Questions and answers on the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) review

[Greg Rau]

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en

“ The review of the EU ETS aligns the system with the EU's 2040 climate target and the revision of the European Climate Law, which recognised the role that domestic permanent carbon removals can play in compensating for limited residual emissions on the path to climate neutrality.

The proposal therefore introduces a carefully designed and limited integration of carbon removals into the EU ETS. It will create a predictable demand for high-quality permanent carbon removals, helping to scale up these technologies and supporting investment in a market that will be essential to achieve climate neutrality.

At the same time, emissions reductions remain the priority. The amount of carbon removals that can be used in the EU ETS will be strictly limited and accompanied by safeguards to preserve the environmental integrity of the system and maintain strong incentives to reduce emissions.

Only domestic permanent carbon removals certified under the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) will be eligible. Their permanent storage will remain subject to the EU ETS monitoring, reporting and verification rules, ensuring transparency, robust accounting and appropriate liability in the event of any reversal.”

[Benoit Lambert]

There is a book on the CRCF. Just bought it.

https://www.amazon.ca/-/fr/Giacomo-Bucci-ebook/dp/B0DV9YCRVC/ref=sr_1_2?__mk_fr_CA=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=393YPH8GRAOKC&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Wy8V1XNWGLNOOpJ2nuvsfjKBYV7HA8dY-b3E6uDrImi3B0NsTWNrUKcvH9hgr6_draXBEKGB1wMKMuiYqmc58PTG6PXo20uniJn7havGoMvOU2EuIKUzC0RuDMumpGNWleOaXiSqeubbJVZw84nkrDCdBeZ2IToY_nJYkV8m1KvLfAIuMGLWStfmBUScFmxzchAjo2ZxMYJS9dVxE6VoXQ.ZS9UGpuS8dHBXfnKx1WO2PnfAplO4hygMPs3KCIi_1s&dib_tag=se&keywords=Carbon+dioxide+removal&qid=1784487226&s=books&sprefix=carbon+dioxide+removal%2Cstripbooks%2C1245&sr=1-2

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/E237B598-F4CA-4D07-91CC-C8DDF3EE3563%40sbcglobal.net.

[Greg Rau]

There is some wording in the EU ETC statement that caught my eye:

The ruling aligns  "with the EU's 2040 climate target and the revision of the European Climate Law, which recognised the role that domestic permanent carbon removals can play in compensating for limited residual emissions on the path to climate neutrality."

No word about dealing with the 1,000+ Gts of excess, long-lived CO2 already in the air, which emissions reduction can't address?

"It will create a predictable demand for high-quality permanent carbon removals, helping to scale up these technologies and supporting investment in a market that will be essential to achieve climate neutrality."

We will not achieve Holocene climate neutrality until we return to 280 ppm CO2. As for "permanent" storage, shall we let perfect be the enemy of the good and not support any CDR that doesn't offer >million year storage? Under the circumstances we don't have the luxury of being that picky. So have a sliding value scale for 100 to 1M yr C storage?

"The amount of carbon removals that can be used in the EU ETS will be strictly limited and accompanied by safeguards to preserve the environmental integrity of the system and maintain strong incentives to reduce emissions."

Why limit CDR if it has the capacity and economics to do more? There's 1,000 extra Gts up there, but let's be very careful not to incentivize removing too much too fast?

Cleary, the CDR moral hazardists have gotten a tight grip on EU carbon management policy.  I worry that this emisions reduction first thinking will continue to pose a moral hazard to CDR development. We need efffective air CO2 management by whatever collection of means possible, and policies that support regulated C markets to achieve that end.  

Greg

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/02C9033A-838B-42B4-83D7-4BB186EAE9C9%40gmail.com.

[Benoit Lambert]

Greg I like you use 280 ppm not 350. That is what we should aim at. I agree, why aren’t they referring to the 1000 GT historical carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 10 GT a year must be extracted and sequestered according to IPCC, that is after net-zero. There is a lot of odd talks in these « removal diplomacy and policies » that is the least we can say. It is confusing when you know the science. DAC receives all the considerations in the world while it is mostly speculative. As if science is not certain for what is in the atmosphere… It is. Strange. Also the fact that with nature-based climate solutions, including biochar I work for, it is all win-win-win. Agriculture soils of the world have lost most, or at least a lot, of the initial carbon because of tilling and chemical fertilizers… Soils lack carbon that regenerative farming, regenerative ranching, biochar, mangroves, tree plating can supply today. All this is information you will find on different podcasts, it is not nebulous… It sure feels like there is pressures on the EU. For a developer, following carbon markets is a lot of work. Here is Sylvera summary this morning: 

https://www.sylvera.com/blog/eu-ets-overhaul-corsia-carbon-removals-article-6-free-allowances?utm_campaign=Marketing%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=429157663&utm_content=429157663&utm_source=hs_email