| dc.description.abstract | The main strategy to stabilize global warming to below 2 C is to reduce global emissions; however, an increasing component of the mitigation toolbox is removing carbon from the atmosphere. Currently, the voluntary carbon market actors develop standards, methodologies, and certifications. Stakeholders and policymakers have highlighted this as problematic as there is no universal certification framework behind them. To battle this problem, they are calling for an international certification framework to build a “quality floor” in the carbon removal market.
This research aims to analyze and identify patterns in the material from responses to the EUs proposal of a carbon removal certification framework (CRCF) and extract the key findings. The overall research method for this thesis is a qualitative content analysis, the relevant material has been analyzed through a coding frame. The findings show that; The CRCF definition of carbon removal is unclear as it includes emissions reductions. This makes it difficult to know which solutions are eligible. The EU Commission should adopt a more robust definition consistent with the IPCC. Regarding the theme of CRCFs geographical scope, the EU needs to clarify how it will treat carbon removal activities with transboundary value chains and the CRCF can set a global standard as the first of its kind. There are three main positions regarding the use of CRCF in the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). The first group is requesting an impact assessment to determine if CRCF integration is feasible. The second group strongly supports integrating CRCF into the ETS. The third group is calling for separate targets for carbon removal outside of the ETS.
The research indicates that there are three main insights from actors involved in the carbon removal market who have been giving feedback on the EU's proposed CRCF; The proposal's definition of carbon removal is unclear, which may cause misalignment with the CRCF proposal's main goal. Additionally, the CRCF's geographical range within the EU may be too limited, as it does not consider the transboundary value chains of carbon removal solutions. Finally, there are differing opinions among the CRCF respondents regarding the integration of the ETS, highlighting the need for an impact assessment on this matter.
Keywords: Carbon removal, Negative emissions, CDR EUs CRCF, Climate policy | |
