🌍 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

we go again: wild CDR costs in an official EU proposal (the Commission's Impact Assessment for the ETS Only problem: this time it looks like the entire CDR integration into the ETS rests on these assumptions 👉 Want to stay informed with all the important ETS and CDR developments in Europe and beyond?

Yesterday, I posted about the >€50b compliance market for CDR that the planned integration into the ETS An updated number would likely be much lower, especially given how much the ETS is bound to change as finds ways to lower the cost of a CDR portfolio by integrating lower cost permanent removals into the ETS prioritises lowering the cost of BioCCS/DACCS pre-2031 through further investments (e.g. frontloading of ETS

than Peter Liese, a 32-years veteran member of the European Parliament and its Rapporteur on the EU ETS politician who champions carbon removals the way Peter does. 🏭 Peter has been advocating for CDR in the EU ETS A few gems: 💎 CDR in the EU ETS should be uncapped 💎 Biochar belongs in there from day one, capped

- were explicitly highlighted by the EU Commission as a reason NOT to integrate BCR into the ETS, given or even charcoal. ✅ So here you have it: the real data behind all the CDR cost projections in the EU ETS

👀 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 very much in line with the CDR Policy Scoop episode we did with Liese earlier this week. 🧐 One big question mark I still have: Liese had advocated for an uncapped, direct integration of CDR. In his draft, he is making changes to Article 14(1a), adding DACCS with a phrasing that seems to allude that only this method shall be integrated directly and without limits. Although it is not 100% clear as embedded in the own-use for operator section. Highly recommend listening to our Scoop with Peter Liese to understand his rationale behind these suggested changes. ▪️ Podcast https://lnkd.in/ej8G44Jm ▪️ Youtube https://lnkd.in/egw7CV6q ⁉️ What do you all think of this? Especially the section on uncapped use of DACCS?

🐝 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 price gap between DAC, BioCCS and EU allowances. Tune in to hear what Carbon Gap will be watching for when the proposal lands. 🎧 Listen here: https://lnkd.in/eGCEghZk ▶️ Watch on YouTube: https://lnkd.in/eVgWcdPF 👀 And stay tuned afterward the release for an upcoming episode we are recording with Mette Quinn, Deputy Director, Carbon Markets and Clean Mobility from the European Commission.

. 📈 It starts with an assessment of what could happen to ETS prices, especially if CCS and green hydrogen ’t work out, e.g. insufficient supply. 🏭 Finally, the paper also calls for using a bigger share of ETS date on why and especially how CDR can help guarantee the long-term stability and effectiveness of the ETS

I looked at a bunch of third party estimates for pre vs post ETS revision proposal data. 📉 The short the linear reduction factor is decreased in combination with the use of international credits in the ETS . ⚠️ Critics will say that this is creating a license to pollute and destroy the ETS. Advocates will say that the whole ETS is at stake if we cannot smooth the EUA cost curve for industry this in the posts linked above, but the main one is to lower the average portfolio cost of CDR in the ETS

Europe’s flagship climate policy - the EU ETS - has come under heavy attack lately. 📈 First, let’s start with the status quo: the cost of carbon in the ETS is going to increase - by design price will not soar. 🫰 According to Sultanti et al (2024), CDR could yield a 10-15% reduction in ETS Verbist et al (2025) also show up to 50% savings, depending on the integration design. 🪨 And this is cost savings of up to €37b/year by 2050 with a CDR portfolio cost of €150/t. 💲 So can CDR save the ETS

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 Minister for Enterprises Adolfo Urso said he will formally ask the European Commission to pause the ETS domestically. 🇩🇪 Clearly, countries in Europe are stepping up their pressure ahead of the planned ETS If current populist demands get their way, say goodbye to CDR in the ETS. ✊ Is all hope lost?

Last week, I shed some light on the pretty shaky assumptions behind the BioCCS cost forecast in the EU ETS Today, let’s shift focus to the other CDR method eligible for integration into the ETS: DACCS. 💶 Unlike