Search Climate Insights Directory

The report concludes that all analyzed policy frameworks are inadequate for the robust deployment of carbon dioxide removals (CDR). Most frameworks fail to establish a clear firewall between emissions reductions and removals, often treating them as interchangeable through offsetting mechanisms. Key deficiencies include the absence of legally binding, separate CDR targets, the lack of a robust definition of CDR that ensures long-term permanence, and insufficient monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems. The authors recommend that CDR be strictly defined as a secondary climate function to balance residual emissions, supported by dedicated legal targets and rigorous accounting to prevent 'mitigation deterrence'.

The report assesses Europe's geological CO2 storage potential, estimating theoretical capacity between 262 and 1520 GtCO2. It compares 'Domestic' (widespread) and 'Export' (limited basins) storage scenarios against 'Prioritised' and 'Technical Potential' demand scenarios. While Europe has sufficient long-term theoretical capacity, current announced projects are insufficient for 2035 demand. The study highlights that widespread domestic storage significantly reduces transport CAPEX compared to export-heavy models, though some countries like Finland and Estonia lack suitable sedimentary basins.

The report assesses Europe's theoretical CO2 storage capacity, estimating it between 262 and 1520 GtCO2, and matches this against industrial and non-industrial CCS demand scenarios for 2035 and 2050. It compares 'Export' scenarios (limited key basins) with 'Domestic' scenarios (widespread storage), finding that while Europe has sufficient long-term theoretical capacity, current announced projects are insufficient for 2035 demand. The analysis highlights that widespread domestic storage could halve transport CAPEX costs compared to export-heavy models, though certain regions like Northern Italy, the German North Sea, and Switzerland may face capacity constraints under high-demand scenarios.

The report argues that current global crises—including climate change, biodiversity loss, and extreme inequality—are symptoms of a systemic failure driven by neoliberal capitalism and corporate power. It proposes five interconnected 'pathways' for systemic change: gender justice, a transition to democratically controlled renewable energy, food sovereignty through agroecology, community forest management, and a redistributive economy that prioritizes people and the planet over profit. The document emphasizes the need to dismantle the patriarchy, challenge corporate impunity through binding international treaties, and support the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities to manage their territories.

The report by Friends of the Earth International outlines a framework for systemic change to address the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and social inequality. It identifies neoliberal capitalism, patriarchy, and colonialism as the root causes of these crises and proposes 'people's solutions' centered on gender justice, democratic energy systems, food sovereignty, community forest management, and a distributive economy. The document emphasizes the need to dismantle corporate power and reclaim political agency to ensure a future based on social, environmental, and gender justice.

The report asserts that the EU cannot reach net zero by 2050 without large-scale deployment of CCUS, estimating a need to capture and store between 300 and 640 Mt of CO2 annually by 2050. It highlights a significant gap between current project announcements and the necessary infrastructure, particularly in CO2 transport and geological storage. The authors recommend that the European Commission establish clear targets, a regulatory framework for CO2 grids, and financial mechanisms like Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD) to de-risk investments. The document specifically identifies 'hard-to-abate' sectors—such as cement, steel, and waste-to-energy—as critical areas where CCUS is either the lowest-cost or only viable decarbonisation pathway. It also emphasizes the necessity of technology-based carbon dioxide removals (CDR) via BECCS and DACS to balance residual emissions.

A coalition of organizations urges the US government to maintain conservation funding, expand research into biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS), and accelerate the USDA's adoption of new conservation practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve soil carbon.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) presents a critical overview of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), asserting that the technology overpromises on emission reductions while introducing significant safety risks and high costs. The document highlights the 'energy penalty'—the extra energy required to power capture equipment—and notes that most existing projects are used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which can increase overall emissions. It warns that a large-scale CCS buildout in the United States would require an unrealistic and dangerous expansion of pipeline infrastructure. Furthermore, the text argues that CCS is unnecessary for 'hard to abate' industrial sectors, where electrification and demand reduction are more viable, and critiques 'blue hydrogen' as a means to prolong fossil fuel dependence. The document concludes that global capture capacity is negligible compared to total emissions and that public subsidies, such as the US 45Q tax credit, inappropriately support the fossil fuel economy.

The document argues that the World Bank Group's (WBG) proposed evolution is an 'expansion of business as usual' that fails to address systemic harms. The signatories demand an end to fossil fuel and industrial animal agriculture financing, a shift away from 'de-risking' private capital, and a democratization of governance to better serve the Global South. They specifically criticize the lack of focus on biodiversity loss, the continued use of the ICSID tribunal to protect corporate profits over climate action, and the Bank's failure to participate meaningfully in sovereign debt relief for climate-vulnerable countries.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU's proposed Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) must be strictly limited to permanent carbon removals to avoid 'mitigation deterrence'. The organization recommends prohibiting the use of certified removals for offsetting emissions in the EU ETS or ESR, excluding carbon farming and carbon storage in products due to their lack of permanence, and implementing stricter quality criteria for quantification and liability. It suggests that nature-based solutions should be funded via activity-based finance for biodiversity and soil health rather than through carbon removal metrics.

The document outlines Germany's shift toward adopting carbon management technologies, highlighting the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action's (BMWK) efforts to develop a national strategy and update the Carbon Dioxide Storage Act (KSpG). It emphasizes that achieving 2045 climate goals is not possible without these technologies and details several proposed CO2 pipeline and export projects intended to transport emissions to offshore storage sites in Norway and the Netherlands.

The report utilizes the REPO and E3ME-FTT:Power models to project China's power sector transition. Both models predict the eventual dominance of wind and solar power, though they differ on the specific technology mix and cost trajectories. The analysis emphasizes that market-based pricing and a robust Emission Trading System (ETS) are critical for supporting carbon neutrality goals, while highlighting the essential role of large-scale energy storage and carbon capture technologies to maintain system stability and reach net-zero emissions.

The document argues that carbon markets and offsets are 'false climate solutions' that fail to reduce emissions, allow major polluters to continue emitting, and facilitate land grabs and human rights violations, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, various voluntary and regional trading schemes, and provides a strategic framework for civil society to oppose these markets through policy advocacy, legal tactics, and community solidarity.

The document argues that carbon markets and offsetting mechanisms are ineffective 'false solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting while causing harm to ecosystems and communities, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, various regional and national carbon pricing initiatives, and provides strategies for civil society to resist these systems through advocacy, legal action, and community mobilization.

The document argues that carbon markets and emission offsets are ineffective at reducing emissions and instead serve as a distraction for major polluters while enabling extractivism and neocolonialism, particularly in the Global South. It details the mechanisms of the UNFCCC's Article 6, including the cooperative approaches of 6.2 and the UN-managed market of 6.4, as well as various regional and national systems in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The guide concludes by offering strategies for opposition, such as policy advocacy, community awareness, and legal challenges, while providing resources for tracking carbon projects.

The appendix describes the technical process for estimating the 'government plans and projections' (GPP) pathway using data from 19 major producer countries and deriving climate-consistent pathways from IPCC AR6 mitigation scenarios. It outlines the conversion of physical production data into energy and extraction-based GHG emission units and explains the scenario-filtering process used to exclude pathways with unrealistic reliance on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and carbon capture and storage (CCS). Additionally, it compares the 2023 findings with the 2021 assessment, noting a widening production gap for coal by 2030.

The report finds that most EU Member States cannot reach climate neutrality through natural sinks alone, with only Spain, Finland, and Sweden projected to have sinks of the necessary magnitude by 2050. While forestry is the primary focus of natural removals, there is a significant lack of attention to sink stability and other land-use categories. Technological solutions are discussed, with a clear preference for Carbon Capture and Storage/Utilization (CCS/CCU) over Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Capture (DAC), though distinctions between these technologies are often blurred in national strategies.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) based on environmental integrity, human rights, and binding government regulation of business. The organization rejects 'false solutions' such as offsetting, 'Nature Positive' concepts, and corporate self-regulation, arguing that these facilitate continued biodiversity loss. Key demands include the recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) as primary guardians of biodiversity, a transition from industrial agriculture to agroecology, and the provision of new, additional public financial resources for developing countries based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Friends of the Earth International calls for a Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) that prioritizes absolute biodiversity loss reversal, the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and strict government regulation of corporations. The organization rejects 'false solutions' such as biodiversity offsets, nature-based solutions used for carbon capture, and corporate self-regulation, while advocating for a transition to agroecology and the provision of new, additional public financial resources for developing countries.

Carbon Market Watch analyzes a leaked draft of the EU's Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), warning that the proposal fails to define permanent storage, lacks liability rules for carbon reversals, and ignores social safeguards. While the author notes positive environmental sustainability objectives, they argue the framework risks certifying temporary removals as permanent and could allow agricultural emission reductions to be mislabeled as removals, potentially undermining EU climate targets.