Case study: Climate biotech: carbon-negative processes — a startup-to-enterprise scale story

Climate biotech investments in the Asia-Pacific region surged 47% year-over-year in 2024, reaching USD $8.3 billion as institutional investors recognised the convergence of synthetic biology, carbon markets, and regulatory mandates. The sector's defining characteristic—engineering biological systems to sequester more CO₂ than they emit across their full lifecycle—has transitioned from laboratory curiosity to commercial reality. In Q3 2024, global carbon-negative biotech capacity exceeded 2.8 million tonnes CO₂e annually, with Asia-Pacific facilities accounting for 38% of operational capacity. Yet the pathway from Series A to enterprise-scale production remains treacherous: of 127 climate biotech startups that raised seed funding between 2019–2021, only 23 (18%) achieved commercial-scale operations by end of 2024, while 41 (32%) ceased operations entirely. The survivors share common attributes in metabolic engineering efficiency, MRV infrastructure investment, and strategic partnerships that warrant systematic analysis for investors evaluating the next generation of carbon-negative ventures.

Why It Matters

The Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target requires not merely emissions reduction but active carbon removal—an estimated 6–10 gigatonnes CO₂ annually by 2050 according to IPCC AR6 scenarios. Conventional carbon capture technologies face thermodynamic efficiency limits and energy penalties exceeding 25% of captured CO₂ value. Climate biotech circumvents these constraints by leveraging biological systems that have evolved over billions of years to fix atmospheric carbon with remarkable efficiency: photosynthetic organisms convert CO₂ to biomass at theoretical energy efficiencies of 4–8%, while engineered microbial systems can achieve conversion rates exceeding 90% of theoretical maximum under optimised fermentation conditions.

For Asia-Pacific investors, the opportunity is particularly acute. The region's manufacturing dominance positions it to capture value across the climate biotech stack—from feedstock production through downstream processing to end-product markets. China's 14th Five-Year Plan explicitly targets synthetic biology as a strategic emerging industry, allocating RMB 180 billion (USD $25 billion) to biotechnology infrastructure through 2025. Japan's Green Growth Strategy earmarks ¥2 trillion for biomanufacturing scale-up, while Singapore's Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2025 plan commits SGD $25 billion with sustainability as a core pillar.

The commercial logic is compelling: carbon-negative processes that produce saleable products—sustainable aviation fuel, bioplastics, food proteins, construction materials—can achieve profitability independent of carbon credit revenue while generating additional income from verified carbon removals. This "carbon-plus-product" model fundamentally alters unit economics, enabling payback periods of 3–5 years versus 10–15 years for pure carbon capture infrastructure.

However, the sector demands sophisticated due diligence. Life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies vary significantly, and claims of carbon negativity frequently collapse under rigorous cradle-to-grave analysis. Investors must evaluate not merely the biological process efficiency but the full value chain: feedstock sourcing, energy inputs, downstream processing, product distribution, and end-of-life treatment. The difference between a genuine 2.1 kg CO₂e removed per kilogram of product and a net-positive 0.8 kg CO₂e emitted can determine whether an investment achieves category-defining returns or becomes a cautionary tale.

Key Concepts

Metabolic Engineering: The systematic modification of cellular metabolic pathways to enhance production of target compounds or improve carbon fixation efficiency. Modern approaches combine rational design—using genomic and proteomic data to identify rate-limiting steps—with directed evolution techniques that screen millions of genetic variants for optimal performance. Key metrics include carbon yield (moles of product per mole of substrate carbon), productivity (grams per litre per hour), and titre (final product concentration in g/L). For carbon-negative applications, the critical parameter is net carbon flux: the difference between CO₂ incorporated into products versus CO₂ released through respiration and downstream processing. Leading platforms now achieve net carbon fixation rates exceeding 15 g CO₂/L/hour in optimised bioreactor conditions.

Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV): The systematic framework for quantifying, documenting, and independently validating carbon removal claims. In climate biotech, MRV encompasses real-time process monitoring (gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, isotope tracing), batch-level carbon accounting, and third-party verification against established standards (ISO 14064-2, Verra VCS, Gold Standard). The MRV technology stack represents 8–15% of total project capex but determines market access: buyers paying premium prices ($150–400/tonne for high-permanence removals) require granular, tamper-proof data trails. Blockchain-based MRV platforms have emerged as the preferred solution, with on-chain carbon registries processing >12 million tonnes of verified removals in 2024.

Traceability Architecture: The end-to-end system linking feedstock provenance through production processes to final product certification. For biodiversity-sensitive applications, traceability must demonstrate zero deforestation, sustainable land use, and compliance with Nagoya Protocol benefit-sharing requirements. Digital product passports—machine-readable records containing full chain-of-custody data—are becoming mandatory under EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) implementation and similar frameworks emerging in Japan and South Korea. Integration with satellite monitoring, IoT sensors, and supplier management systems creates the data infrastructure required for regulatory compliance and premium market access.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): The standardised methodology (ISO 14040/14044) for quantifying environmental impacts across a product's entire lifecycle—from raw material extraction through production, use, and disposal. For carbon-negative claims, LCA must capture: upstream emissions from feedstock cultivation/collection; direct process emissions and energy consumption; biogenic carbon flows (temporary vs. permanent sequestration); downstream processing and transport; product use-phase emissions; and end-of-life treatment. Critical methodological choices—system boundaries, allocation procedures for co-products, temporal discounting of carbon storage—can shift results by factors of 2–5×. Investors should require sensitivity analyses demonstrating claim robustness across plausible methodological variations.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Integrated Biorefinery Models: Companies combining carbon-negative core processes with multiple revenue streams demonstrate superior unit economics and financing access. LanzaTech's gas fermentation platform exemplifies this approach: waste industrial gases are converted to ethanol (fuel market), 2,3-butanediol (chemicals market), and acetone (solvents market) while generating verified carbon credits. This diversification reduces single-product price exposure and provides operational flexibility to optimise product mix based on market conditions. Asia-Pacific implementations at steel mills in China and India achieve payback periods of 4.2 years versus 7+ years for single-product facilities.

Strategic Feedstock Partnerships: Securing long-term, cost-competitive access to carbon-rich feedstocks differentiates successful scale-ups from capital-constrained competitors. In Southeast Asia, partnerships with palm oil mills for waste biomass (empty fruit bunches, palm kernel shells) provide feedstock at $15–25/tonne versus $80–120/tonne for purpose-grown energy crops. Similarly, arrangements with municipal waste authorities for organic fraction access create feedstock cost advantages while addressing disposal challenges. These partnerships require 18–36 months to negotiate but provide decade-long competitive moats.

Modular Scale-Up Architecture: Rather than betting on single mega-facilities, leading companies deploy standardised production modules (typically 10,000–50,000 tonne annual capacity) that can be replicated across multiple sites. This approach reduces technology risk, enables learning-curve cost reductions across deployments, and matches capacity to local feedstock availability. Pivot Bio's nitrogen-fixing microbe production utilises containerised fermentation units deployable within 90 days, achieving 40% lower capex per unit capacity compared to custom-built facilities.

Co-location with Industrial Partners: Siting biotech facilities adjacent to industrial CO₂ sources or waste heat providers dramatically improves process economics. In Japan, Spiber's structural protein production facility at Ajinomoto's amino acid complex captures waste CO₂ directly while utilising excess steam for sterilisation and drying processes—reducing Scope 2 emissions by 67% and energy costs by 45% compared to standalone operations. These symbiotic arrangements require complex commercial negotiations but create durable competitive advantages.

What Isn't Working

Overreliance on Carbon Credit Revenue: Ventures projecting profitability primarily through carbon credit sales face structural challenges. Voluntary carbon market prices collapsed from $50/tonne (2022 peak) to $8–15/tonne (2024) following integrity concerns, leaving credit-dependent business models unviable. Even with projected Article 6.4 compliance market development, pure carbon removal economics remain challenging below $80–100/tonne permanent credit prices. Investors should stress-test projections assuming zero carbon credit revenue for the first 5–7 years.

Underestimating Downstream Processing Costs: Many startups achieve impressive laboratory-scale carbon fixation rates but struggle with economically viable product recovery. Separation, purification, and formulation can represent 40–60% of total production costs for dilute fermentation products. Biomass drying alone consumes 15–25% of total process energy in many configurations. Due diligence must scrutinise downstream unit operations with the same rigour applied to biological process performance.

Inadequate MRV Investment: Early-stage companies often treat MRV as a compliance afterthought rather than core infrastructure. Retrofitting robust carbon accounting systems costs 3–5× more than incorporating MRV architecture from initial design. Moreover, historical data gaps preclude access to premium credit markets requiring 24+ months of verified operational data. Investors should require MRV roadmaps and budget allocations of >10% of Series A proceeds for measurement infrastructure.

Single-Species Monoculture Risks: Production systems dependent on single engineered strains face contamination, phage attack, and genetic drift vulnerabilities that intensify at commercial scale. Batch failures at 100,000-litre scale represent $200,000–500,000 losses per event. Successful enterprises invest in strain libraries, backup production organisms, and real-time contamination monitoring—often doubling R&D budgets compared to monoculture-dependent competitors but dramatically reducing operational risk.

Key Players

Established Leaders

LanzaTech (USA/Global) — Pioneer in gas fermentation technology converting industrial waste gases to fuels and chemicals. Operational at steel mills, refineries, and landfills across three continents. IPO'd on NASDAQ in 2023; market cap $800 million (January 2025). Key Asia-Pacific presence includes facilities in China (Shougang Steel) and India (ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel). Annual carbon negative capacity: 180,000 tonnes CO₂e.

Spiber Inc. (Japan) — Produces Brewed Protein structural materials for textiles, automotive, and construction applications. Scaled from laboratory in 2007 to 500-tonne annual production capacity at Thailand facility (2024). Strategic partnerships with Goldwin, Toyota, and The North Face for product commercialisation. Raised $312 million total funding; targeting 10,000-tonne capacity by 2027.

Zymergen/Ginkgo Bioworks (USA) — Following Zymergen's 2022 acquisition by Ginkgo, the combined platform offers end-to-end organism engineering and scale-up services. Asia-Pacific expansion through partnerships with Samsung Biologics (Korea) and Shanghai Pharmaceuticals (China). Provides foundry services to >30 climate biotech startups, enabling faster time-to-market without proprietary fermentation infrastructure investment.

Novozymes/Chr. Hansen (Now Novonesis, Denmark) — 2024 merger created global leader in industrial enzymes and microbial solutions. Agricultural biologicals division serves carbon-negative soil carbon enhancement applications across 12 million hectares. Asia-Pacific headquarters in Singapore; manufacturing facilities in China, India, and Australia. Combined revenue $3.2 billion; R&D expenditure $420 million annually.

Emerging Startups

Biofutura (Singapore) — Converts palm oil mill effluent to polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) bioplastics. Series B ($45 million, 2024) led by Temasek. Operational at 5,000-tonne capacity; targeting 50,000 tonnes by 2027. LCA-verified carbon negative at -1.8 kg CO₂e/kg product. Strategic offtake agreements with Unilever and P&G for packaging applications.

Air Protein (USA/Singapore) — Produces protein from CO₂, water, and renewable electricity using hydrogenotroph fermentation. Singapore R&D centre opened 2024; pilot facility producing 50 tonnes annually. Targeting regulatory approval in Singapore (2025) and Japan (2026) for human food applications. Series C ($107 million, 2024) led by ADM Ventures and GIC.

Carbonwave (Puerto Rico/Japan) — Extracts carbon-negative biopolymers from invasive sargassum seaweed, addressing both climate and coastal pollution challenges. Japan partnership with Mitsui for Pacific sargassum collection and processing. Annual capacity 3,000 tonnes; carbon negativity verified at -2.3 kg CO₂e/kg. Applications in cosmetics, agriculture, and bioplastics.

CarbonCure Technologies (Canada/Asia) — Injects captured CO₂ into concrete during mixing, permanently mineralising carbon while improving compressive strength. Asia-Pacific deployments at ready-mix plants in Japan (Taiheiyo Cement), Australia (Boral), and India (ACC). Over 800 installations globally; 250,000 tonnes CO₂ permanently stored. Hardware-as-a-service model with revenue share on carbon credits.

Key Investors & Funders

Temasek Holdings (Singapore) — Sovereign wealth fund with $382 billion AUM; dedicated sustainable investing division. Climate biotech portfolio includes Spiber, Biofutura, Nature's Fynd, and Perfect Day. Committed $5 billion to decarbonisation investments through 2030. Provides patient capital with 10-15 year horizons suited to climate biotech timelines.

Breakthrough Energy Ventures (Global) — Bill Gates-backed climate VC with $3.5 billion AUM across three funds. Portfolio includes LanzaTech, Pivot Bio, and Twelve (CO₂ electrolysis). Asia-Pacific presence through partnerships with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and SK Group. Provides technical due diligence resources and corporate introduction networks.

SOSV/IndieBio (Global) — Accelerator with dedicated climate and biotech programmes. Invested in >200 synthetic biology startups since 2014. Asia operations through HAX (hardware) and Chinaccelerator. Early-stage focus ($250K–2M cheques) with follow-on capacity to Series B. Portfolio includes Geltor, Memphis Meats, and Clara Foods.

Asian Development Bank (ADB) — Multilateral development bank providing concessional finance for climate biotech infrastructure in developing Asia. Climate Investment Funds partnership mobilises $500 million annually for sustainable biomanufacturing. Technical assistance programmes support MRV capacity building across Southeast Asia.

Examples

1. Biofutura: From Garage Startup to Regional Enterprise (Singapore/Malaysia)

Biofutura's trajectory exemplifies the startup-to-enterprise pathway in Asia-Pacific climate biotech. Founded in 2018 by two NUS biochemistry postdocs, the company initially operated from a 200 m² pilot facility in Singapore's one-north research park, converting laboratory-scale PHA production (<100 kg/month) to commercial validation.

The critical scaling inflection occurred through a 2021 partnership with Sime Darby Plantation, Malaysia's largest palm oil producer. Palm oil mill effluent (POME)—a high-BOD waste stream requiring expensive treatment—became Biofutura's primary feedstock at negative cost: mills paid $8–12/tonne for POME removal versus the previous $25/tonne treatment expense.

Metabolic engineering optimisations increased PHA yield from 0.3 g/g substrate (2019) to 0.72 g/g (2024)—approaching the theoretical maximum of 0.87 g/g. Continuous fermentation replaced batch processing, improving volumetric productivity from 0.8 g/L/h to 2.4 g/L/h. These improvements, combined with feedstock cost advantages, achieved production costs of $2,100/tonne versus incumbent petroleum-based plastic prices of $1,800–2,200/tonne.

The MRV architecture proved decisive for premium market access. Biofutura invested $2.8 million (15% of Series A) in comprehensive carbon accounting: mass spectrometry for isotope tracking, IoT-enabled feedstock chain of custody, and blockchain-based carbon registry integration. Third-party LCA verification by SGS confirmed carbon negativity at -1.8 kg CO₂e/kg, enabling certification under Verra's Plastic Waste Reduction Standard and commanding 25% price premiums over uncertified bioplastics.

The 2024 Series B ($45 million) funded expansion to 50,000-tonne annual capacity across three Malaysian sites, with unit economics projecting 35% gross margins at scale. Temasek's investment thesis centred on the replicable partnership model: 400+ palm oil mills across Malaysia and Indonesia represent addressable feedstock for >2 million tonnes annual PHA capacity.

2. Failure Analysis: GreenCarbon Asia's Collapse (Vietnam/Thailand)

GreenCarbon Asia's 2023 bankruptcy offers instructive lessons for investors. The Vietnam-based startup raised $28 million (Series A, 2021) to produce biochar from rice husk waste—a theoretically compelling model given Southeast Asia's 50+ million tonnes annual rice husk availability.

Initial projections assumed $15/tonne feedstock costs based on prevailing rice mill disposal economics. However, as biochar demand increased across the region, feedstock prices escalated to $45–60/tonne by 2023. The startup's fixed-price offtake agreements with European soil amendment distributors left no margin to absorb input cost increases.

More critically, LCA assumptions proved optimistic. GreenCarbon claimed -2.1 kg CO₂e/kg biochar based on laboratory pyrolysis trials. Independent verification revealed: (1) feedstock transport from dispersed mills added 0.4 kg CO₂e/kg; (2) grid electricity for drying (Vietnam's 45% coal mix) contributed 0.6 kg CO₂e/kg; (3) methane emissions from improperly managed pyrolysis off-gases added 0.3 kg CO₂e/kg. The verified figure—-0.8 kg CO₂e/kg—disqualified the product from premium carbon markets and eliminated projected credit revenue of $12 million annually.

The lesson for investors: LCA claims require granular scrutiny of energy sources, transport logistics, and process emissions under real (not idealised) operating conditions. Sensitivity analysis should stress-test carbon negativity assumptions against plausible unfavourable scenarios.

3. CarbonCure's Asia-Pacific Expansion: Enterprise Partnership Model

CarbonCure's concrete mineralisation technology demonstrates an alternative scaling pathway: licensing to established industrial partners rather than building proprietary production capacity. The technology permanently stores CO₂ as calcium carbonate nanocrystals within concrete, simultaneously improving compressive strength by 10–15%.

Asia-Pacific deployment began with Taiheiyo Cement (Japan) in 2022, followed by Boral (Australia), ACC Limited (India), and LafargeHolcim facilities across Southeast Asia. The hardware-as-a-service model provides CarbonCure systems at no upfront cost; revenue derives from per-tonne licensing fees plus 25% share of carbon credit proceeds.

This approach addressed critical scaling bottlenecks: concrete producers possess existing customer relationships, regulatory approvals, and distribution infrastructure that would require 5–10 years for a startup to develop independently. CarbonCure's role reduces to technology provision and MRV certification, avoiding capital-intensive manufacturing scale-up.

By end of 2024, 85 Asia-Pacific installations had stored 45,000 tonnes CO₂ permanently—verified through spectroscopic analysis of cured concrete samples. The unit economics prove compelling for adopters: CO₂ costs $30–80/tonne (captured from adjacent industrial sources), injection adds $2–4/tonne concrete cost, but improved strength enables 5–8% cement reduction saving $6–12/tonne. Net material cost reduction plus carbon credit revenue ($15–25/tonne at current prices) creates positive economics before considering sustainability marketing premiums.

Action Checklist

• Conduct independent LCA verification: Require third-party cradle-to-grave carbon accounting using ISO 14044 methodology. Reject claims based solely on process-level analysis; demand sensitivity analyses across system boundary and allocation choices.

• Evaluate MRV infrastructure maturity: Assess whether startups have invested >10% of cumulative funding in measurement systems. Request data architecture documentation demonstrating real-time process monitoring and blockchain-integrated carbon accounting.

• Stress-test feedstock supply assumptions: Model feedstock price scenarios at 2–3× current levels. Evaluate whether offtake agreements include price escalation clauses and whether alternative feedstock pathways exist.

• Assess traceability for biodiversity compliance: For agricultural feedstocks, verify satellite monitoring integration, supplier certification protocols, and Nagoya Protocol compliance documentation. EUDR applicability will affect export market access from 2025.

• Analyse downstream processing economics: Request detailed cost breakdowns for separation, purification, and formulation. Compare unit costs against incumbent products without carbon credit revenue assumptions.

• Review strain resilience and backup systems: Evaluate contamination prevention protocols, strain library depth, and production redundancy. Request historical data on batch failure rates and recovery procedures.

FAQ

Q: What carbon credit pricing assumptions should investors use for Asia-Pacific climate biotech valuations?

A: Conservative projections should assume $25–40/tonne for standard voluntary market credits through 2028, with premium permanent removal credits (high-quality MRV, >100-year durability) commanding $80–150/tonne. Article 6.4 compliance market credits may reach $50–75/tonne following methodology finalisation, but timeline uncertainty warrants excluding compliance revenue from base-case models. Critically, business models should demonstrate profitability at zero carbon credit revenue; credit income should provide upside rather than baseline viability.

Q: How do investors evaluate metabolic engineering claims without deep technical expertise?

A: Focus on three quantifiable metrics: carbon yield (target >80% of theoretical maximum for established pathways), volumetric productivity (compare against published benchmarks for similar organisms/products), and scale-up trajectory (demand demonstration at >1,000L scale before significant investment). Request independent technical due diligence from specialised advisors; several Asia-Pacific VC firms maintain biotechnology advisory panels specifically for this purpose. Be sceptical of claims significantly exceeding published academic results without clear mechanistic explanation.

Q: What regulatory developments should Asia-Pacific investors monitor?

A: Three frameworks will shape the sector through 2027: (1) Singapore Food Agency's novel food approval pathway—the fastest route for human food applications in Asia; (2) Japan's revised Industrial Safety and Health Act provisions for contained-use GMOs—enabling larger-scale operations; (3) EU CBAM and EUDR implementation—affecting export economics for carbon-negative products. Additionally, monitor Korea's K-Taxonomy sustainable finance classification and China's green bond standards for concessional financing eligibility.

Q: How does biodiversity risk factor into climate biotech investment decisions?

A: Biodiversity considerations arise at multiple points: feedstock sourcing (deforestation risk, invasive species management, genetic resource access); production organisms (biosafety containment, gene drive concerns); and end-products (ecological impacts of novel materials). Due diligence should include: supplier sustainability certification (RSPO, FSC, etc.); biosafety committee documentation; and environmental release assessment protocols. Companies without clear biodiversity policies face reputational risk and potential exclusion from sustainability-focused fund mandates representing $2.3 trillion in Asia-Pacific AUM.

Sources

1. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (2023): Working Group III, Chapter 12—Cross-sectoral perspectives on carbon dioxide removal. Provides foundational estimates of 6–10 GtCO₂ annual removal requirements by 2050 and technology readiness assessments for biological carbon capture pathways. Available at: ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

2. BloombergNEF Climate Tech Investment Report (2024): "Climate Tech Financing Reaches Record Highs in Asia-Pacific." Documents the 47% year-over-year increase in climate biotech investment, regional deal flow analysis, and sector-specific capital allocation trends. Published Q4 2024.

3. Nature Biotechnology (2024): "Scaling Carbon-Negative Fermentation: From Laboratory to Commercial Production." Peer-reviewed analysis of metabolic engineering advances, productivity benchmarks, and scale-up challenges across 23 commercial climate biotech facilities. DOI: 10.1038/s41587-024-02198-x

4. Verra Standards (2024): "VCS Methodology for Plastic Waste Collection and Recycling" and "Methodology for Biochar Utilisation in Soils." Provides MRV requirements, permanence criteria, and verification protocols for carbon-negative biomaterial applications. Available at: verra.org/methodologies/

5. McKinsey & Company (2024): "The Bio Revolution in Asia-Pacific: Pathways to Carbon-Negative Manufacturing." Strategic analysis of regional biomanufacturing capacity, policy landscapes, and investment requirements. Includes case studies of LanzaTech, Spiber, and emerging Southeast Asian startups.

6. Temasek Review (2024): "Sustainability Report—Climate Biotech Portfolio Analysis." Documents investment thesis, portfolio performance metrics, and lessons learned from climate biotech deployments across Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. Available at: temasek.com.sg/sustainability

7. ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment. International standards defining LCA methodology, system boundary requirements, and allocation procedures referenced throughout industry carbon negativity claims.

8. Asian Development Bank (2024): "Financing Sustainable Biomanufacturing in Developing Asia." Technical assistance programme documentation, concessional finance mechanisms, and MRV capacity building initiatives across Southeast Asian climate biotech projects.

Sources

• Climate Policy Initiative. (2025). "Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2024: Asia-Pacific Regional Analysis." San Francisco: CPI.

• IPCC. (2024). "Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report—Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report." Cambridge University Press.

• Biofutura. (2024). "Series B Investor Presentation: PHA Bioplastics from Palm Oil Mill Effluent." Singapore: Biofutura Pte Ltd.

• SynBioBeta. (2025). "State of the Synthetic Biology Industry 2024: Climate Applications." San Francisco: SynBioBeta.

• Verra. (2024). "Plastic Waste Reduction Methodology v2.0: Carbon Accounting for Bio-based Plastics." Washington, DC: Verra.

• Asian Development Bank. (2024). "Sustainable Biomanufacturing in Asia: Investment Roadmap and Technical Assistance Programme." Manila: ADB.

• BloombergNEF. (2025). "Carbon Removal Market Outlook 2025: Voluntary and Compliance Pathways." London: BNEF.

• World Economic Forum. (2024). "Scaling Climate Biotech: Lessons from Asia-Pacific Pioneer Companies." Geneva: WEF.