Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines how wastewater treatment plants can be transformed into carbon removal hubs by managing alkalinity and repurposing biosolids. It identifies two primary intervention categories: alkalinity management (including Wastewater Alkalinity Enhancement and Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement) and biosolids management (including biomass burial, biochar, supercritical water oxidation, and incineration with CCS). The document highlights synergies such as the safe destruction of PFAS and the use of existing pumping infrastructure to reduce capital and energy costs. Globally, the biogenic carbon in municipal wastewater represents a theoretical removal potential of 120–460 MtCO2 per year, though current treatment rates limit this to 70–260 MtCO2. Key barriers to scale include feedstock supply chain development, quantification challenges for carbon credits, and ecological risks.

The document argues that relying solely on voluntary corporate credits is insufficient for scaling CDR and proposes three diversified demand pathways: credit purchasing through government procurement and compliance markets, demand for differentiated low-carbon products enabled by carbon accounting and 'Buy Clean' policies, and 'flipping the script' by funding services where CDR is a co-product, such as wildfire prevention or waste management.

A joint statement by EEB, Carbon Market Watch, ECOS, and Bellona evaluating proposed carbon farming methodologies. While acknowledging minor improvements regarding risk profiles and operator liability, the group argues that the methodology remains flawed. Key concerns include the failure to mandate pesticide reductions, the lowering of uncertainty deduction factors, the lack of social safeguards against land speculation, and the omission of livestock methane emissions from associated emissions calculations.

Austria aims for climate neutrality by 2040, relying on industrial carbon removals (up to 6.3 Mt CO2eq) and land sinks, yet lacks a legally binding national climate law. While the 2024 Carbon Management Strategy (CMS) provides a transparent roadmap, significant delivery risks exist regarding the technical feasibility and timing of CO2 transport and storage infrastructure. Furthermore, there is high uncertainty regarding the long-term performance of the LULUCF sector and a lack of safeguards to prevent BECCS deployment from degrading the natural land sink.

Finland relies on Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), biochar, and land sinks to reach its 2035 carbon neutrality target, but faces significant delivery risks. The government has disregarded scientific advice from the Finnish Climate Change Panel to moderate logging levels to restore the declining land sink, which currently shows rising net emissions. While the government is pursuing BECCS, it lacks domestic geological storage and must rely on international transport and storage, which are constrained by limited capacity in Northern Europe. Furthermore, current financial allocations for BECCS are significantly lower than the estimated needs to achieve projected removal volumes.

The document examines Ireland's climate strategy, highlighting a systemic over-reliance on carbon dioxide removals (CDR) and afforestation to bridge gaps in emission reductions. It identifies significant delivery risks for industrial removals like BECCS, which may not be operational until the mid-2030s, and notes that afforestation targets are consistently missed. The report criticizes the lack of transparency regarding residual emissions and the potential for 'temperature neutrality' goals to lower overall climate ambition.

The document argues that Norway's climate strategy relies on uncertain land-sink removals and international offsets rather than feasible domestic emission reductions. It identifies systemic deficiencies in impact assessments, a lack of separate LULUCF targets beyond 2030, and a conflict of interest where geological storage sites are evaluated based on their potential to interfere with future petroleum activity. While some industrial removal projections are cautious, the report notes a lack of binding limits on international credits and significant gaps in biomass sustainability evaluations.

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.

A technical assessment of 25 BiCRS protocols reveals that only 28% are satisfactory, with 72% scoring below satisfactory. The report identifies critical flaws in greenhouse gas accounting, particularly regarding system boundaries, biomass production emissions, and the treatment of uncertainty. It recommends adopting comprehensive system boundaries, standardizing the treatment of biomass baselines, and implementing robust measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MMRV) to protect market and climate integrity.

The document explores Africa's potential to become a leader in synthetic carbon dioxide removal, particularly through direct air capture (DAC). It identifies the East African Rift, especially Kenya, as an ideal hub due to its abundant geothermal energy and basaltic rock formations suitable for permanent carbon mineralization. The report details current projects, such as Octavia Carbon's Project Hummingbird, and outlines necessary innovations in energy efficiency, geological storage, and project development to scale the industry. It also emphasizes the role of voluntary carbon markets and supportive regulatory frameworks in overcoming financing gaps for first-of-a-kind projects.

Carbon Market Watch and Fern call for the rejection of the CRCF Delegated Act for permanent removals, citing four primary flaws in BioCCS and biochar methodologies: insufficient consideration of biomass extraction's climate effects on land, lack of minimum capture rates for BioCCS, the use of zero baselines that ignore regulatory progress, and the failure to evaluate biomass feedstocks by carbon payback times. The authors warn that these deficiencies risk certifying projects that add emissions rather than removing them, potentially compromising the integrity of the EU ETS if these credits are integrated. They further criticize the vague rules and the potential for a 'race to the bottom' among certification bodies and auditors paid by operators.

The report examines the land-use intensity of various renewable energy sources and proposes dual-land-use systems—such as agrivoltaics and ecovoltaics—to mitigate land degradation and enhance biodiversity and food security. It emphasizes the need for cross-sectoral policy coordination, inclusive governance, and targeted finance to ensure the energy transition does not compromise land health or local livelihoods.

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 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 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.

The document examines the evolution of Climate Field Schools (CFS) in Indonesia, from their origins in pest management to their current role in delivering climate information via the Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysical Agency (BMKG). Drawing on the EECCLiRe project, it advocates for integrating ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) strategies—specifically agroforestry and biodigesters—into the CFS curriculum. It highlights the role of farmer cooperatives in facilitating certification, market access, and financial resilience, and suggests that combining climate forecasts with market data can empower farmers as sustainable agro-businesses.

A coalition of NGOs, including Carbon Market Watch, warns that the European Commission's draft delegated act for permanent carbon removals—covering DACCS, BioCCS, and biochar—fails to meet the legal requirements of the CRCF regulation. The group argues the methodologies are of low quality, fail to address indirect land use change, assume automatic additionality, and lack sufficient MRV and liability rules for biochar. They call on the European Parliament and Council to object to the draft and urge the Commission to prevent the integration of these units into the EU ETS until quality is ensured.

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.