The EU’s lacklustre attempt to forge a certification system for carbon removals is so riddled with holes that the process needs to be rebooted to avoid doing more harm than good.
Today’s vote at the European Parliament paves the way to interinstitutional negotiations on the Carbon Removals Certification Framework. The EU institutions urgently need to hammer out the many imperfections of the CRCF to ensure that carbon removals become an effective climate action tool.
The European Parliament has raised the bar on the proposed legislation for regulating carbon removals but the EU is still far away from a framework that would truly benefit the climate.
Policymakers must break the magnetism between carbon markets and carbon removals by putting in place non-market incentives. This requires a rethinking of the EU’s Carbon Removals Certification Framework process and setting the right targets for 2040.
American fossil fuel companies are tapping taxpayer money to invest heavily in energy-guzzling Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS), all to continue pumping out oil. This has serious ramifications for the climate and global efforts to decarbonise.
Carbon Market Watch (CMW) has delivered a strong verdict on the role of carbon removals and temporary carbon storage in the hierarchy of climate action in a pair of complementary reports released on 25 September 2023. A study of policy frameworks around the world shows that policymakers are getting it wrong.
Carbon removals can only play a minor supporting role to rapid and deep emissions reductions, concluded a panel discussion organised by Carbon Market Watch at the European Parliament.
The EU must ignore lobbying efforts from industry to certify the storage of carbon dioxide in cement or concrete as carbon removals.
Preserving nature, restoring soils and safeguarding biodiversity are urgent and necessary activities. However, branding them as carbon removals is harmful. We need other solutions
The draft EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework is at risk of doing more harm than good to the climate and biodiversity, while encouraging climate inaction.