As the climate crisis worsens and emissions reduction targets set under the Paris Agreement slip further out of reach, CCS is gaining renewed attention in Brussels. The EU is considering integrating removals into its Emissions Trading System (ETS), a mechanism that requires companies to buy allowances for each tonne of CO₂ they emit. The ETS has been instrumental in driving Europe's transition from coal to renewable energy, but including carbon removals in the system could allow polluters to offset their emissions instead of reducing them directly.

Edenhofer emphasized that integrating removals into the ETS should only be done under strict conditions to prevent companies from using them as a loophole to delay decarbonization. The ESABCC's new report recommends setting separate targets for natural and technological removals, along with a robust certification and monitoring system to ensure their effectiveness. The report also highlights the need for long-term planning and cautious implementation, rather than relying on unproven technologies as an easy way out of emissions reduction obligations.

Europe's increasing reliance on future carbon removal technologies must not come at the expense of urgent action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the EU's top climate advisor has warned. Ottmar Edenhofer, chair of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change (ESABCC), cautioned that overconfidence in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and other removal strategies could lead to "mitigation deterrence," where the promise of future solutions slows down current climate efforts.

The European Commission has already outlined its Industrial Carbon Management Strategy, which envisions a multibillion-euro market to capture and transport massive amounts of CO₂ across the continent. However, critics argue that CCS remains largely unproven at scale despite decades of research and substantial public funding. The petroleum industry has been the primary driver of CCS development, yet its progress has been slow and costly. Edenhofer suggested that market forces should be allowed to test whether carbon removal technologies can truly be scaled up and made cost-effective.

One proposed policy to ensure accountability is "extended emitter responsibility," which would require polluters to pay for the removal of any CO₂ they emit. Companies could be made to enter contracts guaranteeing future removals, with financial collateral that would only be returned if the promised carbon removal is successfully delivered. Edenhofer suggested this approach could act as a "proof of concept"—if companies are unwilling to enter such contracts, it would signal that expectations about the cost and feasibility of removals may be overly optimistic.

Oil and gas companies face a major test in 2030 when they must establish facilities capable of storing 50 million tonnes of CO₂ annually. This target is ambitious, given that Norway's largest CCS project—Europe's most advanced—took nearly a decade to develop and has an initial capacity of just 1.5 million tonnes per year. If companies fail to meet the 2030 goal, it would cast serious doubt on the feasibility of large-scale carbon removals playing a major role in Europe's climate strategy.

The ESABCC's new findings follow a separate report last month that warned the EU is at risk of missing its 2030 target of cutting emissions by 55% unless it takes urgent action. That report called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies and a greater focus on direct emissions reductions. With climate deadlines approaching, experts stress that carbon removals should complement—rather than replace—immediate efforts to phase out fossil fuels and transition to cleaner energy sources.