Is the investment real, or just hype?
The investment is real and substantial. In 2023, BlackRock—the world's largest asset manager—committed $550 million to a joint venture with Occidental for the Stratos DAC plant in Texas, which is expected to capture 500,000 metric tons of CO₂ per year when it starts in 2025 [5]. That's a serious bet from a major financial player. But to put that in perspective, global CO₂ emissions are about 36 billion tons per year. Even this large plant would remove only 0.0014% of annual emissions. The 19 DAC plants operating worldwide together capture just over 0.01 million tons of CO₂ per year—a tiny fraction of what's needed [1].
What's the catch—why isn't DAC scaling faster?
The main catch is cost and energy. Current DAC costs are 2–6 times higher than the $100 per ton of CO₂ that would make it economically viable [1]. The technology is also energy-intensive: the most cost-effective setups use hydropower or natural gas with renewables, while fully renewable systems are more expensive because they run less often, making it hard to pay back the expensive equipment [3]. A 2023 review found that while DAC has reached Technology Readiness Level 7 (meaning prototypes demonstrated in an operational environment), jumping to full industrial scale requires huge investments and time that may not be available before 2030, when a major emissions cut is needed [4].
Can DAC alone solve climate change?
No—and the evidence is clear on this. A 2021 study modeled an emergency, wartime-like DAC program investing 1.2–1.9% of global GDP annually. Even with that massive effort, DAC would only remove 2.2–2.3 billion tons of CO₂ per year by 2050, and global warming would still reach 2.4–2.5°C by 2100 [3]. That's above the Paris Agreement's 1.5–2°C target. Another review notes that DAC may help offset hard-to-avoid emissions from concrete (8% of global emissions), transportation (24%), and steel (11%), but it cannot replace cutting emissions at the source [1]. The authors of that study and others agree: reducing emissions first is always a better investment [2][3].
About These Sources
This answer is built on 5 peer-reviewed studies — published from 2021 to 2023, 4 in Q1 journals, collectively cited 635 times — selected as the most relevant from 5 studies that passed quality screening, drawn from 38 papers retrieved from a database of over 500 million.
Sources used in this answer
Current status and pillars of direct air capture technologies
Reviews 19 DAC plants capturing >0.01 Mt CO₂/year, finds costs 2–6 times above the $100/ton target, and identifies three pillars (contactor, sorbent, regeneration) needing improvement for economic viability.
The case for direct air capture
Describes the Climeworks Orca plant in Iceland capturing 4,000 t CO₂/year using geothermal energy, but notes critics argue other carbon removal methods are cheaper and emission reduction is a better investment.
Emergency deployment of direct air capture as a response to the climate crisis
Models an emergency DAC program investing 1.2–1.9% of global GDP annually, finding it would remove 2.2–2.3 GtCO₂/year by 2050 but still result in 2.4–2.5°C warming by 2100.
Direct Air capture (DAC) deployment: A review of the industrial deployment
Assesses DAC at TRL-7 (prototype demonstrated), but notes scale-up to industrial level (TRL-11) is unlikely by 2030 due to time, investment needs, and competition for materials with the energy transition.
Blackrock invests in direct air capture
Reports BlackRock's $550 million investment in the Stratos DAC plant in Texas, expected to capture 500,000 t CO₂/year starting in 2025, as part of a joint venture with Occidental.