cv_forest_wa_2022.jpg
program

Biologic

Our Theory of Change

Biologic systems offer a cost-effective pathway for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. While biologic systems already move vast amounts of carbon each year, most of it rapidly returns to the atmosphere through decomposition, disturbance, and fire. We focus on improving both sides of this balance, enhancing the rate of atmospheric carbon capture and extending the duration of storage, to create durable, verifiable climate benefit. 

Our Biologic Program aims to build trust and quality in biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS) approaches by conducting foundational science and economic analyses, forming cross-stakeholder networks, involving local community and stakeholder voices, and developing solutions to industry-wide bottlenecks, including tools that empower decision-makers to make scientifically and economically informed decisions.

Why Focus on Biologic Carbon Storage?

Biologic approaches are among the most scalable carbon capture technologies on Earth, yet their climate value is limited by short residence times. Increasing the effectiveness of this natural cycle—either by boosting production or by protecting carbon from rapid return to the atmosphere—can unlock gigaton-scale removal potentials. Strengthening biologic pathways also creates opportunities to align land management, forestry, and waste management with climate goals.

In particular, we focus our efforts on enabling wildfire mitigation and fuel removal treatments in the US West and globally. There is massive near-term need to address the wildfire crisis, but costs associated with disposal of low value fuels is limiting the pace and scale of treatments. We focus on establishing high integrity carbon and product markets for this material to enable forest restoration at scale.

How we're scaling biologic solutions:

Quantifying the counterfactual

A key question for BiCRS approaches is around the business-as-usual scenario, or counterfactual, for any biomass that is removed from an ecosystem. In other words, in the absence of an intervention, what is the fate of the carbon contained in the material, and is the intervention doing more harm than good? We aggregate, assess, analyze, and publish scientific assessments that identify the costs and emissions associated with current forest management practices, with the goal of ultimately comparing these trajectories with alternative end uses. 

Mapping biomass availability

Not all biomass is a suitable feedstock for BiCRS. We identify feedstocks that are demonstrably additional, environmentally responsible, and at high risk of near-term re-emission under business-as-usual management. Our approach combines spatial modeling with policy and land management data to map where biomass is generated as a byproduct of existing commitments—such as fuel reduction treatments, invasive species removal, and post-disturbance cleanup—rather than driven by carbon incentives.

Conducting foundational experimentation

Science is the cornerstone of high-quality carbon removal. Right now, many fundamental questions about the behavior of biomass in storage remain open. We design and run hypothesis-driven field experiments to test these uncertainties directly, generating empirical data on carbon stability, degradation pathways, and environmental interactions. The goal of this work is to identify the contexts under which approaches are most likely to achieve success and avoid failure, and provide this information to the field as a whole to enable safe, effective deployment.

Synthesizing system-wide knowledge

Many questions remain about how biomass behaves across different storage pathways, especially around durability, disturbance, and system boundaries. We are synthesizing existing science to clarify what is known, what can be measured, and where key gaps remain. Our work draws together decomposition, biochar, and burial research into a single durability framework, standardizing carbon efficiency estimates so pathways can be compared on common ground. We examine how factors like climate, feedstock type, and site conditions interact to shape durability outcomes, highlighting where evidence is strong, where methods diverge, and where disturbance risks remain poorly quantified. By building this shared evidence base, we aim to give practitioners and funders a rigorous, transparent foundation for evaluating durability claims.

Creating a toolkit for implementation

We’re developing the open-source solutions required to translate from science to implementation. Our approach draws on life-cycle and technoeconomic assessment, geospatial analysis, feedstock modeling, and site-level decomposition science to build tools that identify where and how biomass storage delivers the most durable carbon benefit. This means combining field data on decay and burial dynamics with spatial datasets on feedstock availability and site conditions to guide practitioners toward higher-confidence implementation decisions. By grounding these tools in peer-reviewed science and transparent methods, we aim to lower the technical barrier to entry for credible, science-based biomass carbon removal projects.

Evaluating non-traditional approaches 

We are open to exploring unconventional BiCRS pathways that fall outside established categories but show credible potential for durable carbon storage. Many promising ideas remain underexplored due to limited data, unclear system boundaries, or lack of standardized evaluation frameworks. We apply a science-led screening process to assess these approaches—focusing on durability, measurability, scalability, and alignment with environmental and social safeguards. Where warranted, we work with partners to test these concepts through targeted analyses or pilot studies.

Our Projects at a Glance

Wildfire Mitigation, Stranded Biomass Residuals, and Quantifying Counterfactuals

BiCRS Field Experimentation and Durability Framework

Geospatial Lifecycle and Technoeconomic Assessment of Biomass Opportunities

Partner with us

The challenges in this space are inherently interdisciplinary, requiring coordination across science, policy, operations, and finance. We work with partners across sectors and at every stage—from early research and field trials through project design, evaluation, and deployment.

Publications