CDR library

👀 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

👀 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). �

💶 The BioCCS cost assumptions are the Achilles Heel of the current ETS CDR proposal. The numbers - see comments for a reminder - just don’t look right, with all the downstream implications they have. 👀 So I dove deep. Very deep. Three numbers are key to understand: 1️⃣ €172/t in 2020 - this forms the lower bound starting point (in 2023, using EUR2020) 2️⃣ €153/t in 2050 - this forms the single end point for all three (lower/average/upper) scenarios. 3️⃣ €314/t in 2024 - t

🎙️ 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

‼️ CLARIFICATION: the mechanism is more nuanced than I had initially understood. The Commission is not committing to 250Mt of CDR. It is suggesting to auction 250Mt (+10Mt contingency) of allowances "to generate revenues for the purchase of an equivalent amount of domestic permanent carbon removal units". Should the budget be insufficient (possible), it could simply buy less removals. I wrote an update here: https://lnkd.in/d6jUuJzm 🇪🇺 The European Commission’s long awaited

🐝 Lots of buzzing about this big drop next week by the EU. If you want to find out what you need to know ahead of time, what to look out for, we’ve got you covered with the latest CDR Policy Scoop Scoop Episode featuring Carbon Gap. Eve Tamme sat down with Francesca Battersby and Louis Uzor from Carbon Gap to unpack: 🔹What integration could actually look like: a public authority or a market led model 🔹 Whether CDR sits below or above the declining cap 🔹 How to close the

🌍 CDR can help us reach our climate goals while keeping Europe competitive and the EU ETS gives our industry that flexbility. 👀 More on why the ETS needs removals from the Negative Emissions Platform: https://lnkd.in/eAR6v2vp #ETSneedsremovals

🇪🇺 This timely new Ariadne dossier (Frank Best, Michael Pahle, Darius Sultani Claudia Günther, Malte Herten, Jörn Constantin Richstein, and Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, 2026) seems to have drowned in the whole SBTi noise. Yet it is one of the best analyses I have seen to date on why CDR is truly needed for the long-term effectiveness of the EU Emission Trading System. 📈 It starts with an assessment of what could happen to ETS prices, especially if CCS and green hydrogen dep

🇪🇺 Huge news coming out of Europe this week! The European Commission released a draft implementing act for the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) covering the use of carbon credits. 🔎 The punchline: Europe is looking to allow up to 10% of international carbon credits (Article 6) and what looks like unlimited domestic compliance carbon credits to be used to reduce CBAM levies for companies exporting to Europe. 💶 Why is this so big? Let’s do the maths: the CBAM - cur

💶 That is the billion euro question. A new study sheds light on this, and the numbers are big: 68-86Mt/year of durable CDR demand, easily >€10b/year. 🇪🇺 We are just 1-2 months away from the European Commission’s proposal on how CDR is to be integrated into the world’s largest emission trading system. I’ve seen a number of opinions on the potential impact on such an integration. 📄 However, to my knowledge, this is the first peer-reviewed paper modelling the exact demand th

🤔 Is European industry losing its competitiveness because of the EU ETS, as Italy and many other countries are arguing? Not according to Denmark! 💪 In fact, the relentless climate pioneer think the ETS is not going far enough. 🇩🇰 Denmark just introduced a national CO2 tax of €17/tCO₂e in 2026, increasing annually to roughly €48–50/tCO₂e from 2030 for ETS-covered installations. This means that facilities in Denmark will have to pay the ETS price PLUS the domestic tax. 🪜

💚 While several EU member states are taking stabs at dismantling the ETS, Spain is coming out in its defense: President Pedro Sánchez explicitly described the EU ETS as the “cornerstone” of EU climate policy and opposes proposals to weaken or suspend the system. 🤷 Why would Spain take such a different stance to Germany, Italy, and many others? ⚡ Already today, Spain is generating 56% of its electricity and 42% of its energy consumption from renewables. As a result, Spain i

Europe’s flagship climate policy - the EU ETS - has come under heavy attack lately. Its cost on carbon is seen as unsustainable and unfair to European industry. ⚠️ As a result, member states are asking for changes, delays, and even suspension. 🤔 But could CDR be a solution here? 📈 First, let’s start with the status quo: the cost of carbon in the ETS is going to increase - by design: estimates put it at around €150/t in 2030, €200/t in 2035, €270/t in 2040 and >€600/t in 205

🪓 Are you following how Italy is trying to break Europe’s most successful climate policy? 🫣 As an Italian myself, this is not easy to write. But it is necessary. 🏭 Here is how: under Article 6 of the just passed €3b “Decreto Bollete”, the Italian government would reimburse gas-fired power plants for the exact costs linked to ETS compliance. 📉 Without touching the ETS itself, Italy's move, if approved or replicated, could become a template that structurally undermines the

💚 The European Emission Trading System (EU ETS) might well be the most effective decarbonisation policy humanity has ever created: it has lowered emissions of industrial facilities in the EU by around 50% in 20 years and saving an estimated 2Gt already! 🇪🇺 And we are just getting started! But the whole premise of the ETS is that the cost of emitting a ton of CO2 will keep increasing, as free allowances and the so-called cap decrease. 💶 The ETS is also currently generating

💭 When I think about what will generate the biggest demand for CDR in the coming decade, I come back to three things: 1️⃣ EU ETS integration 2️⃣ International credit procurement towards the EU 2040 target 3️⃣ Use for EU CBAM carbon price deduction. 💪 The last one is the big underdog amongst the three. Yet, unbeknownst to many, things are happening! 🇪🇺 The EU Commission is currently working on detailed rules of what the use of international credits - likely under Article