Search Climate Insights Directory

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) has established a Land & Climate Program to address the complexities of land competition and its role as both a source and sink of greenhouse gas emissions. The program focuses on three pillars: Ecosystem-Based Carbon Removal, Climate-Beneficial Bioenergy, and Land-Smart Clean Energy Deployment. CATF intends to create a global hub of scholars and organizations to map land conflicts and develop solutions. While currently most active in the U.S., the program is expanding into Europe and focusing on forested areas in the Global South. To implement these strategies, CATF is seeking $2.5 million per year for the next three years.

The document argues that large-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) is essential for the EU to reach climate neutrality by 2050, with estimates suggesting a need to capture between 490 and 600 million tonnes of CO2 annually by that date. It highlights that current deployment is significantly below the required trajectory due to inadequate policies and a lack of storage sites outside the North Sea. The brief advocates for the development of shared CO2 transport and storage 'hubs' and cross-border networks to reduce costs for industrial emitters, particularly in Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe. It specifically urges EU Member States to use the 2023-2024 NECP revision process to detail funding commitments, deployment targets, and storage capacity to align with the Net Zero Industry Act's target of 50 million tonnes of annual injection capacity by 2030.

The document argues that CCS is essential for decarbonising hard-to-abate industrial sectors like cement and steel and for achieving net-negative emissions after 2050. It details the technical process of capturing CO2 using amines or membranes and storing it in saline aquifers or depleted reservoirs at depths exceeding 800 metres. The text asserts that geological storage is permanent and safe, with projected annual leak rates as low as 0.0002% in regulated industries. While costs vary by source—ranging from under 90 euro per tonne for fertilisers to 700 euro for direct air capture—the document suggests that government support for shared infrastructure can drive down costs, similar to the trajectory of offshore wind. It highlights approximately 100 proposed projects in Europe, particularly around the North Sea, and notes that the EU may need to capture 300 to 600 million tonnes of CO2 annually by 2050.

Romania aims for climate neutrality by 2050 and a net greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 85% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. To achieve this, the country can leverage an estimated storage capacity of 22.6 Gt in saline aquifers and depleted hydrocarbon fields, which is sufficient to store nearly 330 years of combined point source emissions from Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Industrial sectors currently emit 10 million tons of fossil CO2 per year (Mtpa), representing 38% of total CO2 emissions, with power and heat (12.81 MtCO2/yr) and cement and lime (5.80 MtCO2/yr) being the largest point sources. Modelling indicates Romania will need storage capacity of 10 million tonnes annually by 2035, increasing to 15 million tonnes by 2050. Analysis of 92 emitters shows that over 50% are located within 10 km of potential storage resources. Under the Net Zero Industry Act, Romania's major oil and gas producers may be required to develop over 10 Mt of annual injection-ready CO2 storage capacity by 2030. The document recommends the rapid development of a dedicated CCS strategy, robust storage assessments, and the creation of funding mechanisms such as carbon contracts for difference to reduce investor risk.

The document argues that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is essential to counterbalance residual emissions to limit global warming to 1.5°C, requiring 20-660 gigatons of net negative CO2 emissions until 2100. It emphasizes the need for high-quality certification to ensure environmental protection and reliability, highlighting the EU's proposed Certification Framework for Carbon Removals (CRCF) as a regulatory tool to monitor, report, verify, and certify removal activities across three categories: permanent carbon storage, carbon farming, and carbon storage in products.

Europe is redefining carbon capture as a strategic building block for its 2050 climate neutrality goals, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel. While the region is shifting toward an infrastructure hub model to achieve economies of scale—with projects like Northern Lights in Norway and Porthos in the Netherlands—deployment remains slow. The author contends that current funding instruments and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) are insufficient on their own, calling for bold, per-ton deployment subsidies similar to those used for renewables or the US 45Q tax credit to accelerate commercial scale-up.

The policy brief recommends that Europe move beyond a heavy reliance on renewable energy and electrification by supporting a broader suite of technologies, including nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage. It analyses the U.S. policy framework—specifically the Energy Act of 2020, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—as a model for bridging the gap between R&D and large-scale commercial 'take-off'. Key recommendations for the EU include streamlining regulations, providing 'self-activating' incentives, and proactively planning shared infrastructure for CO2 and hydrogen to reduce investor risk and accelerate deployment.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) argues that the EU must adopt a diversified, options-based climate strategy to reach its 2050 net-zero goal, as relying on a single pathway increases risk. The document emphasizes the necessity of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, noting that no operational CO2 storage sites currently exist in the EU. CATF recommends a portfolio of zero-carbon fuels, nuclear fission, fusion, and superhot rock energy to ensure energy security and a reliable 24/7 carbon-free electricity grid. It specifically proposes separate targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions, nature-based removals, and industrial removals to ensure transparency and durability. Additionally, the document advises against including methane in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to avoid disincentivizing CO2 reductions, suggesting instead separate initiatives like an EU Import Standard for oil and gas.

The letter calls for the establishment of an annual EU CCUS Forum, a comprehensive European Strategy for CO2 capture, transport, and storage networks, targeted Innovation Fund support for CDR demonstration projects before 2030, and enhanced Horizon Europe funding to move CO2 technologies from research to industrial deployment.

The Clean Air Task Force calls on the European Commission to prioritise a Communication on the Strategic Vision on CCUS, arguing that a robust policy framework is essential for deploying critical infrastructure by 2030. The letter proposes that an EU CCS strategy should prioritise hard-to-electrify industrial processes, establish clear definitions for CCS, CCU, and CDR, and develop a publicly regulated, open-access CO2 infrastructure network while maintaining the 'polluter pays' principle via the EU ETS.

The undersigned authors express concern that a provisional agreement on RePowerEU would weaken the EU Innovation Fund by allowing Member States to use its grants (60%) and front-loading ETS allowances (40%) to raise revenues. They argue that reducing the fund contradicts the needs of Europe's industrial transformation, noting that the fund's first call in 2021 was oversubscribed by more than 20 times. The letter highlights that nearly 50% of emissions reductions needed for 2050 goals depend on technologies not yet deployed at scale, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors like cement, steel, and chemicals. The authors warn that while the United States is implementing massive investment plans, the EU risks losing its industrial base and jobs if it fails to lower the cost of next-generation decarbonisation technologies. Finally, they urge Member States to reject the European Commission's proposal to auction allowances from the Market Stability Reserve, as this could increase emissions and lower the carbon price signal.

The document argues for the urgent development of domestic geological CO2 storage in France to avoid long transport routes and high costs. It recommends implementing Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfD) to incentivize industrial adoption, accelerating the timeline for projects like Pycasso, and adopting a regulated infrastructure model similar to the UK's to ensure open access for diverse industrial emitters. While acknowledging CO2 utilization (CCU), it prioritizes permanent geological storage for maximum climate impact.

The document argues that NDCs must be guided by human rights obligations to be both legally compliant and more effective. It provides a comprehensive checklist for evaluating NDCs across nine key areas, including mitigation ambition, participatory planning, gender justice, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. The guide emphasizes that NDCs should include an urgent phase-out of fossil fuels, avoid reliance on carbon offsets or technological 'false solutions' like CCS, and ensure a just transition that protects labor rights and prevents mining-related human rights violations.

The document argues that human rights-based climate action is a legal obligation under the Paris Agreement and is more effective, as confirmed by the IPCC. It provides a comprehensive checklist for NDCs, emphasizing the need for a 1.5°C warming limit, the phase-out of fossil fuels, and the exclusion of carbon offsets and 'false technological solutions' like carbon capture and storage (CCS). The checklist details requirements for inclusive public participation, gender equality, the protection of indigenous peoples' rights—specifically free, prior and informed consent—and the implementation of a just transition. It also calls for debt-free international climate finance and robust monitoring systems that use disaggregated data by gender, age, and disability.

The document argues that human rights-based climate action is more effective and a legal obligation for all Parties to the Paris Agreement. It provides a comprehensive checklist for the preparation and evaluation of NDCs, covering mitigation ambition, participatory planning, gender justice, indigenous rights, just transition, adaptation, and accountability mechanisms.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) submits that the Article 6.4 mechanism must focus on near-term emissions reductions and the phase-out of fossil fuels rather than carbon removals. CIEL warns that relying on removals risks temperature overshoot beyond 1.5°C, which could lead to irreversible tipping points. The submission critiques land-based removals for their impermanence and limited capacity, and describes engineered removals like BECCS and DACCS as speculative technologies that threaten food sovereignty, land rights, and biodiversity. It further argues that Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) primarily serves to prolong fossil fuel reliance and has a history of underperformance. Finally, CIEL calls for the establishment of robust human rights safeguards and an independent grievance redress mechanism for all Article 6.4 activities.

The document provides a scientific and legal basis for the European Court of Human Rights to assess State due diligence regarding climate change. It emphasizes the urgency of limiting warming to 1.5°C to avoid irreversible damage and tipping points, noting that current global emissions trends are insufficient. It highlights severe health risks in Europe, including heat-related mortality, and argues that under the Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, States have a 'best efforts' obligation to pursue the highest possible ambition in emissions reductions. ClientEarth asserts that failure to meet international climate commitments constitutes a prima facie violation of human rights obligations, and that adaptation measures cannot substitute for necessary mitigation.

Climate Strategies' 2026-2029 strategy focuses on bridging the gap between research and policy to drive systemic climate change mitigation and adaptation. The organization identifies five strategic impact areas: transitioning oil- and gas-dependent economies, enhancing nature-based food systems, empowering the global majority, governing carbon and climate innovation technologies, and countering climate obstruction. To achieve these, the organization plans to transform its business model by enhancing horizon scanning, diversifying its membership, engaging the private sector through blended models, and strengthening its Secretariat's operational capacity.

The report finds that EU member states are failing to responsibly govern negative emissions, often relying on vulnerable land-based sinks that are declining due to climate impacts. It highlights a systemic lack of separate, binding targets for permanent CDR and a failure to clearly define 'residual emissions' that CDR is intended to balance. While some countries like Sweden and Germany have initiated research or funding for bio-CCS, the report argues that most plans lack feasibility assessments and conflate permanent removals with fossil-fuel-related carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Carbon Market Watch argues that current Article 6.2 rules are too minimal, creating a "Wild West framework" for international carbon markets. The briefing recommends mandatory authorisation statements for cooperative approaches, stricter definitions of 'first transfer' to prevent delayed reporting, and the prohibition of authorisation revocations to avoid double counting. For Article 6.4, it urges the CMA to provide guidance to the Supervisory Body on minimum durability standards for removals, science-based risk assessments for reversals, and more robust additionality requirements, including mandatory common practice analysis.