Search Climate Insights Directory

The report analyzes the potential for California to meet its 2045 CDR target of 75 MMT CO2e by diversifying its portfolio with Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) systems. Using seven scenarios based on cost and social acceptance, the study finds that BiCRS can remove between 13 and 75 MMT CO2e annually. Scenarios utilizing high biomass availability estimates show that BiCRS alone could meet the state's target, potentially reducing costs and increasing bioenergy and job production by up to 10 times compared to the DAC-heavy 2022 Scoping Plan. However, scenarios with limited forest biomass availability fail to meet the target. The report highlights a trade-off between optimizing biomass for CDR versus sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production and recommends expanding the state's CDR portfolio beyond hydrogen-based BECCS.

The report explores the potential of Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) to help California meet its 2045 CDR target of 75 MMT CO2e. By modeling seven scenarios based on cost and social acceptance, the analysis finds that BiCRS could potentially meet the entire target under high biomass availability estimates without competing with food production. The report highlights that while lower-cost pathways rely on established technologies like combustion with CCS, higher social acceptance pathways require advanced technologies such as pyrolysis and gasification. BiCRS is projected to generate significantly more bioenergy and jobs than the current direct air capture (DAC)-focused Scoping Plan.

The document identifies a significant funding and deployment gap for carbon removal, estimating a need for at least 100 megatons per annum (Mtpa) and $20 billion per year by 2035. It proposes a government-led Advance Market Commitment (AMC) as a mechanism to guarantee future markets, reduce costs through economies of scale, and harmonize global standards. The paper provides a design framework for such an AMC, covering product eligibility, procurement processes, and cross-border funding, while outlining the complementary roles of corporations, philanthropy, NGOs, and academia.

The report examines the ecological and human rights risks associated with atmosphere-based, marine, and land-based geoengineering. It argues that these speculative interventions could trigger ecosystem collapse, exacerbate ocean acidification, and violate the rights of millions, particularly Indigenous Peoples and rural communities. The author advocates for the enforcement of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity's moratorium on geoengineering and a shift toward proven climate solutions.

The analysis compares four scenarios for Africa's emissions: Business-as-usual (BAU), Net-zero by 2050 (NZ50), Net-zero by 2070 (NZ70), and Net-zero by 2100 (NZ100). While all net-zero pathways see renewables become the dominant energy source and a sharp fall in fossil fuel reliance, the timing of the transition creates significant trade-offs. The NZ50 scenario achieves the fastest emissions decline, reaching -0.33 GtCO₂/yr by 2050, but incurs the highest marginal abatement cost (averaging $78 per ton of CO₂) and causes the most disruption to food systems, including a 31% contraction in cropland and a near doubling of staple food prices. All net-zero scenarios rely on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which shifts water demand from agriculture to the energy sector. Regional challenges vary, with Western Africa facing steep decarbonization due to oil and gas reliance, and Southern Africa managing a coal-dependent system.

The report finds that while durable CDR (storage >1,000 years) is essential for neutralizing fossil emissions, corporate uptake is low and concentrated among a few companies, notably Microsoft. Many companies instead rely on non-durable CDR, which the authors argue is unsuitable for neutralizing long-cycle emissions. The report highlights risks of double counting between companies and governments and a systemic lack of transparency regarding the environmental and social impacts of CDR projects. It recommends that voluntary initiatives like SBTi require companies to set separate monetary and removal targets based on ability to pay, rather than merging them into net-zero goals.

The policy brief by Carbon Market Watch and Oeko-Institut criticizes the draft CRCF methodologies for permanent carbon removals, citing critical failures in additionality, biomass accounting, and long-term monitoring. It argues that the current framework risks certifying low-quality units that do not represent actual emission reductions, potentially undermining EU climate action.

Drax power station is the UK's largest carbon emitter, with 2024 emissions of 13.3 million tonnes of CO2e, a 16% increase over the previous year. Despite the complete phase-out of coal power in September 2024, biomass and gas plants continue to dominate the top emitter rankings. Drax is projected to remain the largest emitter through 2030, even with planned subsidy cuts starting in 2027. Other significant emitters include Port Talbot Steelworks and Pembroke gas power station, while carbon capture deployment across the UK's largest industrial sites has seen limited progress.

The document outlines the structure of the EU's Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) certification framework and its associated methodologies for permanent removals, carbon farming, and carbon storage in products. It highlights the 'QU.A.L.ITY' criteria used for certification and expresses concern that the EU Carbon Removals Expert Group (CREG) is dominated by industry lobbyists, prompting Carbon Market Watch to commission independent expert reviews of the draft methodologies published in April 2025.

The European Commission's proposed net 90% emissions reduction target for 2040 is criticized by Carbon Market Watch for being inadequate and lacking accountability. The analysis highlights risks associated with the potential use of international carbon credits, the absence of separate targets for gross emissions and removals, and the proposed integration of permanent removals into the EU ETS, which may create loopholes for polluters.

Ember's submission to the Independent Review of Greenhouse Gas Removals warns against overreliance on Power BECCS, citing significant delays at the Drax power station, technological uncertainty, and high costs to consumers. The document highlights that Drax's BECCS project has been delayed to the early 2030s despite substantial public subsidies and that the technology's carbon neutrality is scientifically contested. Ember notes a 60.1% decrease in estimated residual emissions to be balanced by engineered removals between the 6th and 7th Carbon Budgets. It further argues that Power BECCS creates a dangerous dependence on imported biomass, with over 99% of Drax's 2024 wood pellets being imported, primarily from North America. The report recommends winding down Drax subsidies after 2031 and prioritising decarbonisation of easier-to-abate sectors like power, buildings, and transport.

The report finds that current EU ETS cap trajectories are more ambitious than required by most climate neutrality scenarios, potentially leading to severe allowance shortages and price spikes after 2035. It evaluates several reform options to balance supply and demand, including adjusting the linear reduction factor (LRF), reforming the Market Stability Reserve (MSR), and integrating carbon dioxide removals (CDRs). The authors warn against the inclusion of Article 6 international credits due to risks to environmental integrity and the potential for market collapse. Recommended solutions include a combination of MSR replenishment and technological CDRs or a phased reduction of the LRF post-2035.

The report outlines the commercial and climate imperatives for heavy industries to adopt carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. It identifies synergies where industrial waste, infrastructure, and expertise can accelerate the scale-up of biogenic, geochemical, and synthetic CDR. The document provides a framework for monetization through carbon credits, green premiums, and government incentives, while warning against 'mitigation deterrence'—the risk that CDR replaces essential decarbonization efforts.

The UK government has announced a new subsidy package for Drax Power Station for 2027-2031 that is expected to reduce its electricity generation by 55% and lower its annual emissions to approximately 5.8 MtCO2e. While the strike price for the new Contract for Difference (CfD) mechanism increases to £113/MWh, the overall subsidy is estimated to fall to around £1.2 million per day. The report highlights that Drax remains the UK's largest emitting power station and relies heavily on imported wood pellets, primarily from North America. It argues that delivering 'Clean Power 2030' through wind, solar, and energy storage will further reduce the need for biomass and mitigate the risks associated with delayed and expensive Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) projects.

The report details how climate change drives biodiversity loss through mechanisms like ocean acidification and species range shifts, while biodiversity loss weakens the planet's carbon sinks. It critically assesses 'false solutions'—including monoculture tree plantations, carbon offsetting, and geoengineering—arguing that these policies often cause further ecological damage and land grabbing. The document calls for a systemic shift toward agroecology, energy sufficiency, and the protection of Indigenous Peoples' land rights to address the polycrisis holistically.

The document analyzes how climate change accelerates biodiversity loss and how the loss of ecosystems further destabilizes the climate. It critiques 'false solutions' such as monoculture tree plantations, carbon offsets, and geoengineering, arguing they often cause more harm than good. The report calls for a systemic shift toward agroecology, community-led energy transitions, and the protection of Indigenous rights.

The report argues that the U.S. needs approximately 1 billion metric tons of permanent CDR annually by 2050 to reach net zero, but current policies are insufficient. It introduces an Innovation Technology Framework that categorizes technology development into R&D, Early Output, and Commercialization stages, each requiring different policy levers: lowering costs, improving access to finance, reducing project development time, and removing ecosystem barriers. The authors recommend tripling DOE CDR R&D funding, implementing a technology-neutral production tax credit for the Early Output phase, and transitioning toward long-term regulatory drivers like a carbon takeback obligation or removals trading system. Key ecosystem recommendations include establishing an interagency task force for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) and streamlining EPA Class VI well permitting to 12 months.

The document identifies significant gaps in Poland's draft updated NECP, arguing that the current 'with additional measures' (WAM) scenario is too limited and fails to meet the EU's 55% greenhouse gas reduction target. It recommends diversifying the clean energy portfolio to include clean firm power, prioritising clean hydrogen for hard-to-abate industrial sectors rather than light-duty transport or grid blending, and streamlining the regulatory framework for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Additionally, it highlights Poland's vast CO2 storage potential (over 15 Gt) and urges the government to implement Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD) to de-risk CCS investments. The report also calls for a dedicated Methane Action Plan to address significant emissions from the oil, gas, and coal sectors, and suggests increasing R&D spending to 3% of GDP by 2030.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that enable big polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing land grabbing and human rights violations in the Global South. It details how carbon credits are generated from nature-based solutions and 'techno-fixes', warns communities about deceptive contracts and the failure of industry 'safeguards', and provides a framework for resistance based on climate justice and the right to say no.

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' designed by polluters to maintain profitable systems of capitalism and neocolonialism. It explains how carbon credits are generated through nature-based solutions (NBS) and technological fixes, which often lead to land grabbing and the violation of indigenous rights. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify 'red flags' in contracts, exercise their right to say no, and employ strategies of international solidarity to oppose the commodification of nature.