Carbon dioxide removal plans need to have realistic, sustainable CDR budgets that align with ecological limits, human rights and sustainable development.
With Australia soon to update its nationally determined contributions (NDC) under the Paris Agreement, it’s time to confront a critical piece of the climate equation: carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The promise of CDR, particularly large-scale methods like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and tree planting, has been alluring, seen by some as a fallback for hard-to-abate emissions. But heavy reliance on these methods is a double edged sword. If mishandled, it could harm biodiversity, food security and human rights – even pushing ecosystems past sustainable limits.
To avoid this, we need a governance framework that emphasises emissions reductions over removal, and Australia is poised to take the lead.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
Today, governments worldwide are leaning on land-based CDR methods to hit net zero goals. A recent study in the journal Nature Communications quantifies the area of land that would be required if all government pledges for CDR were implemented, amounting to 1 billion hectares of land, with half of this area turned over to bioenergy crops and forest plantations.
As a signatory to the Paris Agreement, Australia must deliver an ambitious, revised NDC in 2025. A responsible approach should avoid CDR overuse, prioritising it only for essential residual emissions after aggressive emissions cuts. Australia can set a precedent by establishing a governance framework that treats CDR as a complement—not a substitute—for emissions reduction.
A sustainable CDR budget requires sound policies, regulations, and clear boundaries on how and when CDR is used.
Effective policies could include separate targets for emission reductions and removals, carbon pricing, subsidies for research into low-impact methods, and strict certification standards to ensure credible carbon removal. By setting a CDR budget that respects ecological limits, Australia would be taking a meaningful step toward a fair, feasible, and socially responsible transition to net zero.
Overestimating overshoot is a risk we cannot afford
Removing carbon dioxide is central to climate mitigation strategies that envision global temperatures being lowered if we overshoot the Paris Agreement’s warming targets.
However, CDR at such scales poses risks to biodiversity, food production, and human rights, leaving room for overshoot with the belief that we can correct it later. But recent research suggests we’ve underestimated the risks of relying on overshoot.
Overshooting climate targets could result in irreversible damages: loss of biodiversity, continued sea-level rise, and ecosystem degradation. And once ecosystems such as permafrost and the deep ocean are affected, recovery is slow, if it happens at all.
Overshoot could trap communities, especially those with limited adaptive capacities, in conditions where effective adaptation becomes impossible.
Given these risks, leaning on CDR in overshoot scenarios is a gamble with profound, lasting consequences. The recent climate talks in Baku agreed on a carbon market deal that has been criticised for weak rules and lack of a science-based definition of carbon removals. A more responsible path forward requires effective, immediate mitigation right now while developing the capacity for CDR within limits.
Weakening carbon sinks complicate CDR’s role
This year saw an unprecedented weakening of global carbon sinks, including land and ocean systems, which normally absorb nearly half of human driven greenhouse gas emissions.
This trend raises questions about the feasibility of large scale CDR approaches that depend on these natural systems to capture and store carbon. Warming temperatures and deforestation also threaten forest carbon sinks, making CDR pathways that rely on these ecosystems increasingly vulnerable and unsustainable.
Restoration of degraded ecosystems presents a viable alternative, one that offers both climate and biodiversity benefits. Restoration does not mean planting trees – it includes practices like halting deforestation, letting forests regrow naturally, and protecting native forests from logging.
These restoration efforts, by improving ecosystem integrity, strengthen biodiversity and resilience, making them essential to sustainable carbon management. Not only does this approach enhance carbon storage, but it also bolsters diverse ecosystems that are less vulnerable to climate-related disturbances.
Reframe Climate Policy Around Immediate Emissions Reductions
As this year marks the gatherings of the three Rio Conventions – on climate change, biodiversity, and desertification – the world has a chance to redefine its climate strategy to consider the synergies between addressing climate change, halting biodiversity loss and restoring degraded lands and forests.
The Rio Conventions provide a framework for carbon removal that emphasises ecosystem integrity, human rights, and sustainable development. Updated NDCs should include a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental and social constraints on CDR and maximise commitments to phase out fossil fuels and halt deforestation, forest degradation and land clearing.
For Australia, leading on this front means creating a realistic, sustainable CDR budget that aligns with ecological limits. This would provide a roadmap for hitting 2030 and 2040 targets that truly move the country toward net zero before 2050. By taking these steps, Australia could set an example for responsible climate leadership, emphasising immediate action and sustainable removals rather than betting on risky overshoots and unsustainable CDR.
