30th Mar 2023


Removing CO2 — are member states actually ready?

  • Without quantified targets, national capitals have no idea how much CO2 they want to remove, and by when. The direction of travel is obscure, transparency and accountability are weak (Photo: DerGuy82)
Listen to article

To keep global warming below 2°C or 1.5°C, carbon dioxide (CO2) must be removed from the atmosphere. This is what almost all climate scenarios say. Emission reductions are the backbone of climate action, but CO2 removal (CDR) plays a role. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls CDR "unavoidable".

The EU climate law determines that CDR will become a central part of EU climate action: from 2050 onwards, the EU should remove more greenhouse gases than it emits — a great challenge.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

Are the member states ready for this challenge? The answer is no.

Although an important part of climate action, CDR is still a nerdy subject. No member state has a comprehensive debate on CDR, but only faint signs of an incipient discussion.

Without public discourse, it is no surprise that EU countries lack the basics of good CDR regulation.

First, most member states lack quantified targets for CDR, a basic of robust regulation.

In an ambiguous way, most national climate-neutrality targets consider reductions and CDR interchangeable. For them, reductions and removals are currencies of the same value.

Only Portugal has a legally-binding and quantified CDR target. Belgium, Hungary, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden also quantify removal targets, albeit not legally-binding. The German climate protection law has targets for natural sinks.

Without quantified targets, national capitals have no idea how much CO2 they want to remove, and by when. The direction of travel is obscure. Transparency and accountability are weak.

Second, member states lack strategy. None have a specific CDR strategy. Only Germany has plans to adopt one. Rules relevant to CDR are scattered across different laws and policies. CDR is often nothing more than an unintended side effect of other policies.

National climate strategies do not fill this gap. They only describe CDR measures or reiterate existing policies. They avoid decisions on which measures should remove how much CO2.

This is a problem

For society, it matters how CO2 is removed. It makes a big difference for biodiversity, soil protection and climate resilience of ecosystems whether CDR happens through afforestation in monocultures or the restoration of degraded ecosystems.

For permanent storage of carbon, it matters whether CO2 is stored in biomass, plastic, or geological formations. For energy consumption, it is important whether direct air capture becomes an important pillar of CDR or not. The economic costs and technical maturity of CDR options vary hugely.

Third, EU countries often treat reductions and CDR alike. It does not matter whether a tonne of CO2 is emitted or not — if it is removed. This is another major shortcoming, because CDR is an inherently weaker form of climate action than emission reductions.

Removed and stored CO2 can leak, while emission reductions cannot. Technology-based CDR options might be able to address leakage problems, but they struggle with biodiversity, land use and energy consumption challenges, and high costs.

CDRs are also less effective at avoiding warming than equivalent amounts of avoided emissions — because of the asymmetry of Earth feedbacks.

In short: one tonne of CO2 in does not equal one tonne of CO2 out.

Fourth, without targets and strategy, it is unlikely that the deployment of CDR at the required scales will happen. At the large scale in particular, CDR deployment will not occur by accident. It needs incentives, clear rules and, above all, time.

Fifth, and to make matters worse, member states have no clear definition of what a removal is.

What should be done?

CDR strategies are the first step. They can trigger the necessary public debate, promote societal consensus on CDR, and help adopt the required laws. CDR strategies should be adopted at the EU level and at the national level.

These strategies will differ significantly. Circumstances in EU states vary greatly. The EU can only set a basic CDR framework that might include targets, accounting rules and CDR definitions. But there are a few principles that should feature in all strategies.

As in the EU climate law, there must be a clear hierarchy: reductions first, removals second.

To make this hierarchy happen, strategies should be built on targets that clearly separate between reductions and removals. As set in the EU climate law, climate targets should consist of a very high reduction target and a very small removal target. Targets should not only apply for 2050, but also for 2040 and other interim years. To make them credible, CDR targets should be enshrined in law.

CDR strategies should also prioritise the restoration of degraded ecosystems — a no-regret option. Restoration offers many co-benefits for nature, strengthens climate resilience of ecosystems, is immediately available at low costs, and does not require large areas of additional land. It has large CDR potential.

At this point, EU countries are unlikely to lead the debate. It is more likely that the EU provides the required leadership.

In these circumstances, the Commission's proposal on CDR certification is a milestone. It can put the EU on the right track — with a watertight CDR definition, and a firewall between removals and reductions; or the wrong track — dubious low-impact carbon removal schemes that pretend to offset what cannot be offset.

As the integrity of EU climate policy is at stake, the EU cannot afford to take the wrong turn.

Author bio

Dr Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf is head of international and European governance at the Ecologic Institute in Berlin.


The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Netherlands warns against EU carbon credit sell-off

Selling more carbon credits to industry — as EU Commission plans have proposed — could increase pollution and "undermines" trust in the bloc's carbon markets, Dutch finance minister Sigrid Kaag warned.

Is EU making same mistake as US 'carbon-farming' gamble?

The European Commission will soon propose a legal framework allowing companies to buy offsetting carbon removals from farmers. Despite good intentions, lessons from similar projects in the US suggest that such schemes could end up doing more harm than good

MEPs raise ambition on EU carbon market reform

MEPs on the environment committee agreed on reform of the European carbon market — including expanding it to buildings and transport. They also want to extend the scope of the carbon border tax, and phase out free permits by 2030.


Interview: 'Carbon tax' MEP with one eye on Mozambique

Dutch MEP Mohammed Chahim is rapporteur forthe proposed carbon tax on imported goods which is planned to come into force in 2026. It is one of the biggest and most complex legislative proposals Europe has ever drawn up.

The fossil-fuel agenda behind EU's carbon-capture plans

The fossil-fuel industry is using the carbon removal agenda to get yet more support for failed carbon capture, which is a key component of the pie-in-the-sky carbon removal technologies being promoted by the EU Commission.

The overlooked 'crimes against children' ICC arrest warrant

An unprecedented component of this announcement has received less attention: the ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Putin's commissioner for children's rights. Lvova-Belova is accused of deporting and unlawful transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia.


What does China really want? Perhaps we could try asking

Perhaps even more surprising to the West was the fact that the Iran-Saudi Arabia deal was not brokered by the United States, or the European Union, but by the People's Republic of China. Since when was China mediating peace agreements?

Latest News

  1. Firms will have to reveal and close gender pay-gap
  2. Why do 83% of Albanians want to leave Albania?
  3. Police violence in rural French water demos sparks protests
  4. Work insecurity: the high cost of ultra-fast grocery deliveries
  5. The overlooked 'crimes against children' ICC arrest warrant
  6. EU approves 2035 phaseout of polluting cars and vans
  7. New measures to shield the EU against money laundering
  8. What does China really want? Perhaps we could try asking

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. InformaConnecting Expert Industry-Leaders, Top Suppliers, and Inquiring Buyers all in one space - visit Battery Show Europe.
  2. EFBWWEFBWW and FIEC do not agree to any exemptions to mandatory prior notifications in construction
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic and Baltic ways to prevent gender-based violence
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Economic gender equality now! Nordic ways to close the pension gap
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: Pushing back the push-back - Nordic solutions to online gender-based violence
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersCSW67: The Nordics are ready to push for gender equality

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Azerbaijan Embassy9th Southern Gas Corridor Advisory Council Ministerial Meeting and 1st Green Energy Advisory Council Ministerial Meeting
  2. EFBWWEU Social Dialogue review – publication of the European Commission package and joint statement of ETUFs
  3. Oxfam InternationalPan Africa Program Progress Report 2022 - Post Covid and Beyond
  4. WWFWWF Living Planet Report
  5. Europan Patent OfficeHydrogen patents for a clean energy future: A global trend analysis of innovation along hydrogen value chains

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us