Scaling Up Carbon Dioxide Removals in the EU: A Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Policy Options - Thesis

[Geoengineering News]

https://edepot.wur.nl/711671

Authors: Pieter Zijlstra

February 2026

Abstract 

Next to emission reductions, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is an indispensable element to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C or even 2°C above pre-industrial levels (IPCC, 2022). Carbon that is removed from the atmosphere should ideally be stored permanently, which calls for the use of durable methods such as Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) or Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS). Today, the capacity for durable CDR is still far from what is likely needed in the future.

Since most CDR methods currently do not have a viable business case, a thriving Carbon Dioxide Removal industry will not emerge without government intervention (Vaughan et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2024), yet governments have so far made limited efforts in making CDR policy (Schenuit et al., 2021). This also applies to the European Union, which has long been a frontrunner on climate policy (Schenuit et al., 2021). The EU aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and become net-negative thereafter (European Climate Law, 2021), yet while some first steps on CDR have been taken, a comprehensive policy framework to reach the required scale is still lacking (Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and CONCITO, 2024).

This may change soon; by 31 July 2026, the European Commission is expected to publish a report detailing how the EU could integrate durable CDR into its climate policy. In anticipation of this report, this thesis analyses several CDR policy options the EU could consider and provides recommendations.

The methods used were a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE). The Systematic Literature Review was largely conducted on the basis of Xiao and Watson (2019) and served to identify the policy options discussed in the literature, along with their associated strengths and weaknesses. This method provided a systematic, comprehensive and reproducible way to find relevant literature. Four policy options were selected for deeper analysis, namely 1) direct integration of CDR into the EU ETS; 2) introducing an EU Purchasing Programme; 3) establishing a Carbon Central Bank; and 4) placing a Carbon Takeback Obligation on fossil fuel producers and importers.

These four policy options were then compared against qualitative criteria in a Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation (SMCE). The six criteria used were 1) cost efficiency for the EU; 2) impact on the stability of the EU ETS allowance price; 3) net-negative emissions enablement; 4) preservation of emissions reduction incentive; 5) adherence to the Polluter Pays Principle; and 6) legal and administrative feasibility. They were in part adapted from the frameworks developed by Holland-Cunz and Baatz (2025) and CATF and CONCITO (2024), which were designed for assessing CDR policy instruments. Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation was used because the method is explicitly designed for public policy (Munda et al., 2022) and offers a consistent and transparent approach to compare policy options on various dimensions (Joint Research Centre, 2025). To perform the analysis and computations, the thesis made use of SOCRATES, an online tool developed by the European Commission that implements the SMCE methodology.

The results suggest that the EU should consider introducing an EU Purchasing Programme funded by allowance sales. This policy option ranked the highest overall. Such a programme could scale up CDR while preserving emissions-reduction incentives, and is likely to be legally and administratively feasible. Funding it with EU ETS allowance sales would also uphold the Polluter Pays Principle and have a minimal direct impact on the EU budget. Financing the programme from the EU budget, by contrast, would not.

The policy option of directly integrating CDR into the EU ETS yielded mixed results, but performed especially poorly on the Environmental impacts dimension, and especially comes at a risk of mitigation deterrence. A Carbon Takeback Obligation would greatly advance the Polluter Pays Principle, but scored rather low on several other criteria. The Carbon Central Bank policy option performed second-best overall, and deserves serious consideration, because it could especially be a useful solution in the long term. No policy option scored well on all criteria, and certain changes in weights substantially alter the overall ranking. Additional research is recommended, especially into stakeholder preferences.

Source: Wageningen University