What are permanent removals, and why do we need them? What’s the point of setting a separate target for permanent removals? How much should we rely on them? In this article, carbon removals policy expert Fabiola De Simone addresses these questions.
Carbon Market Watch has long called for policymakers to introduce separate targets for emissions reductions, land-based sequestration, and permanent carbon removals. The fundamental reason to address all three elements separately is to avoid an over-reliance on storing carbon from the atmosphere (naturally or through engineered processes) as this undermines efforts to stop releasing it in the first place and sustainable removal capacity is finite and limited.
This makes the European Commission’s lack of commitments on this front troubling. Although the EU has enshrined into a law a dedicated (yet, still not fully separate) removals target for natural sinks in the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Directive, EU policymakers have only reached agreement on a definition for permanent removals in the context of the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Regulation.
The obvious need for a separate permanent removals target has not elicited action by European Commission policymakers. This feeds into, and may even support, the persistent and enduring myth that removals can replace stringent, near-term emissions reduction, which has been repeatedly debunked by the latest science.
Against this backdrop, why is it important to look deeper into permanent removals, and why must a separate target be set?
The concept of permanence
First things first: what are permanent removals?
Despite the permanence of carbon sequestration being a fundamental principle of carbon removal, there is yet to be an internationally agreed definition. In physical terms, it is impossible to guarantee permanent storage (the sun will blow up in 5 billion years after all).
A sensible timescale for “permanence” is for it to exceed the time that humanity will take to halt the current climate breakdown, and deal with its associated effects. Practically, carbon storage must last long enough to meaningfully contribute to climate action. In other words, sequestered carbon must not be re-emitted into the atmosphere within a timeframe that allows it to contribute to the current global warming crisis.
The progress that current global climate policies are making towards the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature increase limit suggests that temperature stabilisation might not occur for another century or longer. In practice, this would mean that permanent removal processes should keep the CO2 out of the atmosphere for at least several centuries, without causing significant environmental or ecological damage.
To date, there are a few carbon removal methods, based on both industrial and natural processes, that could generate adequately permanent carbon storage. These include mineral carbonation used in enhanced weathering, Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) and Biomass use with Carbon Capture and Storage (BioCCS), provided underground CO2 storage reservoirs are successfully sealed. It is important to note that, however, each of these can have associated negative impacts, and some might have devastating impacts on other planetary boundaries that must be considered.
To expand your knowledge of key carbon removals concepts check out our new handbook drafted in association with Bellona.
Why do we need permanent removals?
To deal with climate change, the world needs to reach a point in which global warming stops and temperatures stabilise before ultimately returning to safer levels. To do that, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must reach a peak and eventually decrease. In practical terms, emissions must be slashed, and those that society deems essential or very difficult to eliminate must be balanced out.
That must be the role of permanent removals, which, to some extent, counterbalance truly unavoidable emissions.
It is difficult to ascertain at this stage what types of emissions or how much must be covered. There is currently no consensus on the level of residual emissions the EU or humanity as a whole will need to deal with in the future. However, it is clear that residual emissions need to decrease and be implemented in a fair and equitable manner by public authorities through inclusive public engagement.
Can we not just rewild the world?
Natural ecosystems represent a vital carbon sink and they are crucial components in the quest to repair and restore biodiversity, and to assist the planet’s adaptation to climate change. Some ecosystems, such as old-growth forests, can store carbon for so long that they could be considered, in principle, a permanent store of carbon. A decline of these forest carbon stocks through, for example, deforestation, has the same warming impact on the Earth as the use of fossil fuels.
However, not all land-based sequestration processes are the same (old and diverse forests have a higher biodiversity and climate value than fast-growing monocultures) and, most importantly, natural ecosystems must not be regarded purely as a store of carbon.
On the contrary, countries must protect and restore them, thus also enhancing their carbon uptake, through dedicated policies that take the whole ecosystem into account instead of using them as an emissions-offsetting commodity.
Natural ecosystems can have an important climate mitigation potential, but they might not be able to cover for both the historic plundering of the land sink and the massive amounts of fossil fuels used since the Industrial Revolution that caused the current atmospheric concentration of CO2. This is especially true when we consider that countries are already heavily relying on them for offsetting future emissions.
In addition, all biogenic carbon stores remain vulnerable to human and natural disturbances, such as harvests and land use change, and the increasingly frequent and severe impact of climate change, such as pests, fires, droughts, and floods. For this reason, they should be considered temporary in carbon accounting terms. It is not possible to define carbon sequestered in natural ecosystems as permanent as it is impossible to guarantee that captured carbon will not be released back into the atmosphere before global temperatures have stabilised.
Why a dedicated target for permanent removals?
The current and prevalent mainstream approach to climate targets typically views removals as a substitute for emissions reduction and generally allows countries to use removals to counterbalance emissions and meet their climate obligations on paper. As said previously, permanent removals should not be used to offset continued emissions, but to counterbalance the absolute minimum level of future residual emissions.
Setting a separate and realistic target for permanent removals, in addition to a target for gross emissions reduction and a target for land-based sequestration, is a better policy solution for several reasons.
First, it ensures that, whatever level of permanent removals can be achieved in an environmentally sustainable way, it will not interfere with efforts to reduce emissions. In this way, a separate target ensures transparency and increases the accountability for reaching it.
In addition, it provides the space for developing and testing these permanent removal methods, as well as boosting our knowledge of their potential negative impact and how we address it. With the right sustainability criteria in place, that separate target will not undermine efforts to protect natural sinks nor incentivise bad practices.
Finally, a dedicated target for permanent removals better supports developers of high-quality projects by providing them with long-term clarity and security for their investments.
Bet responsibly
Overrelying or betting on carbon dioxide removals (CDR) is a surefire path to climate bankruptcy.
As mentioned previously, many constraints are linked to CDR deployment, including the potential risks of reversal, uncertainty over technological readiness, under-pressure demands and requirements of scarce sustainable biomass, energy, water, and land, and negative consequences for biodiversity and local communities. They remain a finite resource that must be used responsibly.
As re-confirmed by leading climate scientists in October, there is no alternative to near-term emission reductions to limit damage to our planet, ecosystems and people. However, there is a need to prepare for an environmentally sustainable removals capacity that can help reach climate equilibrium in the future.
Action is needed on all fronts, but first we should keep our feet on the ground, and leave the CO2 underground.
