Search Climate Insights Directory

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finds that the tech sector is facing a "climate strategy crisis" as soaring energy demands from AI and the use of outdated market-based accounting methodologies undermine the integrity of corporate climate targets. While some companies like Google and Microsoft are pioneering 24/7 hourly renewable electricity matching, others like Amazon and Meta advocate for looser accounting rules through the Emissions First Partnership. The analysis reveals that absolute location-based emissions for all five companies increased from 2019 to 2023, and critical transitions—such as decarbonising third-party data centres and hardware supply chains—remain largely neglected or poorly reported.

The report analyzes the first 149 companies to adopt SBTi FLAG targets, finding that while uptake is rapid—particularly in Europe and the food and beverage sector—mitigation plans are uneven. Most companies focus on agricultural emissions reduction and food waste, but few engage in forest management or biochar. The report highlights the role of FLAG targets in accelerating no-deforestation commitments and identifies the need for more robust transition plans as target deadlines approach.

The brief argues that agrochemical use and misuse are increasing across Africa due to corporate profit motives, weak regulation, and climate change, posing severe risks to human health and the environment. It recommends strengthening governance, increasing investment in agroecology, and leveraging financial tools to reduce synthetic chemical dependence.

The report evaluates the integration of permanent carbon removals—specifically BioCCS and DACCS—into the EU ETS. It identifies a critical tension: while direct integration can drive deployment and maintain market liquidity as the emissions cap approaches zero, it risks 'abatement deterrence' where removals substitute for necessary emissions reductions. The authors warn that without supply controls, BioCCS deployment could exceed sustainable biomass limits, potentially harming biodiversity and LULUCF carbon sinks. To mitigate these risks, the report recommends a gradual integration strategy that maintains the gross emissions cap, implements technology-specific supply controls, and introduces differentiated allowances. It also emphasizes that the EU ETS alone is likely insufficient to incentivize high-cost technologies like DACCS or to achieve net-negative emissions post-2050, necessitating additional public funding tools and long-term policy frameworks.

The document defines carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as the physical extraction and permanent storage of atmospheric CO2. It argues that CDR must supplement, not substitute, deep emission reductions of over 90%. The handbook evaluates six negative emissions technologies and practices (NETPs)—biochar, BioCCS, DACCS, enhanced weathering, afforestation/reforestation, and soil carbon sequestration—detailing their technical readiness, permanence, and environmental trade-offs. It emphasizes the need for robust 'cradle-to-grave' carbon accounting, separate targets for reductions and removals to avoid mitigation deterrence, and the integration of the Planetary Boundaries framework to ensure Earth system stability. The text also critiques current EU legislation, such as the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), for lacking ambition and failing to distinguish between permanent and temporary storage.

The document defines carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as the physical extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere and its permanent storage. It argues that CDR must be a complement to, not a substitute for, aggressive emission reductions (over 90%). The guide evaluates six negative emissions technologies and practices (NETPs)—including Bio-CCS, DACCS, and biochar—while critiquing current EU policies for failing to distinguish between permanent removals and temporary biological sequestration. It advocates for a diversified portfolio of CDR methods, rigorous life-cycle accounting, and a governance framework based on the 'planetary boundaries' to avoid ecological trade-offs.

The author contends that temporary carbon sequestration, such as carbon farming, is unsuitable for market-based mechanisms because it cannot store CO2 for the century-long timeframe required to meet Paris Agreement goals. The text criticizes the EU's proposed Carbon Removal Certification Framework for failing to exclude offsetting and double counting, while highlighting the technical inaccuracies of current monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) techniques. Instead of 'nature credits', the document proposes rewarding sustainable land management through a reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and a dedicated EU fund for nature restoration.

Brazil is positioned as a potential global leader in green steel due to high-quality iron ore and vast renewable energy resources, though its industry remains heavily reliant on coal-based blast furnaces. While the country leads in biochar use, a full transition requires shifting to electric arc furnaces (EAF) and green hydrogen-based direct reduced iron (DRI). The report emphasizes that strategic policy and the upcoming COP30 summit are critical to overcoming the longevity of existing coal-based infrastructure and the high capital costs of new technologies.

The document introduces "climate-beneficial bioenergy," a concept developed by the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) to distinguish modern, climate-positive bioenergy from conventional systems that may cause deforestation or disrupt food supplies. To be climate-beneficial, systems must couple biomass with engineered processes to permanently store carbon, potentially achieving net carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The author argues these systems are essential for hard-to-decarbonize sectors and for counterbalancing residual emissions in sectors like agriculture. Key attributes include using waste streams, non-food crops on marginal land, or forest thinnings, and employing technologies such as gasification or pyrolysis with carbon capture and storage (CCS). The document emphasizes the need for lifecycle assessments and policy safeguards to prevent detrimental environmental and social impacts.

The document provides a legislative side-by-side analysis of the Community Wood Grant Program, detailing how the House version of the Farm Bill proposes to rename the program, increase project funding caps, expand the capacity of energy systems, and increase the funding allocation for innovative wood product facilities compared to current law.

The report outlines the development of updated eligibility criteria for agriculture production (crop and livestock) under the Climate Bonds Standard. It establishes a science-based framework for transition finance, focusing on absolute intensity pathways to reach net-zero by 2050. The document details mitigation strategies, including the reduction of methane and nitrous oxide and the enhancement of carbon sequestration, while introducing safeguards for adaptation, biodiversity, water, and animal welfare.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) proposes 'ecosystem carbon management' to encompass both conventional biological carbon storage and novel technological approaches. Conventional methods, such as sustainable forestry and agricultural practices, provide immediate mitigation potential but face risks of reversal. Novel approaches, including enhanced rock weathering, ocean alkalinity enhancement, and biochar, aim for permanent storage over centuries or millennia. The document argues for a balanced deployment of these tools and the development of policy structures to provide financial incentives and safeguards for these emerging technologies.

The paper examines the current state and future potential of land-based mitigation technologies (LMTs) in China, noting that while forestry is well-integrated into policy, other sectors like agriculture, grasslands, and wetlands remain underexploited. It argues that land-based sequestration has not been prioritized as much as energy or industry and suggests that reaching net-zero by 2060 will require improved policy frameworks, standardized procedures, and enhanced technical capacity.

The report finds that while China has significant potential for land-based climate mitigation, efforts have historically focused on energy and industry, with forestry being the only land sector with comprehensive targets. Agriculture, grasslands, and wetlands remain underexploited, hampered by a lack of standardized methodologies and a prioritization of food security over carbon sequestration. The relaunch of the China Certified Emission Reduction (CCER) scheme in 2023 offers a potential funding mechanism, though it is currently limited to forestry.

The document identifies rice cultivation, animal husbandry, and synthetic fertilizers as the primary sources of on-farm emissions in the Greater Mekong Subregion, accounting for 63% of the region's 1.1 Gt CO2-eq emissions in 2020. It highlights barriers to the adoption of low-emission innovations, including food insecurity, knowledge gaps, lack of training, and insufficient policy support. The briefing proposes high-impact solutions such as the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), direct-seeded rice, precision livestock feeding, and site-specific nutrient management, while recommending policy interventions like targeted subsidies, verifiable emission targets, and the establishment of multi-stakeholder learning networks.

The document examines the ecological and human rights risks of various geoengineering approaches, asserting that these speculative technologies could lead to ecosystem collapse and perpetuate neocolonialism.

The authors provide a classification of land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs), identifying afforestation, reforestation, and forest management as having high potential worldwide. While bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and biochar are more viable in higher-income countries due to funding and technology, the broader deployment of LMTs is hindered by insufficient financing and limited implementation knowledge. The text emphasizes that large-scale deployment must account for gender and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and marginalised groups to avoid increasing inequalities.

The research identifies 'understanding', 'awareness', and 'economic/finance' as the primary capacity gaps for land-based mitigation technologies and practices (LMTs) across five global regions. The authors suggest that addressing knowledge and understanding gaps is a critical first step to increase stakeholder attraction to LMTs. To support scaling, the paper recommends that policymakers develop dedicated support policies and regulatory frameworks, build markets, utilize carbon markets, and collaborate with local and Indigenous Peoples using bottom-up implementation plans and traditional knowledge.

The study identifies biochar as a viable land-based mitigation technology in Colombia, estimating that 10% of agricultural residual biomass could be converted to biochar, with each tonne avoiding 1 to 2.2 t of CO2eq over 100 years. However, production is hindered by high investment costs and inadequate policies, with raw feedstock costs accounting for 33% to 74% of total expenses depending on the pyrolysis technology used.