What's Wrong with the Carbon Removal Certification Framework?
The EU’s new Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) exists to establish how carbon dioxide removal (CDR) should be quantified and monitored in the EU. It was supposed to clarify European climate regulations, and lay the groundwork for future CDR incentives.
Unfortunately, there have been a number of criticisms of the CRCF. It contains irrelevant information on emissions reductions (which are not CDR) and does not clearly define what ‘permanent carbon dioxide removal’ is. Additionally, it does not explain how removal success or longevity will be monitored, or what liabilities there are if carbon removals are later rereleased.
Why is this bad?
The lack of clarity allows companies to greenwash, and claim to be net-zero without putting in the work of actually ensuring this. It lists several non-permanent methods of CDR as permanent, including storage in products and bio-based sinks (afforestation). These methods of CDR are easily undone, typically only storing the carbon for a few decades before either the product or biomass degrades.
The lack of liability means that companies could get certifications for impermanent CDR activity, label themselves carbon neutral, and then allow their reductions to be undone without any consequences.
Carbon Removal vs. Emission Reduction
The framework is specifically a guiding methodology of how carbon removal should be utilised in the EU, but it contains information relating to emission reductions. These should be classified as a completely separate climate mitigation strategy.
Emissions reduction refers to technologies that reduce the amount of new CO2 released into the atmosphere, for example renewable energies. Conversely, CDR removes carbon that human activity has already released into the atmosphere. Emission reduction should be the primary method of achieving net zero as preventing further carbon emissions is the most effective way of stopping climate change. CDR exists as a necessary strategy of mopping up the leftover atmospheric carbon that emission reduction doesn’t catch. The CRCF needs to make this distinction more clear, and state the role of CDR in relation to emission reduction.
Voluntary Carbon Market is not the answer
The report views the voluntary carbon market as the key method of getting companies to reduce their emissions using carbon credits, but this tool is not suitable for achieving immediate carbon reductions, and instead relies too much on agreements to future carbon capture. Advance purchase agreements have their place within the CDR-sphere, but governments need controlled CO2 reduction that does not rely on future commitments to CDR. Immediate reductions need to be emphasised.
The CRCF has the potential to be an important document in structuring carbon removals within ongoing mission to reach net zero, but it needs some key clarifications and revisions before this can be achieved.
