The Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and green think tank CONCITO have issued a report assessing best practices for implementing permanent carbon removal into the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and the potential risks to be addressed in the process.
While limiting CO2 emissions is of vital importance for curbing climate deterioration, permanent carbon removal will also play a key role in tackling the carbon dioxide that is already present in the atmosphere.
With this scenario in mind, by 2026 policymakers will examine if and how permanent carbon dioxide removal (CDR) could be integrated into the EU ETS.
The first-of-its-kind report by Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and CONCITO looked into four CDR integration policy options, pointing out the pros and risks of each one of them.
Among the main takeaways, the work signals that the direct integration of CDR into the EU ETS will primarily incentivize the spur of affordable solutions like BioCCS, which could introduce a disregard for more expensive, yet relevant technologies like DACCS.
Additionally, if done without safeguards, the integration could lower motivation for emissions reductions, potentially switching the focus from limiting exhausts to emitting more CO2 and then compensating with carbon removals.
The report calls for a policy and safeguards network that would control the risk of unsustainable use of biomass for BioCCS. In regard to safeguards, the work indicates that they may negatively reflect on cost-effectiveness and liquidity in some cases, yet they will still have a lesser effect on EU ETS revenues than unrestricted integration.
Relevant: New Report Analyzes The Supply-Demand Outlook In EU ETS Through 2030
As recommendations, the report states that the gross emission cap should be kept for initial integration, and a control on the CDR supply should be implemented to monitor for unsustainable biomass use and potential fiscal effects.
The work also advocates for clear permanence rules that would differentiate traditional emissions allowances and those granted for different removals, along with a careful analysis of the biomass-based carbon removal methods before they are integrated.
Lastly, it suggests a review clause to enable the assessment of integration impacts and modifications of safeguards to correspond with other policies.
Read more: Open Letter Demands EU To Separate 2040 Emissions Reduction And Removals Targets
