The biocharBiochar is a carbon-rich material created from biomass decomposition in low-oxygen conditions. It has important applications in environmental remediation, soil improvement, agriculture, carbon sequestration, energy storage, and sustainable materials, promoting efficiency and reducing waste in various contexts while addressing climate change challenges. More industry often finds itself fixated on the molecules: the physical product, its porosityPorosity of biochar is a key factor in its effectiveness as a soil amendment and its ability to retain water and nutrients. Biochar’s porosity is influenced by feedstock type and pyrolysis temperature, and it plays a crucial role in microbial activity and overall soil health. Biochar More, its adsorption capacity, and its permanence. While these technical specifications are foundational, an exclusive focus on the “black gold” itself often obscures the broader mechanisms required to scale its adoption.

Korina Stark (Founding Partner at Circular Spring) is a leading voice in circular economy design and biochar implementation. She advocates for a different way of thinking. To be truly mature, Stark argues, the industry must pivot toward what she terms “Full Stack Biochar”—a holistic, systems-thinking approach that integrates policy reform, circular economy principles, business model innovation, and human-centered design.

“We tend to look at the ‘what’—the char itself—and ignore the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of the broader system it lives in,” Stark noted during a recent conversation. “But if you don’t design the legal, financial, and logistical stack underneath those molecules, the best opportunities to make and use char in the world will never happen.”

For investors, equipment manufacturers, and buyers, understanding Stark’s perspective is critical. The value proposition of biochar is not merely in the material but in the ecosystem that produces and utilizes it. In this blog post, I’d like to explore Stark’s perspective, and how applying rigorous systems thinking can unlock dormant markets, streamline regulatory hurdles, and create self-sustaining economic flywheels.

The Circular Economy and the “Full Stack” Concept

The concept of the circular economy is frequently reduced to simple recycling or waste reduction. However, Stark emphasizes that it is fundamentally a design challenge that encompasses business models, user behaviors, and supply chain logistics. She challenges the industry to move beyond a simple Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a single product and examine the entire ecosystem.

“Think about corrective eyewear,” Stark illustrated. “A product view just looks at the carbon footprint of the frames. A circular, systems view asks: What is the business model? Is it a subscription? How does the user’s health outcome integrate with the service provider’s incentives? We need to apply that same rigorous interrogation to biochar.”

Applying this to “Full Stack Biochar” implies that the biological and chemical reality of the char is inextricably linked to the economic and legal systems that govern its production. Stark points out that a biochar kiln is useless if local air quality regulations classify it as a “burn barrel.” Similarly, a robust carbon credit protocol is ineffective if the chain of custody requirements are too onerous for small forest landowners to navigate.

For industry stakeholders, success requires co-designing solutions that address organizational and systemic resistance early in the process. By involving finance, legal, and operations teams in the initial design phase—rather than treating them as downstream hurdles—companies can turn potential roadblocks into shared solutions. “Collaboration creates friction,” Stark admitted, “but that friction polishes the business model. It de-risks the enterprise for investors because you aren’t blindsided by a policy hurdle three years in.”

Regulatory Arbitrage: The Washington State Case Study

One of the most significant barriers to the decentralized production of biochar has been regulatory categorization. Stark shared a compelling case study from Washington state regarding flame cap kilns—essential technology for low-capital, on-site slash management. Historically, these devices fell under regulations designed for burn barrels or open refuse burning. This misclassification effectively criminalizes a practice that is vital for forest health and wildfire mitigation.

“We had a situation where the technology worked, the science was sound, but the legal definition was wrong,” Stark explained. “The regulations saw a metal container with fire and said ‘burn barrel.’ We had to teach the system that there is a thermodynamic and process difference between turning trash to ashAsh is the non-combustible inorganic residue that remains after organic matter, like wood or biomass, is completely burned. It consists mainly of minerals and is different from biochar, which is produced through incomplete combustion.   Ash Ash is the residue that remains after the complete More and conserving carbon.”

The response involved a coordinated, statewide effort spearheaded by the Washington Farm Forestry Association (WFFA) to educate legislators. Stark developed a concise, one-page infographic that, along with testimony before legislative bodies and outreach by individuals and organizations across the state to their local legislators, helped distinguish biochar production from waste incineration.

The passage of legislation legalizing these kilns in Washington immediately opened a new market segment. Stark noted that within weeks of the law’s enactment, landowners and conservation districts began conducting legal burns. “It proves that regulatory unlocks can lead to rapid adoption,” she said. For equipment manufacturers, this signals a vital strategy: market expansion is as much about lobbying for accurate definitions as it is about engineering better steel.

Business Model Innovation: The “Do No Harm” Approach

Perhaps the most provocative part of Stark’s perspective involves business models that bypass the traditional sale of biochar entirely. Stark points to the logistical inefficiency and extended timelines required to aggregate low-density biomassBiomass is a complex biological organic or non-organic solid product derived from living or recently living organism and available naturally. Various types of wastes such as animal manure, waste paper, sludge and many industrial wastes are also treated as biomass because like natural biomass these More from multiple sources, process it at a centralized facility, and then ship the resulting biochar to multiple buyers—often eroding both carbon benefits and economic viability.

Stark is currently spearheading a new model, supported by funding from the US Forest Service, that tests a hyper-localized approach. The premise is simple: eliminate the supply chain. Instead of moving biomass to a plant, mobile units process biomass on-site, and the resulting biochar is applied directly to the same landscape. This pioneering work is indicative of why the Biochar On Site movement has gained such traction—it fundamentally re-centers the value of carbon removal in the landscape itself.

“We call it the ‘Do No Harm’ model,” Stark said. “We aren’t selling biochar. We are selling the service of forest health and carbon sequestration. The char never leaves the property.”

This model utilizes a single landowner agreement that covers the entire chain of custody, dramatically simplifying the verification process. By completing the production and application in “days instead of weeks, months, or years,” the project accelerates the timeline for carbon credit generation.

For investors, this represents a shift from a commodity-based revenue model (selling bags of char) to a service-based and credit-based model. The revenue generated from carbon credits is reinvested to fund further forest health projects, creating an economic flywheel. Stark emphasizes that this is particularly relevant for the “long tail” of small forest landowners who hold vast amounts of biomass but lack the scale to participate in traditional timber markets, much less emerging carbon markets.

Hardware Evolution: Human-Centered Design

As the industry moves toward decentralized, on-site production, Stark underscores that no single kiln design fits every use case. Forestry-scale systems—including Ring of Fire and other large box-style kilns as well as air curtain burners like the Carbonizer and CharBoss—are effective and appropriate tools for forestry contexts, while other settings may benefit from equipment designed for even greater portability and ease of deployment.

“We are seeing an emerging demand for what I call ‘WUI-appropriate’ and ‘demo-friendly’ hardware,” Stark observed. “WUI-appropriate systems are designed for wildfire urban interface settings, because if it takes a team, a toolbox, or a machine to set up or move, you’ve lost the small landowner.”

Stark’s innovations in this space focus on tool-less assembly and compact footprints that fit within standard “campfire” regulations (typically 3 feet by 2 feet) as well as local burn pile size limits. To meet growing interest in the kilns she designed and was using in demos, Stark founded FlameWise, producing smaller units that allow for biochar production in urban-adjacent areas or locations with strict burn regulations, effectively democratizing access to the technology.

Furthermore, Stark is a strong proponent of human-centered design in hardware. She points to features such as lower kiln heights (e.g., 30 inches) that allow operators to step inside the unit to easily create the interior soil seal on the bottom. At the same time, the design lets people load the kiln from the outside with minimal lifting of feedstockFeedstock refers to the raw organic material used to produce biochar. This can include a wide range of materials, such as wood chips, agricultural residues, and animal manure. More, making it easier on the body for everyone, whether young, old, or somewhere in between. “It’s about ergonomics,” she said. “If we want widespread adoption, we can’t expect everyone to be a firefighter. We need equipment that fits in a standard vehicle and can be deployed by a single person. That bridges the gap between backyard hobbyists and industrial operations.”

The Data Layer and Carbon Accounting

Underpinning these physical and economic systems is what Stark and others in the field refer to as the “data layer.” In decentralized systems, the strength of the data layer is determined by the consistency and accuracy of measurement and reporting.

“If you can’t measure it, you can’t monetize it,” says Stark. She highlighted mobile apps like CHARR, which can be used in the field—even in remote locations without cell phone reception—to document and track feedstock, kiln operations, and biochar application, adding a quantifiable layer of value to the environmental and community benefits of biochar production.

Stark also emphasized the importance of partnerships with organizations specializing in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), highlighting the Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM), the project’s primary grantee, which is conducting the LCA for the grant. These collaborations ensure that carbon accounting is grounded in rigorous methodology. By integrating real-time data collection into the workflow of forestry professionals, the industry can validate the sequestration impact of even small-scale burns while building on the broader co-benefits of sustainable biomass management.

The Ecosystem Is the Product

Korina Stark’s perspective offers a necessary corrective to the biochar industry’s tech-centric tendencies. We are at an inflection point where the focus must broaden from the furnace to the field, and from the molecule to the market mechanism. The “Full Stack” approach recognizes that a successful biochar project is not just about pyrolysisPyrolysis is a thermochemical process that converts waste biomass into bio-char, bio-oil, and pyro-gas. It offers significant advantages in waste valorization, turning low-value materials into economically valuable resources. Its versatility allows for tailored products based on operational conditions, presenting itself as a cost-effective and efficient More; it is about navigating the complex interplay of fire codes, carbon protocols, forestry management, and user experience.

For the buyer, this means looking for suppliers who understand the provenance and ecological impact of their material. For the investor, it means backing companies that have solved the “soft” problems of policy and business model as effectively as they have solved the “hard” problems of engineering.

“The ecosystem is the product,” Stark concluded. “If we treat biochar as a system rather than just a thing in a bag, we can move beyond pilot projects and actually ignite a scalable solution for carbon removal.”