Discover the news shaping the future of carbon removal.

Stay up to date on all things Klimate, carbon removal, and the most important emerging news and policy. Read our latest Insights.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Carbon Sinks: Where is Carbon Stored?

January 11, 2024
4 min

What is a carbon sink?

A carbon sink is a natural reservoir that absorbs more carbon than it releases, playing a crucial role in maintaining manageable levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. These different locations vary in how long carbon is stored, from years to millennia, called durability or permanence. Each sink has a vital function in the cycle of carbon.

Klimate works with nine different carbon removal methods (and counting) which sequester and store carbon in different sinks.

Waves crashing on rocks

Where is carbon stored naturally?

Natural carbon sinks, such as forests, oceans, and soil, absorb a significant amount of carbon from the atmosphere—about 50% of all human-induced emissions. The world's forests alone absorb 2.6 billion tonnes of CO2 each year.

How are natural sinks used in carbon dioxide removal?

All methods of carbon removal utilise natural carbon sinks in some way. Even engineered methods utilise geological storage systems. The table below describes several important carbon sinks and how they are utilised by removal methods.

Types of carbon sink How they store carbon Permanence range Klimate's methods
Land (forests, grasslands & soils) Tree and other plants take up carbon through photosynthesis, storing it in their biomass.

Once plants die, this carbon is stored in soil via decompisition.

Carbon can also be stored long-term in timber used for building.
Decades - centures.

10s-100s of years
Forestation, soil sequestration, biochar
Oceans Phytoplankton and other forms of marine life take up carbon via photosynthesis, similarly to plants.

When they die, this carbon sinks to the ocean floor, where it is stored for the long term in seabed sediments.
Centuries - millenia

100s-1000s of years
Ocean blue carbon, coastal blue carbon, enhanced weathering.
Geological formations Geological formations like volcanic rocks and underground saline formations are also key carbon storage sites.

Engineered carbon removal methods are able to pressurise CO2 into liquid form, which can then be injected into basins of porous rock deep underground.
Millenia - epochs

>10,000 years
Bio-oil, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), direct air capture (DACCS).

Challenges of emissions and land use change

Rising greenhouse gas emissions are upsetting the balance of the carbon cycle, leading to a situation where carbon sinks are unable to absorb all the carbon being released.

Simultaneously, more and more land is being converted for urbanisation and agriculture. This often involves disturbances, like deforestation, that release carbon already stored in the land, while preventing it from sequestering any further emissions.

This poses a significant challenge, as the importance of carbon sinks in tackling climate change has never been greater.

Currently the EU's land use sector is actually a net carbon sink, meaning it absorbs more carbon that it releases. On a global scale, however, the opposite is happening.

Which carbon sinks are most important for CO2 removal efforts?

There is no doubt that preserving and expanding natural carbon sinks should be a priority. They have strong co-benefits for biodiversity and are deployable now, creating rapid carbon uptake and safe storage in the short term. At the same time, geological carbon sinks which can be accessed through engineered solutions are highly permanent and hold huge potential to accelerate carbon removal.

Waves crashing on rocks

These solutions are essential to mitigate carbon emissions and ensure the stability of the global climate. At Klimate, we aim to drive balanced investments into nature-based solutions alongside technology-driven removals that demonstrate high integrity and scaling potential.


Why invest in both long and short term carbon removal solutions?

January 8, 2024
3 min

What is the difference between short-term and long-term carbon storage?

The concept of permanence, or durability, is central to effective carbon removal. Durability denotes the longevity of carbon sequestration within a carbon sink. Yet, this is influenced by the risk of reversal—the potential for disruption and subsequent release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

For instance, carbon stored in mineral form within rock is durable with minimal risk of reversal, unlike carbon dioxide pumped into rock as a gas that could be disturbed. Trees are fairly durable, storing carbon for decades to hundreds of years, but are at a higher risk of reversal in the event of something like a forest fire.

Different carbon removal methods have different levels of durability (how long the carbon is expected to be stored for) and different levels of reversal risk (how likely is the carbon to slowly or abruptly leak back to the atmosphere).

Nature-Based Solutions Hybrid Solutions Engineered Solutions
Storage duration: 50-100 years Storage duration: 100s-1,000s of years Storage Duration: 10,000 years
Trees store carbon in their leaves and woody biomass. When they eventually die and decompose, this carbon is sequestered in the soil. Some solutions utilise natural processes in tandem with human intervention, e.g., trapping carbon in biomass via pyrolysis—the process of creating biochar. Technology has made it possible to capture carbon directly from the air and store it deep underground, through methods like direct air capture and storage.
There is typically a high risk of reversal for nature-based solutions. For example, forest fires cause the carbon stored in biomass to be immediately returned to the atmosphere. For hybrid solutions, such as biochar or biomass burial, there is typically a small but tangible reversal risk, as a portion of the carbon stored in the material will eventually return to the atmosphere. The reversal risk for engineered solutions depend on storage location. For CO2 stored underground as gas or liquid, there is a low but not negligible risk of leakage, whereas CO2 in mineralised form has no risk of leakage.
Nature-based solutions operate on timescales of 50-100 years. This is a long time as compared to person’s lifetime, but carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for up to 10,000 years. These solutions can store carbon for hundreds to thousands of years. This is long-term carbon storage on a geological time scale (from thousands of years to over 10,000 years).

Combining methods is necessary to combat climate change

Engineered CDR solutions hold enormous potential to reach our global climate targets by amplifying long-term geological reservoirs. However, these solutions require a long-term outlook. The technologies behind them are still nascent and require significant research and investment to reach gigaton scale, which will take decades.

Nature-based carbon storage acts as a very effective buffer in the meantime. Forests already store vast amounts of CO2 and forestation has the capacity to be scaled massively, although land is a finite resource, so it is important to consider where and how to reforest. In addition, forestry is a well-established carbon removal method with proven results and a high degree of knowledge about risk factors and limitations. But, it requires large amounts of land, a major constraint to scale–especially in the face of climate change.

The case for scaling nature-based carbon removals

It is possible to link nature-based solutions and tech-driven CDR solutions in sequence to maximise overall climate impact and socio-environmental benefits. This mix-methods approach can also diversify risk and balance cost.

This strategy, termed 'horizontal stacking', helps account for the delay in permanent carbon credit availability, while making sure investment still reaches tech-driven carbon removal projects.

By the time carbon stored in less permanent sinks like forests is about to be re-released, the more energy-intensive engineered solutions will be sufficiently scaled to be able to absorb this CO2 once again.

There is evidence to show that nature-based removals has the potential to reduce peak warming in the shorter term, as long as they are employed alongside strong emissions reduction efforts [1].

Taking the long view: Investing in carbon removals for maximum climate impact

It’s important to strike the right balance between climate impact and important co-benefits in every portfolio. After all, sequestering carbon is important but carbon tunnel vision—i.e., ignoring all other factors—is not feasible, as carbon removal does not occur in a closed system. You can simultaneously invest in long-term removal, supporting the development of the future market, while deploying methods that are readily available at present.

Scaling and diversifying the market through increased investment and commitment from governments and companies are crucial steps toward achieving global net zero, but they aren’t the whole picture. Upholding our common climate goals of the Paris Agreement demands a comprehensive approach that extends beyond carbon removal to tackle the underlying causes of climate change.


The Social Cost of Carbon

December 20, 2023
3 min

What is the social cost of carbon?

The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is a monetary estimate of the total societal damage that would be caused by releasing one additional tonne of carbon into the atmosphere. These hidden costs include:

  • Impacts on human health (e.g. increased mortality due to air pollution)
  • Damage to infrastructure from extreme weather events
  • Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services
  • Impacts on food and energy systems
Expressing the effects of global warming in economic terms helps policymakers and industry understand the impact of their decisions, and can make emission reductions more economically viable.“Quality comes with price and if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Claiming carbon neutrality when paying 10$/tonne, while the social cost of carbon has been found to be 20x this price, sets you up for accusations of greenwashing, for good reason.”

Simon Bager, Co-Founder and Chief Impact Officer

Valuing the Social Cost of Carbon Credits

There isn’t one agreed-upon SCC value, or a common framework for calculating it.

Official recommendations range from $100/tCO2 (UN IPCC) to well into the thousands of dollars. These estimations are reached by modelling climatic responses (such as temperature and sea level rise) to expected future emissions. The projected cost of damages is then converted into present-day economic value.

How much should a credit cost?

Various valuations for what a carbon credit, or one tonne of carbon emissions, might be worth.
46 €80-110/tCO2 $190/tCO2 €200-250/tCO2
The number of countries with carbon pricing policies in place. Average prices on the EU Emissions Trading Scheme over the past year. The latest SCC figure set by the US; a big step up from the previous value of $51/tCO2. By the Danish Council on Climate Change.

Klimate's approach to carbon pricing

As Klimate is based in Denmark, we price our portfolios in line with the carbon tax rate recommended by the Danish Council on Climate Change. To achieve the country's ambitious climate goals - which include reaching Net Zero by 2050-experts suggest raising carbon prices to $200-$250/tCO2 by 2030 (IMF).

Our portfolios are also designed according to the Oxford Offsetting Principles, which aim for high-quality carbon credits, incorporating long-lasting storage, and net zero goals. We place emphasis on co-benefits and the long-term outlook of our carbon removal solutions.

A move towards valuing the true cost of carbon, especially in the wide range of carbon removal credit pricing, is a difficult process.

Accurate SCC estimates are crucial to ensure that outcomes actually contribute to the climate goals set by governments and businesses, and larger targets like limiting global warming to 1.5ºc by 2100. By pricing our carbon removal portfolios in line with the latest science, Klimate seeks to make sure its clients stay ahead of the curve and create real climate impact.

Company strategy

How to strategize carbon accounting and removal

November 14, 2023
3 min

What you will learn

Carbon accounting and removal can be very daunting, especially if you are in an early stage of your sustainability journey. Klappir and Klimate are here to help to answer your questions, highlight the usual pitfalls and provide insights into the carbon removal market. You can read here the main points of the webinar.

Insights from Klappir

  1. Planning your carbon accounting - We tap into how you can assess your carbon accounting project and how to get started.  We discuss the considerations regarding ambition and the time frame of the project to understand if the resources you have available are sufficient. This is also tied to regulations and certifications that you have to follow or want to pursue and the tools you have available.
  2. Data methodology and sources - What is the difference between activity-based and spend-based data? How do you use different methods of data and why? We will also outline different sources where you can get hold of the data you need in accordance with the methodology you choose.
  3. Considerations for reporting - There is a difference between sustainability statements and reports that many are not aware of, and we will tell you why you should do both. We also discuss validation of your data, auditing and greenwashing that should be considered when doing sustainability reports.
“Many companies are putting ESG and carbon accounting as their priority. Yet, there is a lot of uncertainty on what to report on, how to collect data and which data is sufficient. Klappir helps companies to not only collect the right data but also work with it in all their sustainability projects and strategies, and therefore I wanted this webinar to give some hands on tips on where to get the right data and what to consider in the process for carbon accounting.”

Isabelle Broddén, Growth Specialist, Klappir

Insights from Klimate

  1. What is carbon removal? Why is it important and what is the difference between carbon  avoidance and carbon removal? In the webinar, we explain the difference between carbon removal and carbon avoidance. We also explain how to use carbon removal as part of SBTi mitigation efforts and underline the importance of carbon removal forachieving long-term net zero according to SBTi.
  2. What are the different carbon removal methods and how we select them? We introduce you to the different CDR methods we are working with and how we select them according to permanence, impact, integrity and additionality.
  3. Supply and Demand issues- We cover the increasing problem of supply and demand within the carbon removal space, and which options to tackle it exist, and finally we explain how we help secure future supply by scaling up the existing solutions.

How to align with the Oxford Offsetting Principles

October 9, 2023
7 min

What are the Oxford Offsetting Principles?

The Oxford Offsetting Principles are four principles created to provide a resource for designing and delivering rigorous voluntary net zero commitments by governments, cities, and companies and help to align work on credible offsetting around the world.

First released in 2024, they were revised at the start of 2024 to address critical changes in the market in the last several years: evidence that avoidance schemes are over-crediting, and that the market is far away from the scaling needs especially of durable solutions.

With this reframing in mind, the core principles help companies pursue a net zero future without fears of greenwashing. Companies that align with the principles can genuinely communicate their impact with minimal reputational risk, reaping the benefits of their actions. The 4 Principles are as follows:

  1. Urgently reduce emissions, ensure integrity, and regularly revise as best practice evolves.
  2. Shift to removal approaches for any residual emissions.
  3. Shift to more durable removals with a low risk of reversals.
  4. Support the development of innovative and integrated approaches to achieving net zero.

In the following, we cover the principles and explain how you can align your business with them to ensure the credibility of your efforts is not questioned.

Why should companies follow the Oxford Offsetting Principles?

Carbon avoidance offsetting has gotten a bad reputation over the last decade–and for good reason. Companies have relied on cheap, low-quality offsets that don't actually remove CO2 emissions from the atmosphere. In combination with over-communication on the impact of offsets, many companies' efforts can be classified as greenwashing. On the other hand, companies fear greenwashing accusations, leading to green-hushing and stagnancy in climate action

However, the science is quite clear: We will only be able to stay within the goals of the Paris Agreement with significant carbon removal. Private companies are a crucial driver of this, and if they cannot compensate for their emissions in a trustworthy manner, we will not be able to scale the technologies needed.

Categories of Offsets. Image credit: Oxford Smith School

The principles and how to align.

Principle 1

Cut emissions as a priority, ensure the environmental integrity of credits, and regularly revise as best practice evolves.

Principle one is all about ambitiously reducing your own value chain and, where you can't, adapting to the highest possible quality of credits as the market develops.

Key point 1.1

Prioritise reducing your own emissions - Minimise the need for offsets in the first place. Ambitious reductions in tandem with removals–a concept called dual targets–are the most robust approach a company can take.

Key point 1.2

Ensure environmental integrity - Use credits that are verifiable and correctly accounted for and have a low risk of non-additionality, reversal, and creating negative unintended consequences for people and the environment.

Key point 1.3

Maintain transparency—Disclose current emissions, accounting practices, targets to reach net zero, and the type of offsets you employ. Clarity and transparency are essential to effective climate communication, which is why they remain a major focus of our public ledger, certificates, and communications support.

Principle 2

Transition to carbon removal offsetting for any residual emissions (away from emissions avoidance or reduction) by the global net zero target date.

This is a big one, but luckily, it's also easy to achieve if you are willing to go the extra mile. This principle is about moving from projects that avoid emissions entering the atmosphere (such as windmills) to projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Key point 2.1

Today, reduction or avoided emissions projects make up most of the market. Net zero requires scaling removals to multiple giga-tonne capacity. Quality reduction projects are necessary but insufficient to achieve net zero in the long run, whereas carbon removals scrub carbon directly from the atmosphere.

Principle 3

Shift to removals with durable storage and low risk of reversal.

All carbon dioxide needs to be stored, and different methods vary in their length or susceptibility to releasing GHGs back into the atmosphere, i.e., the risk of reversal. Methods of storage vary in durability and reversal risk, leading to a spectrum of nature-based, engineered, or hybrid solutions. All these play a key role in accelerating and reaching net zero.

Key point 3.1

Some short-lived storage methods have a higher risk of being reversed over decades. Other long-lived storage methods can carbon with a low risk of reversal over centuries to millennia, such as storing CO₂ in geological reservoirs or mineralising carbon into stable forms.

Short- and medium-storage solutions with moderate reversal risks still remain critical as they help buy time to reduce emissions and support biodiversity and ecosystem resilience.

Investment and scaling today must recognise the need for improving and accelerating durable technologies. This must begin now, and incorporating these alongside nature-based solutions sends an important market signal. Maximising impact through a portfolio achieves a great balance of these priorities.

Principle 4

Support the development of innovative and integrated approaches to achieving net zero.

Today's market is still in its early stages, and early adopters are necessary to support its growth. This means companies like yours can impact a developing quality market and reap the benefits of being a first-mover.

Key point 4.1

Use long-term agreements that are bankable and investable – so that project developers can have the certainty required to create credits for net zero goals. One element is signing long-term agreements facilitated by Klimate.

Key point 4.2

Form sector-specific alliances—work collaboratively with peers to develop the net zero-aligned offsets market. One key element of this is shifting demand by advocating for stronger industry bodies and standards supported by policy. The other side involves guiding buyers to send demand signals through investments that follow principles 2 and 3.

Key point 4.3

De-risk project finance. Similar to points 4.1-.2, signing long-term agreements, often called advanced market commitments, improves project developers' security and, therefore, scalability. Facilitating and contracting these agreements can be difficult, which is why Klimate has created a single digital contract and platform for tracking and streamlining the procurement process over multiple methods and timelines.

Key point 4.4

Support the restoration and protection of a wide range of natural and semi-natural ecosystems in their own right – not only will this secure the ecosystem goods and services on which humans depend, including resilience to the impacts of climate change, but it will also contribute to carbon storage over the long term. This highlights the portfolio approach and the importance of synergies through co-benefits.

Key point 4.5

Adopting and publicising these Principles and incorporating them into regulation and standard-setting for approaches to offsetting and Net Zero. This key point is self-explanatory: transparent and clearly stating the strategy of your offsetting activity is key to effective climate communication.

Key point 4.6

Invest in additional mitigation beyond the value chain. We've got a long way to go to develop the market for net zero and limit warming to 1.5. This goal isn't possible without investment today in preparation for a net zero future.

Manage future risk with carbon removal.

We didn't come up with the Oxford Principles, but they help inform our science-backed approach to carbon removal. A robust scientific strategy is required to future-proof your business, manage future compliance, avoid regulatory risks, and even boost brand reputation.

In the past, offsetting markets allowed companies to make claims on the back of low quality offsets–which is wasteful at best and greenwashing at worst. We want to empower companies to do better when they do good. By aligning with the Oxford Principles and building a solution with our team of experts, you can invest confidently and accelerate your company climate journey.


Understanding carbon offsets: The difference between avoidance and removal credits

October 2, 2023
2 min

Taxonomy of Carbon Offsets

The first thing to understand about carbon offsets is whether a greenhouse gas is removed from the atmosphere, or if it is an avoided emission, which we cover in detail here.

The second thing to understand is whether emissions that have been removed from the atmosphere are out of the atmosphere in the short term or in the long term. We will cover this further in the “permanence” section in this article, but for now, just know that we are grouping carbon removal methods in these two buckets.

The chart below presents a simplified version of the carbon credit categories outlined in the Oxford Offsetting Principles. This allows us to very roughly put all types of compensation into three buckets:

  • Avoidance
  • Short-term removal
  • Long-term removal

Generally, there is a significant increase in cost when moving down the scale: CO₂ credits from renewable energy projects can be bought for as little as a few euros per ton, forest-based solutions vary from €5 to €30, while permanent removal like Direct Air Capture can cost as much as €900 per ton.

Why we need to shift towards permanent carbon removal solutions

“An immediate transition to 100% carbon removals is not necessary, nor is it currently feasible, but organisations must commit to gradually increase the percentage of carbon removal offsets they procure with a view to exclusively sourcing [Permanent] carbon removals by mid-century.”

- Oxford Offsetting Principles

One of the main take-aways from the Oxford Offsetting Principles is that we need to make two transitions simultaneously:

  1. Moving from avoidance towards removal
  2. Moving from short-term to long-term removal

This transition is not easy, and it’s not feasible to achieve a complete switch immediately. Carbon disclosure regulations are gradually coming into force around the globe to incentivise corporate climate action. At the same time, carbon removal solutions must be rapidly scaled to ensure that there is sufficient capacity for permanent carbon removal in the next few decades. Reaching Net Zero by 2050 - in line with the targets set out in the Paris Agreement - relies on building integrity and reliable supply in the voluntary carbon market.


What is carbon removal?

February 13, 2023
3 min

The difference between avoidance and removal

At the most basic level, carbon offset methods can be split into two groups:

  • methods that avoid greenhouse gas emissions
  • methods that remove (and sequester) CO₂ which is already in the atmosphere

The most common forms of avoidance are renewable energy projects, like wind and solar developments, as well as energy-saving activities such as providing clean cookstoves or boilers.

The general idea is that if you buy energy-efficient cookstoves for people in developing countries, they will use these instead of burning wood. This results in a net reduction in the amount of CO₂ being emitted in the future (as less wood is harvested from forests and burned to heat the stove). Similarly, renewable energy offsets assume that the energy generated from renewable sources would otherwise have been generated from sources with higher CO₂ emissions like coal, oil, and gas. The difference is then counted as an offset.

Why does Klimate exclusively remove carbon?

The problem with avoidance is that no GHGs are actually removed from the atmosphere. As shown on the graph below, there are no negative emissions taking place, but rather an absence of emissions in a future year. As a result, it is not advisable to use avoidance for any type of compensation, especially if you intend to communicate your efforts to the public.

Furthermore, most renewable energy offsets, particularly wind and solar, struggle with proving additionality. This means that it is highly uncertain whether the investment makes a difference - for many of the avoidance projects, most of the emissions would never have occurred anyway. As such, there is limited additional impact as a result of the investment.

The alternative to avoidance is carbon removal. The advantage of carbon removal is that instead of avoiding future emissions, we actively remove GHGs from the atmosphere. This makes it more appropriate to talk about compensation, as there is a greater equivalence between emitting GHGs and removing them.As shown in the graph, this results in a negative emission, which can be used to make claims around being Net Zero. The relationship is not 1-to-1, and depends on factors such as the permanence, rapidity, additionality, and accounting of the emissions, which we take into account when we evaluate the different carbon removal methods and projects.

What are the different types of removals?

Carbon removal can happen either through nature-based solutions, like planting trees, or through engineered solutions that use technology to capture and store CO₂. There are also several hybrid solutions that combine nature-based solutions with engineering.

For instance, some methods rely on nature to capture CO₂ in biological material, but then use engineering solutions to convert the biomass into products or materials that retain carbon much longer than biological material.

Nature-based solutions

Nature-based solutions (NBS) are carbon-removal solutions inspired and supported by nature. They rely on natural processes for cost-effective carbon removal, provide environmental, social and economic benefits, and support various ecosystem services. Nature-based solutions include projects such as land-based forest restoration, agroforestry, mangrove forests, and marine biomass, such as kelp forests and seaweed.

Example: Forestation, Enhanced Weathering

Technological solutions

Technological solutions rely on engineering to capture and bind CO₂, and subsequently store the carbon. The most prominent and promising technologies are Direct Air Capture solutions that directly suck CO₂ from the atmosphere using giant fans and use various processes to store the carbon, usually in underground geological formations.

Example: Direct Air Capture

Hybrid solutions

Hybrid solutions combine nature-based and technological aspects. They rely on nature for part of the carbon removal process - usually to bind carbon in biomass through photosynthesis - and then use technology to modify and store the biomass. For example, many hybrid solutions use various types of pyrolysis to generate inactive carbon, which can be stored in soil or underground reservoirs.

Example: Biochar, Soil sequestration, Bio-oil


COP27: A short summary and reflections

December 1, 2022
2 min

A long overdue recognition of climate damages

The most important outcome overall was the establishment of a fund for so-called “Loss and Damage,” a tool to help low-income countries to deal with the impacts of climate change. This issue has been neglected by rich countries for decades and progress was long overdue. Robert Stavin’s blog post deals excellently with this topic, which has been controversial as countries have not been able to agree on who should pay for such loss and damage. Poorer countries have suggested that those most responsible for climate change, that is the countries with the largest accumulated (historical + current) emissions of GHGs – the United States, EU, and other large, wealthy countries, plus, importantly, China. Countries have not agreed on all the details of this fund and it remains to be seen whether it is merely an empty shell or whether it will help move us towards a more equitable system for compensating for loss and damage caused by global climate change.

Carbon removal - much talk, little action…

At COP27, carbon removal was more central than at previous COPs. At the conference participants agreed to “elaborate and further develop recommendations on activities involving removals, including appropriate monitoring, reporting, accounting for removals and crediting periods, addressing reversals, avoidance of leakage, and avoidance of other negative environmental and social impact.” However, in plain language, it was a bit disappointing, as no clear definition for carbon removal was achieved, while countries could not agree on a transparent mechanism to implement Article 6. The slow pace of progress on this is concerning. Though a complex matter, failure to gain clarity could create uncertainty in the voluntary carbon market. Therefore, it’s quite important that momentum is built before next year’s meeting, particularly around the technical working groups, to ensure that COP28 can deliver on carbon removal and address the outstanding questions around MRV, implementation and the link between the voluntary market and the Paris Agreement mechanisms.

COP28 - the carbon removal COP?

Although carbon removal is central to achieving net-zero and mitigating climate change, the carbon removal space still operates somewhat separately from the broader climate change agenda. Significant work is thus required - both within the carbon removal industry and within the climate change community - to mainstream CDR into the broader mitigation discussions at the COP. The decision text adopted at COP (the so-called Article 6.4) provides guidance and gives the Scientific Body - the experts working on this topic within UNFCCC - the time and mandate to “elaborate and further develop” the work on carbon removal in the lead-up to COP28. Eve Tamme’s blog post is successfully diving further into this topic. Next year’s COP, hosted by the United Arab Emirates, is expected to include a greater focus on CCUS, including carbon removal. Significant progress is thus expected within the carbon removal industry in 2023 - both in the technical negotiations leading up to COP28 and as a result of the upcoming EU certification framework for carbon removals. More on the latter in the next post.

Feedback and comments are essential. Shout out to Eve Tamme, Robert Stavins, and other climate change and carbon removal experts including the Klimate team for further insights.