Should we reduce or remove greenhouse gas emissions? Why not both?

When scientists first began ringing the alarm about human-caused climate change, this warning was accompanied with a call to action: Reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gasses to stop the adverse impacts of a warming climate. The warning has continued for decades and, given the lack of significant cuts to emissions, a new set of alarm bells is now ringing. Reducing emissions remains our critical priority, amidst the dire impacts of climate change that the world is experiencing today. But as a result of our delay, there’s also an urgent need to remove the emissions already lodged in the atmosphere. 

Reducing future emissions and removing existing emissions requires two goal posts, or twin targets. Having two simultaneous goals doesn’t mean that they’re equal. Reducing emissions—with solutions like solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and a host of other options—is widely agreed to be the foremost priority in climate action. But there is scientific consensus that carbon removal also has a critical role to play, which is why it’s increasingly important to acknowledge the two goals required for a safe climate future. 

Why twin targets?

A survey of more than 300 climate experts found that the overwhelming majority favor establishing twin targets. Targets will vary by sector, but the Science Based Targets Initiative recommends approximately 90% reductions and 10% removals as one guide post for the field. Establishing twin targets brings increased integrity to carbon markets by providing a clearer definition about what constitutes a carbon removal credit and clearly separating these credits away from reductions. It also gives more clarity on the amount of removals required in climate pledges and helps alleviate a concern that removals can take away from the important work of reducing emissions (since twin targets provide increased transparency).

This transparency is crucial in order to achieve net zero pledges by their target year. According to the United Nations, more than 70 countries, 1,000 cities, 3,000 businesses, and 1,000 academic institutions have established net zero targets. Because achieving zero emissions requires carbon removal to counterbalance hard-to-abate emissions, it’s woven into these pledges. But the pathways to reducing emissions and removing carbon risk getting muddled together in net zero pledges. To this end, more than 40 organizations recently signed a letter calling for a clear distinction between reductions and removals in climate pathways, target setting, and industry standards.

Carbon removal projects

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can refer to a range of approaches that remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. CDR includes everything from binding CO2 with minerals in the ocean, which can sequester it for more than 100,000 years, to biochar carbon removal, a long-standing farming practice that traps CO2 into organic materials. Each approach offers a series of co-benefits: For instance, biochar carbon removal improves soil health; ocean alkalinity enhancement protects marine plants and animals by reducing acidification; and all pathways create jobs. 

CDR projects have exploded in popularity to help reach climate targets, on both the supply and the demand side. On the demand side, NextGen—a South Pole/Mitsubishi Corporation joint venture—recently announced an advance purchase of nearly 200,000 tonnes of carbon removal and plans to purchase 1 million tonnes by 2025. On the supply side, more than 100 carbon removal companies are actively working together to meet the growing demand from governments and corporations. 

CDR is increasingly being recognized for the important role it has to play for net zero targets in the public and private sector. A communique released from the G7 in May notes that CDR processes “with robust social and environmental safeguards . . . [are] essential in counterbalancing residual emissions from sectors that are unlikely to achieve full decarbonization.” CDR has received billions of dollars in support from the U.S. and other governments, and private sector investments are keeping pace, with carbon tech startups raising more than $13 billion in venture capital deals in 2022. 

While government support is accelerating, a supervisory body of the UNFCCC (the UN agency charged with overseeing the Paris Agreement and COP28) recently released draft background materials suggesting that certain CDR pathways are “technologically and uneconomically unproven.” In response, more than 100 experts published a letter organized by the Carbon Business Council, the organization I lead, countering this assertion. Eliminating any carbon removal pathways at this juncture could threaten our ability to reach a safe climate future.  

Logistics of twin targets

Governments are already starting to embrace the idea of twin targets. In California, the Air Resources Board released a draft Scoping Plan about how the state will achieve its climate goals. The plan includes targets for both removals and reductions. The European Union, meanwhile, has established a framework with twin climate targets. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds that CDR can be especially helpful to counterbalance emissions from sectors of the economy like steel production and long-haul aviation. 

As twin targets take shape, there will continue to be a conversation around optimal levels of both reduction and removal. By establishing clear goals, this presents an opportunity for healthy discourse about what is most optimal to reach various climate targets. Some leaders are taking a step beyond hitting net zero, and are working to net negative through increased support of removals.

Reducing emissions is more important than ever. But given the delay in reducing CO2 to date, it’s past time for a clear goal post to be added for carbon removal. The climate field is strongest when all players have clearly defined objectives, and twin targets are important new rules for the game. 

Ben Rubin is the executive director of the Carbon Business Council, a nonprofit trade association with more than 90 leading carbon management companies.