- Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) is gaining attention as a scalable carbon removal solution. A recent study suggests the method could remove up to 350 million tonnes of CO₂ per year by 2050 if widely deployed.
What is Enhanced Rock Weathering?
Enhanced Rock Weathering is a carbon removal method that speeds up a natural geological process. Rocks such as basalt and silicates naturally react with carbon dioxide (CO₂) over thousands of years.
ERW involves crushing these rocks into fine powder and spreading them on the soil. The larger surface area makes the rocks react faster with CO₂ in the air and soil. Scientists believe this could permanently capture and store carbon as stable minerals or ocean carbon pools.
This carbon removal has emerged as a promising part of the climate toolkit to help lower atmospheric CO₂ levels.
How ERW Removes Carbon
Natural rock weathering already captures about 1.1 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year from the atmosphere. ERW accelerates this process by increasing the rock’s contact with CO₂.
When rainwater dissolves CO₂, it forms carbonic acid, which reacts with silicate rocks. This reaction locks carbon into bicarbonate ions. Some of the ions wash into rivers and reach the ocean, where they can stay for thousands of years. Because the carbon is stored this way, it is unlikely to return to the atmosphere soon.
In agriculture, ground rocks applied to the soil enhance this process. The rocks react with CO₂ around plant roots and soil microbes. Some companies source rock dust from quarries. They use industrial byproducts instead of new mining.
350 Million Tonnes: The Mid-Century Potential
New research shows that ERW could make a major contribution to climate goals by mid-century. Scaling ERW on suitable agricultural land and other surfaces worldwide could remove an estimated 350 million tonnes of CO₂ per year by 2050. This would come from fast-tracking the natural weathering process across large areas of cropland.
Global modelling studies also suggest even bigger potential. ERW could cut hundreds of millions to billions of tonnes of CO₂ each year by 2050. This depends on widespread use, strong policy support, and proper infrastructure.
Some studies focused on the United States have reported similar potential. Research shows that ERW in U.S. agriculture could cut CO₂ by 160 to 300 million tonnes each year by 2050. If expanded, this number could reach 250 to 490 million tonnes by 2070.
This 350 million-tonne figure sits within a broader picture of potential CDR capacity. Some analyses suggest that ERW could remove billions of tonnes every year. This would occur if the method is used widely across continents with big agricultural sectors.
Why ERW Stands Out in the Carbon Removal Race
One key reason ERW attracts attention is its durability. Carbon captured through rock weathering is stored in stable forms that can last thousands to millions of years. This permanence can make ERW more durable than some nature-based solutions that store carbon only for the lifetime of trees or plants.
ERW also builds on existing farming and mining systems. The technology uses known equipment and methods for crushing and spreading rock. This means ERW is likely easier to use widely than complex methods like direct air capture (DAC). DAC needs big new facilities and a lot of energy.
Enhanced rock weathering has additional benefits beyond carbon capture. When applied to agricultural soils, silicate rock dust can improve soil nutrition and structure. This can enhance crop yields and reduce the need for some fertilizers. Some research has even shown that certain enhanced weathering practices can improve crop performance while removing CO₂.
ERW Carbon Removal Credits Snapshot
ERW has begun to enter this market with real, verified credits. In early 2025, InPlanet and Isometric issued the first independently verified ERW carbon removal credits. These credits show long-lasting CO₂ removal. They are certified with strict monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) protocols.
While ERW still makes up a very small share of total credits traded in 2025, its emergence marks a milestone for carbon removal markets. Early tracking shows that nearly one million ERW credits have been sold, and the total investment in ERW projects is about US$121 million. This reflects increasing interest from companies and offset buyers.
ERW carbon credit prices now range from $200–$500 per tonne. This spread comes from differences in project size, location, and how mature each method is.
Early ERW credits add variety to the carbon market. They focus on carbon removal, which is attracting buyers like Google and Microsoft. They want long-term, verified removal credits along with avoidance credits.
- SEE MORE: Microsoft Backs InPlanet’s Enhanced Rock Weathering Push to Remove 28,500 Tons of CO₂ in Brazil
Scaling Up: Verification, Logistics, and Adoption Hurdles
Despite its promise, ERW faces several challenges before it can deliver on its full potential by 2050.
- Monitoring and verification: Measuring exactly how much CO₂ ERW removes is complex. The process occurs over time and involves soil chemistry, water movement, and geological cycles. Accurate monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems are needed to ensure that carbon removal amounts are real and not overstated.
- Deployment logistics: Scaling ERW globally would require vast amounts of crushed rock. This means expanded quarrying, crushing, transport, and spreading infrastructure. These steps must be done efficiently to avoid high emissions from transport and machinery.
- Agronomic adoption: Farmers and landowners would need incentives and support to adopt ERW. Also, the use of rock dust must align with soil types, crops, and local farming practices. Long-term studies are ongoing to determine the best application rates and conditions for different regions.
- Environmental questions: While ERW can benefit soil fertility, some uncertainties remain about long-term ecosystem impacts and potential side effects. Careful planning and studies are needed before very large-scale deployments can occur.
A Key Piece in the Net-Zero Puzzle
Climate models show that reducing emissions alone won’t be enough to meet the Paris Agreement’s goals. Many experts argue that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) must play a role in keeping the temperature rise below 1.5°C. ERW is one of several CDR methods being considered.
Other CDR approaches include direct air capture (DAC) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). DAC uses machines to pull CO₂ directly from the air, but it is still expensive and energy-intensive.
BECCS captures CO₂ from biomass energy but depends on large dedicated biomass supplies. ERW, by contrast, can leverage natural soil processes and agricultural lands for scalable removal.
Policy makers and climate planners see enhanced rock weathering as one piece of a broader carbon removal portfolio. ERW, along with strong emissions cuts, nature-based solutions like reforestation, and new technologies, can help balance hard-to-abate emissions in sectors such as industry and agriculture.
To reach 350 million tonnes of CO₂ removal per year by 2050, ERW must scale rapidly. This will require stronger global commitment from governments, research institutions, and private investors.
Moreover, investment in field trials and pilot programs will help refine practices and decrease uncertainty. As more data becomes available, ERW techniques can be optimized for different soils, climates, and crop systems.
Public policy support will also be key. Carbon markets, incentives, and crediting systems that recognize verified removal could help fund large-scale ERW deployment. If aligned with broader climate goals, ERW could become a major contributor to meeting global net-zero targets.
The post Rocking the Carbon Clock: ERW Could Cut 350 Million Tonnes of CO₂ Annually by 2050 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits