Search Climate Insights Directory

In 2025, Europe transitioned toward commercial-scale CCS deployment, marked by the first fully operational value chain at Norway's Brevik cement plant. While ten projects reached final investment decisions (FID) between December 2024 and October 2025—adding approximately 4 Mt CO2/year of capture and 14 Mt CO2/year of storage capacity—deployment remains far below the trajectories needed for 2040 and 2050 climate targets. Progress is heavily reliant on blended finance and corporate carbon dioxide removal (CDR) offtake agreements, particularly with Microsoft. Geographically, CCS is expanding from Northern European hubs into Southern and Central & Eastern Europe, with new projects in Spain, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Hungary. Policy advancements include the Net-Zero Industry Act's 2030 injection target and Germany's 2025 legislation classifying CO2 transport and storage as projects of overriding public interest.

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 criticizes the EU's proposed 2040 climate target for relying on international carbon credits and including 'flexibilities' that weaken domestic ambition. The author calls for a strict domestic emissions reduction target, the exclusion of credits from the EU ETS, and the prevention of delays to the ETS2 system for buildings and road transport. The document also warns against using natural disturbances in forestry as a justification to lower overall climate targets.

The report argues that temporary CRCF units from carbon farming are currently of low quality due to insufficient management of non-permanence and additionality risks, making them unsuitable for offsetting emissions. It assesses proposed EU agri-food policies—including an Agricultural Emissions Trading System (AgETS) and Mandatory Climate Standards (MCS)—concluding that allowing these units as offsets would undermine environmental integrity. The authors recommend shifting toward activity-based payments, either through a reformed Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) or other public funding mechanisms, to promote carbon farming without the integrity risks associated with result-based crediting.

The document argues for a shift from the 'compensation' model of carbon offsetting to a 'contribution' model known as beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM). It examines several climate impact funds—including 1% for the Planet, Frontier, and Milkywire—finding that while they generally support high-impact climate action and avoid misleading neutrality claims, there is a systemic need for clearer BVCM metrics and more explicit guidance on corporate claims to prevent greenwashing.

The document challenges the narrative that carbon credits drive corporate climate ambition, asserting that existing studies showing a correlation between credit use and decarbonisation suffer from methodological flaws, including sample bias and confounding factors. It highlights risks such as the 'investment effect' and 'target effect,' where credits compete with or substitute for internal abatement. The brief recommends that companies, regulators, and standard setters treat carbon credits only as complementary contributions (Beyond Value Chain Mitigation) and maintain a strict firewall between credit use and internal emission reduction targets.

The document outlines expert perspectives on how climate damages exacerbate inequality and identifies three primary equity risks associated with carbon dioxide removal (CDR): moral hazard, the use of removed CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, and negative social or environmental impacts.

The report argues that tropical forests must be transitioned from being viewed as climate risks to central climate solutions. Based on an assessment of 91 countries, it highlights that restoring areas deforested since 2001 could capture up to 49 GtCO2. To achieve this, the authors propose the Reversing Deforestation Mechanism (RDM), a results-based financial tool designed to reward net carbon removals at the jurisdictional level. RDM is intended to complement existing frameworks like Jurisdictional REDD+ (JREDD+) and the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF). At a carbon price of US$ 50 per ton, the RDM could remove up to 2 GtCO2 annually, potentially closing 11–13% of the 2035 emissions gap and generating US$ 100 billion in annual revenues.

The document explains that limiting global warming to 1.5°C will likely involve 'temperature overshoot', where targets are exceeded before returning to lower levels. Such overshoot increases the risk of triggering irreversible climate tipping points, such as the transformation of the Amazon rainforest into a savanna. The author argues that relying on large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) or geoengineering to correct overshoot is risky and uncertain, emphasizing that immediate, deep emissions cuts are the only reliable way to maintain a habitable planet. It also introduces the concept of 'positive socio-economic tipping points' as a strategic means to accelerate the transition to net zero.

The author contends that the EU's CRCF framework relies on unscientific methodologies and lacks social safeguards, potentially fueling 'green-grabbing' and land inequality. The document further criticizes the proposed next phase of the CAP for lacking a ringfenced budget for environmental action and granting member states too much autonomy, which may lead to a 'race to the bottom' regarding environmental safeguards. It concludes that carbon and nature credits are unsuitable tools for ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers.

The statement critiques the 'like-for-like' principle in climate policy, which suggests matching the atmospheric lifetime or carbon cycle of emissions with corresponding removal types. The author contends that this logic allows industries to use cheap, temporary, and vulnerable removals to avoid deep emission cuts. It specifically highlights the danger of offsetting methane emissions with temporary storage, noting that methane has a permanent climate impact as it breaks down into CO2. The document also discusses the EU Green Claims Directive, noting a divide between the European Parliament's preference for permanent removals for fossil emissions and the more permissive stance of the European Commission and Council. The author concludes that all residual emissions should be balanced only by high-quality removals that lock away CO2 for centuries or millennia.

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 argues that tropical forests should be central to climate strategies, moving from being viewed as a risk to a solution. It analyzes 91 countries, categorizing them by forest cover and deforestation rates, and concludes that forest protection and restoration are compatible with economic growth. To address the funding gap for restoration, the authors propose the Reversing Deforestation Mechanism (RDM), a jurisdictional, results-based payment system for net carbon removals. RDM is designed to complement existing tools like JREDD+ and the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF). Simulations suggest that at a carbon price of US$ 50 per ton, RDM could generate significant annual revenues and remove up to 2 GtCO2 per year globally in its early stages.

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.

As of September 2025, 1,935 entities have net-zero targets, though the overall credibility of these commitments remains low, with only a small fraction of companies, regions, and cities meeting robustness criteria.

As federal support for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) faces rollbacks, U.S. states are positioned to advance direct air capture (DAC) by aligning specific technology types with local assets. The report identifies a diverse range of DAC technologies—from fully electric systems to those requiring high-temperature heat—and maps them to state-level opportunities. For example, California's geothermal resources and Texas's renewable curtailment and CO2 infrastructure offer distinct advantages. While some states like Washington and Texas are suited for large-scale sequestration, others like Massachusetts can serve as innovation hubs for waste-heat recovery and CO2 utilization. The document emphasizes that maximizing climate benefit requires pairing DAC with low-carbon energy to avoid eroding net removals.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor reveals that major companies are increasing their use of carbon removals, often relying on low-quality, non-permanent solutions without sufficient transparency. The report highlights issues of double-counting between corporations and governments and argues that carbon removals are being used as a 'licence to pollute' rather than as a supplement to essential emissions cuts.

The report argues that only durable CDR, which stores carbon for millennia, can effectively neutralise residual fossil fuel emissions, yet private sector uptake remains low and concentrated among a few tech companies. It warns that some firms use CDR to avoid deep emission reductions and notes a lack of transparency regarding the social and environmental impacts of supported projects. The document recommends that governments regulate CDR and that voluntary standards require companies to set separate targets for emission reductions and durable CDR support.