blog marks an important milestone in our ongoing effort to define what just, equitable, and highly accountable carbon dioxide removal can — and should — look like. We know we can’t do this work alone, nor would it be very good if we tried. That’s why we’re committed to engaging a wide range of stakeholders to learn from their perspectives, whether they bring deep experience or are just beginning to explore questions of equity and justice in CDR. Our goal is to share a collaboratively developed framework for just, equitable, and highly accountable CDR next year. Until then, keep an eye on our blog and newsletters for updates and reach out with your thoughts. We’re excited to connect and collaborate.
Edited by Tracy Yu. Image by Igor Starkov.
