Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines various carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies, categorising them into natural/biotic and technological/abiotic approaches. It highlights the United States' leadership in the sector, supported by billions of dollars in public investment and tax incentives, while noting a significant gap between current trajectories and midcentury needs.

The RMI roadmap sets a target of 10 Gt CO2/y of durable technological carbon dioxide removal by 2050 and aims to advance non-CO2 greenhouse gas removal science to enable deployment decisions by the early 2030s.

The study finds that current net-zero targets are not 'entirely zero', with remaining emissions averaging 21% of 2019 levels. It highlights a significant misalignment between long-term goals and current actions, noting that emissions under current policies are decreasing by only 0.2% per year, far below the -3.8% annual reduction rate required from 2030 to meet net-zero targets.

The document details a legally binding community benefits agreement (CBA) for the $1.5 billion Trailblazer CO2 pipeline project. Tallgrass is converting a 392-mile pipeline to transport CO2 from Nebraska ethanol plants to sequestration sites in Wyoming. The CBA, negotiated with Bold Alliance and endorsed by 11 Nebraska organizations, provides specific landowner protections, public safety funding, and community investments to mitigate local opposition and ensure project viability.

The policy brief, resulting from the CO2ol Down co-creation project, argues for a clear distinction between temporary biogenic sequestration and permanent carbon dioxide removals (CDR). It recommends that the EU set legally binding, transparent targets for permanent removals in addition to emissions reduction targets, aiming for net-negative GHG emissions by 2055. The brief proposes a governance framework involving EU-level oversight of CO2 transport and storage, member state-level procurement via reverse auctions or contracts for difference, and a financing model based on the 'Polluter Pays' principle. It emphasizes a portfolio approach to diversify removal methods and strict sustainability criteria, including the requirement that CDR activities be powered by additional renewable energy sources.

The report, produced by the CO2ol Down project, argues that the current EU Climate Law fails to differentiate between temporary biogenic sequestration and permanent carbon removals. It proposes specific legislative amendments to ensure that permanent removals are used only to compensate for residual emissions and that biogenic sequestration is managed for ecosystem resilience rather than as a primary tool for climate neutrality. The proposal suggests establishing separate targets and trajectories for emissions reductions, biogenic sequestration, and permanent removals to avoid mitigation deterrence.

The document examines how discrepancies between NDC accounting and IPCC standards lead to an overestimation of land-based carbon sequestration, potentially reducing the global carbon budget by 15-18%. It highlights that current NDC pledges for land-based removal involve approximately 1 billion hectares, which the author claims is impossible without threatening food security and biodiversity. Furthermore, the briefing critiques IPCC Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) for ignoring land tenure, human rights, and the declining ability of natural sinks to store carbon under rising temperatures, suggesting that sustainable removal potential is up to 79% lower than IPCC estimates.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU's net carbon sink is declining rapidly and that the current LULUCF Regulation contains loopholes, such as offsetting flexibility and reliance on forest biomass, that undermine climate goals. The organization recommends removing offsetting mechanisms, preventing double counting between national inventories and corporate claims under the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), limiting forest harvesting for bioenergy, and strengthening synergies between LULUCF targets and the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and Nature Restoration Law.

The document analyzes the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, focusing on the distinctions between the bilateral/multilateral trades of Article 6.2 and the UN-overseen global market of Article 6.4. It highlights critical loopholes, including the risk of double counting in aviation offsetting (CORSIA), the lack of oversight for Article 6.2 trades, and the potential for 'junk' credits from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to transition into the new system. The author argues for stricter authorization processes, mandatory transparency, and a 'firewall' between carbon markets and the new climate finance package being negotiated at COP29.

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 November 2024 update reveals a three-year stagnation in global warming projections, with current policies setting the world on a path toward 2.7°C of warming by 2100. While renewable energy and electric vehicle deployment have seen record growth, these gains are offset by all-time high fossil fuel subsidies and increased funding for fossil fuel projects. The report warns that without a substantial increase in the ambition of 2030 and 2035 targets, the 1.5°C limit will likely be breached in the early 2030s, leading to a multidecadal overshoot.

The guide argues that US states are uniquely positioned to scale the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) industry by leveraging their specific geographies and regulatory authority. It outlines a framework for state leadership based on four core pillars: adopting approach-neutral and performance-based definitions of CDR, setting explicit removal targets aligned with carbon budgets, creating clear regulatory and permitting environments, and ensuring community-supported deployment through transparency and equity. The document emphasizes that CDR should complement, not replace, aggressive emissions reductions to avoid moral hazard.

The document details the operational and structural differences between Article 6.2 (bilateral/multilateral agreements), Article 6.4 (a UN-overseen global carbon market), and Article 6.8 (non-market approaches). It highlights the role of 'corresponding adjustments' in preventing double-counting and the specific financial contributions required under Article 6.4, such as the Share of Proceeds for the Adaptation Fund and the Overall Mitigation of Global Emissions. The author emphasizes that establishing high standards for credit quality and transparency is essential for the success of these markets at COP29.

RMI has launched the State CDR Atlas, a tool designed to help the 50 US states scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) by assessing their unique geographies, infrastructure, and regulatory landscapes. The Atlas evaluates states across eight CDR approach categories using two primary ratings: an Opportunity Rating based on natural resources and infrastructure, and an Enabling Policy Rating based on the current regulatory environment. Using Virginia as a case study, the document illustrates how the tool identifies specific gaps—such as Virginia's lack of government procurement programs for CDR—and provides guidance on Terrestrial Enhanced Weathering (TEW) as a specific CDR approach. The tool is intended as an orientation and prioritization resource rather than a final siting mechanism.

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.

The report identifies a strategic window for the EU and UK to reset their climate and energy relationship following recent elections. It argues that the current Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) is too limited and suggests a comprehensive new agreement covering industrial decarbonisation, methane, carbon capture, hydrogen, and nuclear energy. The document advocates for an 'options-based strategy' that includes clean firm power to complement renewables, and recommends aligning regulatory frameworks—such as the Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) and carbon removal certifications—to facilitate cross-border trade and infrastructure sharing.

The report examines the gap between high-integrity net zero standards—such as those from the UN High-Level Expert Group (HLEG)—and the actual practices of corporations and financial institutions (FIs). It identifies significant shortcomings in target coverage, fossil fuel phase-out policies, and the credibility of transition plans. The authors argue that voluntary commitments are often unrealistic without government intervention and propose a 'road to regulation' consisting of an 'accountability lane' for oversight and an 'ambition lane' to translate voluntary pledges into economy-wide policy mandates.

The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) outlines key policy priorities for the incoming European Commission, emphasizing the need for a 'Clean Industrial Deal' that aligns competitiveness with a 90% emissions reduction target by 2040. The document advocates for 'clean firm power'—including geothermal, nuclear, and CCS—to complement renewables and ensure grid reliability. It calls for a 'reality check' on hydrogen targets, a more ambitious implementation of the Methane Regulation (including agricultural emissions), and the development of a clear strategy for carbon removals and emerging technologies like fusion and superhot rock geothermal energy.

The Structured Finance for Nature (SFN) instrument uses a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) in Singapore to aggregate a diversified portfolio of natural assets, combining equity, mezzanine finance, and green bonds. It aims to overcome barriers such as high upfront costs and small project sizes to protect and restore one million hectares of forest and wetlands. The pilot project in Agusan del Sur, Philippines, focuses on protecting 91,000 hectares of forest, with future expansions planned for Cambodia, Bhutan, and Indonesia. The model emphasizes high-integrity carbon credits, a 20% minimum benefit-sharing allocation for local and Indigenous communities, and real-time monitoring via a proprietary dashboard.