CDR library

📑 The European Parliament has released more than 3,000 amendments to the ETS revision proposal made by the members of its ENVI Committee. 🎙️ I have previously covered the positions of the Rapporteur Peter Liese and the Shadow Rapporteurs both here on LinkedIn and on the Carbon Removal Scoop. Now that we have the full picture, time to see what might change. 👍 Big picture for removals, it seems like the EPP - the largest block in Parliament - has largely rallied behind Peter

🥊 Yesterday, live from Carbon Unbound Europe, the Carbon Removal Scoop hosted its 5th Showdown Debate, arguably our most beloved format. 🏛️ The topic couldn’t be more timely: is Europe putting all its eggs in one basket? Should it adopt a more tech neutral removals policy? Decisions taken now will shape decade(s) to come. 📣 If you follow me, you will know that this matter is close to my heart and that I have a pretty strong opinion on it. 🤩 Luckily for you, it wasn’t me o

📝 They should. These three institutions are writing the rules for our sector, including what role removals play in the EU ETS, arguably the hottest file in Brussels right now. 🤓 If you know who to talk to and when, you get a say in those rules. 🔎 DECODE is my free six-day email course on EU CDR policy. Over 1,000 people have taken it. 📨 Lesson 1 goes out when you sign up: https://lnkd.in/e4ViTbMC

📄 Three more EU Parliament positions on the EU ETS just came in through Contexte: Renew, S&D, and the Greens. ⚠️ There is a lot to highlight, some favourable (Renew), and most definitely unfavourable. What really stands out is that two of them (S&D and Greens) suggest only allowing DACCS in the ETS. 🤔 No surprise here: I am a big DACCS fan. I genuinely think it will be the most relevant CDR approach at net-zero. But do I think we can do megatons of it in Europe in a few ye

💬 A lot of people are talking about the price gap between removals and emission allowances (EUAs) in the EU Emission Trading System these days. 🫰 The basic issue: removals cost much more than EUAs and that gap needs to be filled with public money. 🤔 But how big is the gap really going to be? I spent a lot of time covering the CDR cost side, and published analysis for each of the three main methods in Europe - here as a reminder: 🏭 BioCCS: https://lnkd.in/eGHdUQ8A 🌬️ DACC

🇪🇺 The Negative Emissions Platform - Europe’s trade association for CDR - is looking for a new Secretary General to start on January 1st 2027. 💎 This is a rare gem: Europe is the epicentre of carbon removal policy globally. Few organisations are as well placed to shape CDR’s future than NEP. It is the oldest CDR association in the world, with a strong track record, brand, networks, and team. 🤝 Your job is to take all of that and lead the organisation into this exciting

📣 Just one of the many bold statements European member of parliament Emma Wiesner made on today’s CDR Policy Scoop. 🇪🇺 As Renew Europe’s Shadow Rapporteur on the EU ETS revision, Wiesner’s voice carries a lot of weight in the upcoming negotiations. 🎙️ Just days before the release of her party’s position, she generously shared her insights with Eve Tamme and I. What stood out to me regarding the role of removals in the proposal: 🔹 Reduce the role of the EU Commission in

😍 Have you seen Carbon Gap’s wonderful overview of (probably) all CDR approaches? I love how it shows the incredible breadth of the sector: from ocean to soils to forests to machines. There is something in there for everyone. Why does this matter? Why do we truly need a portfolio of approaches? 🔹 SCALE: no single technology will deliver the volumes we need. Period. 🔹 RESILIENCE: what if inputs for one approach (e.g. biomass, sorbents, energy) suddenly become uneconomical?

📍 Just came back from the first ever Carbon Removal Policy Summit by Carbon Gap in Brussels. Perfect timing given the flurry of activity over the summer and the huge volume of files coming up. Key takeaways for me: 🔹 ETS: understandably the hottest topic right now. Everyone agrees the proposal is an absolute game changer and that we need to firm up the 250Mt number. Key discussion is the link to the CRCF and the potential inclusion of biochar in particular. 🔹 EU Buyers Clu

✅ Tons happening this week in Europe's capital. Not here? No problem: the CDR Policy Scoop will bring you all key takeaways. Recording has already started. 🤝 And - if you are here - including at tomorrow's Carbon Policy Summit by Carbon Gap, make sure to find my co-host Eve Tamme or our producer Helen Lundebye to share your insights with us. 👋 See you all soon.

🇪🇺 Europe is clearly the place to be for CDR Policy at the moment. From the hottest topic: ETS integration, to CRCF operationalisation, to member state targets in the pipeline. So much going on. 🎙️ A good time to pay a visit. I will be there on Tuesday 15th and Wednesday 16th for meetings around town, the Carbon Gap Summit, and to record a special CDR Policy Scoop episode with my fabulous co-host Eve Tamme. 👋 Hit me up if you will be there too!

👀 As expected, the EU Parliament's Rapporteur on the Emission Trading System Revision Peter Liese is pushing for significant changes to the Commission's proposal. A Contexte leak of the [soon to be published] draft shows how far Liese wants to go: ➡️ Start date in 2029 instead of 2031 ➡️ Biochar added to the eligible pathways alongside DACCS and BioCCS with a 20% cap ➡️ [Uncapped] additional allowances to be auctioned to cover a potential price gap ✅ And much more. This is v

🤩 Our star guest was no other than Peter Liese, a 32-years veteran member of the European Parliament and its Rapporteur on the EU ETS review proposal. 🏆 And - dare I say - I have never spoken to a politician who champions carbon removals the way Peter does. 🏭 Peter has been advocating for CDR in the EU ETS since 2021, when he oversaw the last review, also as the Parliament’s Rapporteur on the file. So what does he think of the proposal now that CDR finally made it in? 🏁 I

✍️ Semantics, you might say. Not really. There are huge differences and getting this wrong can end up being very costly, to everyone involved. ⚖️ Lisa (Elisabeth) DeMarco is one of the legal architects of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. She helped governments draft the rules we all talk about today. 🎙️ It was thus a huge pleasure to sit down with her in our latest CDR Policy Scoop to ask her all our questions - and there were many. 🇪🇺 Looking at the EU - which tends to

👀 This is a particularly important one to scrutinise, as excessively low BCR costs - €37/t anyone? - were explicitly highlighted by the EU Commission as a reason NOT to integrate BCR into the ETS, given it could potentially lead to distorting effects. 🇪🇺 Now I know the BCR industry well enough to immediately realise that the Commission’s numbers were off. So let’s dig in - here is how the numbers come together: 1️⃣ The entire lower bound (€66-€37/t) comes / is derived fro

👀 Last week, I shed some light on the pretty shaky assumptions behind the BioCCS cost forecast in the EU ETS proposal. Today, let’s shift focus to the other CDR method eligible for integration into the ETS: DACCS. 💶 Unlike with BioCCS, I didn’t find the DACCS numbers intuitively off. In fact, I had a bunch of DACCS project developers tell me they were quite happy about those numbers, which might be even higher than what they could get on the voluntary carbon market (VCM). �

💎 This is a real gem: the department leading carbon removal policy within the European Commission is hiring for a Policy Officer. 🇪🇺 DG Clima C3 within the European Commission has been driving cutting-edge CDR policy, amongst others the Carbon Removal and Carbon Farming Regulation (CRCF), and - more recently - the EU Buyers Club. 🫵 Now you can join them! Key tasks include: 🔹 Helping to implement the CRCF, including managing the Carbon Removal Expert Group 🔹 Contributing

🎙️ Mette Quinn heads up the team at the European Commission which has spent years thinking about the CDR integration into the EU ETS. Eve Tamme and I managed to get Mette on the CDR Policy Scoop to ask her all our hard, outstanding questions. 🎯 Sneak preview: yes, the 250Mt of CDR in the 2030s is a promise, not just an aspiration. 💡 There is much, much more. Mette was generous, clear, and insightful. I guarantee you will learn something you didn’t know. Make sure to check

🤷‍♂️ Here we go again: wild CDR costs in an official EU proposal (the Commission's Impact Assessment for the ETS Review, Annex 8 on Removals specifically). Only problem: this time it looks like the entire CDR integration into the ETS rests on these assumptions… 💶 Here is why: the EU is planning to sell 250 million EUAs to buy 250 million tons of CDR. As per the impact assessment, they assume that - by 2036 - the cost of an EUA will reach around €200 and the cost of CDR (esp

📈 Yesterday, I posted about the >€50b compliance market for CDR that the planned integration into the ETS would mean. 💶 The math was simple: the Commission suggested procuring 250Mt of CDR. At an average cost of €200/t, we’d be looking at €50b between 2031-2040. 🤔 The reality - as I understood today - is more complex, and worrying. 🔦 The proposal does not commit the EU to procuring 250Mt of CDR. It commits the EU to selling 250Mt of EUAs (+ an additional 10Mt contingency