Leaning on Uncertainty

The report finds that European governments are increasingly integrating carbon dioxide removals (CDR) into their climate strategies, often as a substitute for deep emission reductions. Analysis of the European Commission and six countries reveals a pattern of 'overreliance,' characterized by fragmented planning, a lack of feasibility assessments for engineered removals, and land-sink projections that ignore climate risks or contradict existing forestry policies. The report warns that betting on uncertain future technologies and unstable land sinks risks delaying essential decarbonization and undermining climate targets.

• All reviewed jurisdictions—the European Commission, Austria, Finland, France, Italy, Ireland, and Norway—demonstrate shortcomings in their CDR strategies, with none presenting a fully credible, transparently governed, or robustly assessed strategy.
• There is a widespread lack of transparency and consolidation in CDR planning; governments often conflate carbon removals with fossil carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) under broad labels like 'CCUS'.
• Many countries rely on engineered CDR volumes without conducting critical feasibility assessments regarding biomass supply, energy demand, or geological storage infrastructure.
• Ireland and France show significant early reliance on engineered removals for near-term targets, despite evidence that the necessary technologies and storage will not be available at scale by 2030.
• Land-sink projections are frequently overly optimistic and contradicted by actual policy; for example, France and Finland have seen sharp declines in their land sinks while continuing policies that increase wood harvesting.
• National land-sink models often ignore climate-driven risks such as wildfires, pests, and droughts, or rely on physically implausible interventions.
• There is a structural vulnerability in the reliance on international CO2 storage, particularly in Norway and the North Sea, as multiple countries compete for limited capacity that is poorly assessed.
• Italy's climate strategy is noted for inverting the climate mitigation hierarchy by prioritizing offsetting and removals over structural changes to consumption and production.

APA

Orth, D. (2026). Leaning on Uncertainty. Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Leaning-on-Uncertainty_Comparative-Analysis_CMW-1-combined.pdf

Chicago

Orth, Daniel. Leaning on Uncertainty. Carbon Market Watch, 2026. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Leaning-on-Uncertainty_Comparative-Analysis_CMW-1-combined.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Orth |first1=Daniel |title=Leaning on Uncertainty |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=April 2026 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Leaning-on-Uncertainty_Comparative-Analysis_CMW-1-combined.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{orth2026leaning, author = {Orth, Daniel}, title = {{Leaning on Uncertainty}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2026}, month = apr, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Leaning-on-Uncertainty_Comparative-Analysis_CMW-1-combined.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }