A false equivalence is too often made between carbon emissions and the removals that may balance them. Mistaken ‘like for like’ thinking undermines the integrity of climate policies.
The so-called like-for-like principle is repeatedly brought up as an argument to frame emissions and removals as equivalent, allow for offsetting, and justify the use of temporary removals to balance specific emission types. Most critically, while rooted in science, these approaches are being systematically abused in policymaking to avoid desperately needed emission reductions, particularly for ‘short-lived climate pollutants’ such as methane emissions, where rapid cuts could have massive and immediate climate benefits.
A short-sighted equation
The general view of removals as a simple reversal of emissions ignores the full range of climate impacts. Greenhouse gas emissions have wider-reaching effects that are hugely difficult to fully quantify, including ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, and sea level rise – all of which removals cannot reverse in relevant timeframes. Therefore, removals should be regarded as the last resort to manage emissions that cannot be avoided or reduced.
The appetite of certain industries and countries to use vulnerable, temporary and cheap removals is understandable from a short-termist economic perspective, as these are wrongly perceived as providing a cost-effective and quick fix to deal with emissions and avoid the need to invest in deep emission reductions. Scientific research shows us that anthropogenic emissions, those caused by human activities, cannot truly be balanced by temporary carbon removals, given their limited permanence and reliability.
Still, many policymakers and stakeholders continue to argue otherwise, often citing from a spectrum of ‘like-for-like’ approaches, differing in details, but sharing core ideas. Two such interpretations are mentioned frequently, one based on the atmospheric lifetime of emissions and storage, and the other, on the biogenic or fossil nature of emissions and storage.
Ignoring the full picture
The first approach proposes matching the lifetime of emissions in the atmosphere to the expected storage duration of removals, for example, pairing short-lived methane emissions with an ‘equivalent’ temporary or vulnerable storage in forests or soils.
From a scientific meta-level view, this can be useful: for instance, in climate modelling to estimate the broad scale of climate effects through emissions and removals. Applying this like-for-like logic in policy on a country or industry level risks relying on the cheapest available removals to – on paper – compensate the damage done by emissions, ignoring the desperately needed and highly feasible emission cuts in the main methane-emitting sectors. Reducing methane emissions is shown to have massive and quickly noticeable effects on global warming.
A fact often brushed aside, but that should be kept in mind, is that methane has a permanent climate impact as it breaks down into CO2 (and short-lived water vapour) in the atmosphere. Additionally, current accounting standards for emissions (GWP100) are downplaying the drastic short-term effects of methane.
Cycling off a sensible climate path
The second approach selects a carbon removal type relative to its carbon cycle.
The short carbon cycle, also often referred to as the ‘natural carbon cycle’, involves transfers between the atmosphere and living systems, while the ‘long carbon cycle’ involves carbon being drawn out or stored through geological processes.
In practice, this means that biogenic emissions – those coming from living organisms such as animals, plants or microbes – are offset by nature-based removals such as those stored in vegetation and soils (think planting trees), while fossil emissions are compensated only by permanent, technological removals.
The labelling of biogenic emissions as part of the ‘natural carbon cycle’ and the assumption that they can and should be balanced by sequestration through plants ignores the fact that a large percentage of biogenic emissions is driven by anthropogenic economic activity, such as in livestock farming and forestry industries, which have reached scales beyond what can be regarded as natural and are responsible for unacceptable animal welfare, land use and biodiversity decline.
Apart from this, the atmosphere does not differentiate between biogenic and fossil carbon. No matter the origin, a molecule of the same greenhouse gas entering the atmosphere has the same effects. The argument that one can be offset by removals stored in forests or soils, while the other can not, lacks coherence.
Furthermore, false narratives about methane’s temporary or biogenic nature and low-cost carbon removal solutions available around the corner can disincentivise major emitters from reducing their emissions. Factory farms, fossil fuel producers, and waste management companies can additionally exploit these claims to delay action. Livestock companies have already used these arguments to dispute scientific findings and resist emission cuts.
The like-for-like approach has made its way into EU Green Claims Directive discussions. The consumer protection law aims to suppress greenwashing by tightening rules on environmental claims, promoting transparency, and has the power to potentially discourage flawed strategies like offsetting.
While both the European Commission and Council support allowing the use of removals for the compensation of company-level emissions without strict limitations, the European Parliament proposes that fossil fuel emissions be compensated exclusively by permanent removals. It remains to be seen whether or not the EU institutions will manage to fulfil the envisioned purpose of the Directive to protect consumers, as the ongoing political turmoil has placed the entire proposal in jeopardy.
Beyond like-for-like
When policy frameworks allow removals to substitute emission cuts – particularly for methane, where rapid reductions are both feasible and essential – they undermine the urgent action the climate crisis demands. Therefore, more precise approaches to deciding where removals are applicable are needed.
Applying the ‘natural’ or ‘temporary’ logic to emissions risks indulging in a bad habit whereby potentially temporary, low-quality, and cheap vulnerable removals are used to offset anthropogenic emissions. Temporary removals cannot replace emission reductions, and relying on them to offset avoidable ongoing emissions (biogenic or fossil, ‘short-lived’ or permanent) risks delaying urgently needed emission cuts. That being said, nature-based solutions, such as restoring forests and wetlands, have an essential role in enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem health, as well as addressing the climate crisis, but should be kept separate from emission reductions.
While like-for-like approaches can ensure fossil carbon emissions are not offset by forestry or soil carbon removals – a necessary, but too low bar – they do not secure a responsible implementation of removals. Therefore, policy must go beyond unrefined like-for-like approaches and establish strong rules that resist going for the cheapest available options, while pushing for action across all fronts: reducing emissions, strengthening the land sink, and enabling permanent removals.
To keep our climate goals within reach, rapid and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions must happen, followed by responsible management of remaining emissions. This means countries and companies must balance all types of residual emissions, regardless of their source or atmospheric lifetime, and only use high-quality carbon removals that lock away CO2 for centuries to millennia. Since such removals will likely be scarce and expensive, all-out efforts should be pursued to drive down emissions rapidly and without distractions.
Carbon Market Watch will publish a briefing that dives deep into the details on this subject in the near future. Don’t hesitate to contact us with thoughts on the matter.
