Why the Call for Permanent Carbon Removals is Growing Louder

In the complex world of climate policy, setting a target specifically for permanent carbon removals has become a contentious but critical issue.

As the need for dedicated strategies to address various types of emissions grows, so does the call from environmental groups like Carbon Market Watch for governments to establish separate, clear-cut targets.

With the European Commission slow to implement robust policies on permanent carbon removals, industry experts are urging for changes that will protect both the climate and ecosystems in the long term.

Why Do We Need Permanent Removals?

Carbon Market Watch argues that a separate target for permanent removals is essential because it ensures that efforts to reduce emissions won’t be undermined by relying solely on carbon storage solutions.

Carbon removals expert Fabiola De Simone highlights, “Separate targets for emissions reductions, land-based sequestration, and permanent removals are fundamental to avoid over-reliance on storage as a substitute for actual emission cuts.”

The purpose of permanent removals is not to offset all emissions but to handle unavoidable, residual emissions in a way that is as lasting as possible.

The science behind climate change shows that balancing emissions through permanent storage is necessary to reach long-term climate stability.

However, current approaches often treat removals as interchangeable with emission reductions, which, as the research shows, could lead to issues down the line.

Understanding the Concept of Permanence

A key factor in permanent removals is “permanence” itself. The aim is to keep captured CO₂ out of the atmosphere for long enough to stabilize temperatures, ideally over centuries.

As De Simone explains, “Permanence in carbon sequestration means the CO₂ stays out of the atmosphere long enough to support meaningful climate action. This storage must be reliable across both human and environmental disruptions.”

Today’s strategies to store carbon permanently vary, including techniques like mineral carbonation, direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), and biomass use with carbon capture (BioCCS).

These methods focus on preventing re-release of stored carbon, but they each come with environmental trade-offs that need to be carefully weighed before full implementation.

The Role of Natural Ecosystems

Natural ecosystems such as forests and peatlands are a major component of carbon sequestration, yet they cannot be the only answer to the storage dilemma.

These systems can retain carbon over extended periods but remain vulnerable to disturbances, such as deforestation or wildfires, which release stored carbon back into the atmosphere.

Old-growth forests, for instance, hold substantial amounts of carbon but are not immune to change. Any decline in these ecosystems, whether through human activity or climate events, can reverse their effectiveness as carbon sinks.

Therefore, Carbon Market Watch stresses that natural ecosystems should not be viewed purely as carbon stores but as vital elements in climate resilience and biodiversity.

Why a Separate Target for Permanent Removals Matters

Establishing a dedicated target for permanent removals could change the landscape of climate action.

Having this target means that whatever progress is made toward permanent removal will remain separate from emission reduction goals, preventing removals from serving as an “easy fix” that sidesteps the need for deep emission cuts.

A separate target could also promote innovation by supporting developers of carbon removal technology.

With clear standards and expectations in place, companies investing in DACCS, BioCCS, or other removal technologies could have the security needed for long-term planning.

Without this clarity, investments in high-quality projects may be jeopardized by unclear regulatory landscapes.

>> In Other News: Next Hydrogen to Demonstrate Electrolyzers for the Aviation Industry in Collaboration With Pratt & Whitney Under INSAT Program

Potential Pitfalls of Overrelying on Carbon Dioxide Removals

While CDR solutions like DACCS or enhanced weathering are promising, they are not without limitations.

Relying too heavily on these methods could lead to problems due to resource constraints, including competition for biomass, energy, water, and land.

Additionally, the possible ecological side effects, such as biodiversity loss, must be carefully managed.

Environmental advocates argue that overconfidence in CDR can create a false sense of progress. Instead, as leading climate scientists reaffirmed in October, the primary focus should be on cutting emissions directly.

Fabiola De Simone notes, “Betting heavily on removals to fix climate issues could lead to what some call climate bankruptcy; it’s a finite solution that should complement, not replace, emissions reductions.”

Challenges Facing Carbon Removals Policy in the EU

Europe’s policies on carbon removals have been advancing, but slowly. The European Commission has yet to set a fully separate target for permanent removals, though it has made progress with the Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) Directive.

However, experts say this progress falls short, as LULUCF targets focus on natural sinks rather than permanent storage solutions, creating a policy gap.

This policy gap has also sustained misconceptions about removals, particularly the idea that they can serve as a primary strategy for climate mitigation.

In fact, this belief has been debunked by recent scientific studies, which show that removals should supplement rather than substitute for emission cuts.

Taking a Balanced Approach to Climate Targets

To ensure that permanent removals play their intended role, Carbon Market Watch recommends a multi-faceted approach to climate targets. This includes three separate goals:

• Reducing gross emissions.
  
• Enhancing land-based carbon sinks.
  
• Setting achievable, transparent targets for permanent removals.
  

Each of these goals must stand independently to provide clarity in climate policy and prevent carbon storage from undermining emission reduction commitments.

Such a framework would improve transparency and accountability while ensuring that each target is met in an environmentally responsible manner.

Moving Forward with Realistic Carbon Removals Strategies

Permanent removals are a key part of long-term climate stability, but they’re only one part of a larger solution. Realistically, society needs both immediate emission cuts and strategies to sequester unavoidable emissions permanently.

The path forward requires integrating these approaches responsibly to avoid damaging ecosystems, depleting resources, or inadvertently escalating climate risks.

By setting a separate target for permanent removals, policymakers can provide the stability and long-term planning essential for effective climate action.

With continued innovation and an emphasis on sustainable practices, the global community can progress toward climate goals without undermining the ecosystems we rely on.

Conclusion: A Practical Vision for Climate Resilience

Carbon removals can help reach climate equilibrium if used carefully and sparingly.

A balanced approach ensures that permanent removals fulfill their role in addressing unavoidable emissions, while emission reduction remains the primary focus of climate policy.

As Fabiola De Simone advocates, “Action is needed on all fronts, but we must remain grounded, ensuring that we keep the CO₂ underground.”