The impacts of climate change are already disrupting ecosystems, infrastructure, food security, and energy systems worldwide, with 2024 being the warmest year on record hence heightened calls for carbon dioxide removal/reductions. Amid these challenges, proposed solutions like geoengineering have sparked debate, with critics arguing that they are false alternatives to addressing the climate crisis.
For instance, Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement on carbon markets was adopted during COP29, despite mixed reactions from member states regarding its effectiveness. A move
Civil society organizations and climate justice groups have raised concerns about geoengineering technologies such as Direct Air Capture (DAC), Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage (CCUS), and Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). They argue that these technofixes are risky and speculative and fail to address the root causes of climate change. Critics also contend that carbon markets often fail to deliver real emissions reductions and can lead to human rights abuses, land grabs, and violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights.
A report by the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC), titled “Scaling Up Carbon Dioxide Removals – Recommendations for Navigating Opportunities and Risks in the EU,” highlights these concerns. Lobbying organizations argue that carbon markets and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies are dangerous distractions that could exacerbate the climate crisis rather than solve it.
They emphasize that these approaches divert attention from genuine solutions, such as transitioning away from fossil fuels, restoring and conserving ecosystems, and supporting community-led initiatives that tackle the root causes of climate change. Critics also argue that these technologies provide polluting industries with a “free pass” to continue emitting greenhouse gases.
Linda Schneider, a Senior International Climate Policy Officer at the Heinrich Boell Foundation, noted that while the EU aims to scale up CDR technologies, these approaches come with significant uncertainties. She pointed out that these technologies have not yet been proven effective at scale and could pose numerous known and unknown risks to communities and the environment.
In late 2024, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) reinforced the precautionary approach to geoengineering and reaffirmed the existing global moratorium on such practices. Coraina de la Plaza, from the Global Coordination of the Hands Off Mother Earth! (HOME) Alliance, echoed these concerns, stating that the EU’s push to scale up CDR technologies is problematic.
She explained that while CDR is often promoted as a solution, it remains largely unproven, expensive, and risky. De la Plaza also highlighted the reliance on untested assumptions about these technologies’ long-term effectiveness and permanence.
The ESABCC report underscores the EU’s commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and eventually net-negative emissions, where removals exceed emissions. However, it also notes a decline in the EU’s natural carbon sinks—such as forests and soils—and the slow rollout of new removal methods. These trends highlight the urgent need for robust policies to scale up carbon removals and counterbalance emissions from sectors with limited mitigation options.
Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer, Chair of the Advisory Board, emphasized that the EU must rapidly scale up carbon dioxide removals while making deep emissions cuts to meet its climate targets. “With the right incentives, a dynamic policy mix can accelerate innovation and strengthen the EU’s position in the global race for cleantech leadership,” he said.
