This so-called mitigation deterrence occurs when there is an overreliance on CDR available now or that could be generated in the future or when it is used to offset emissions. Allowing countries or corporations to hide emissions behind potential large-scale carbon removals in their climate strategies enable polluters to delay or postpone the rapid and real emissions reductions the world urgently needs if it is to avert the worst outcomes of the climate emergency. Deep, fast and sustained emission reductions are the priority for climate action, and removals cannot be allowed to distract from that.
When it comes to carbon removals potential for deterring climate action, Carbon Market Watch focuses on:
“CDR should not be used to deter climate action. Offsetting continued emissions with removals must be a non-starter. Instead, CDR must also contribute to protecting biodiversity, ecosystems and local communities rather than harm them. Enhancing the land sink is important from a climate perspective, but the real focus should be on the wider environmental and social benefits of such activities: carbon should be relegated to a ‘co-benefit’.”
Wijnand Stoefs
Lead expert on carbon removals
“CDR should not be used to deter climate action. Offsetting continued emissions with removals must be a non-starter. Instead, CDR must also contribute to protecting biodiversity, ecosystems and local communities rather than harm them. Enhancing the land sink is important from a climate perspective, but the real focus should be on the wider environmental and social benefits of such activities: carbon should be relegated to a ‘co-benefit’.”
Wijnand Stoefs
Lead expert on carbon removals
Focusing on rapid and deep emissions reductions
Banning the use of carbon removals for offsetting purposes
Prohibiting exaggerated green claims that rely heavily on CDR, such as carbon or climate neutral
Leading figures from academia, civil society and industry have collaborated to create two proposals to clarify key carbon removals principles that should be integrated into the EU Climate Law and relevant climate policies
Reducing emissions must remain the priority for policymakers, and should not be conflated with safeguarding natural carbon sinks or the sustainable usage of permanent removals. Carbon removals policy expert Fabiola De Simone explains.
Not only does the Climate Law not mention the different roles of biogenic sequestration by natural sinks and permanent removals, but it also fails to determine how much or which
wijnand.stoefs[at]carbonmarketwatch.org
fabiola.desimone[at]carbonmarketwatch.org
marlene.ramon[at]carbonmarketwatch.org
Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.
