Corporate Carbon Dioxide Removal Strategies and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

A recent report from the NewClimate Institute indicates a significant discrepancy between the climate commitments of major corporations and the actions required to achieve the 2050 net-zero emissions target. This gap directly impacts the fulfillment of Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has established that achieving this target necessitates active carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere. However, corporate investment is predominantly directed towards less effective, short-term removal methods, undermining global climate objectives.

Analysis of Carbon Removal Methodologies

The report distinguishes between two primary categories of Carbon Dioxide Removal, with differing implications for long-term climate stability and SDG 13.

• Durable CDR: These methods involve capturing atmospheric CO2 and storing it for at least 1,000 years, often through geological injection or mineralization. This aligns with the long-term atmospheric persistence of CO2 from fossil fuels. Currently, durable techniques account for only 0.1% of global carbon removal.
• Nondurable CDR: These methods, including afforestation, wetland restoration, and soil carbon sequestration, store carbon for shorter periods, ranging from decades to a few centuries. The analysis of 35 major companies reveals a heavy reliance on these cheaper, less permanent solutions to support their net-zero claims.

This over-reliance on nondurable methods creates a “dangerous mismatch” that compromises progress toward limiting global warming to 1.5°C, a key target of SDG 13.

Sector-Specific Performance and Contribution to SDG 9

Corporate engagement in durable CDR varies significantly across sectors, reflecting different approaches to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), which encourages sustainable industrialization and innovation.

• Technology: This sector shows the most significant investment in durable CDR, with Microsoft responsible for 70% of all contracted durable removal. However, the report criticizes the sector for planning to use CDR to offset emissions that could be eliminated through direct decarbonization, a practice inconsistent with the principles of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
• Aviation: While demonstrating support for durable CDR, the sector largely lacks concrete plans. Only one airline, All Nippon Airways, presented a reasonable strategy to neutralize residual emissions by 2050.
• Agrifood, Automobiles, and Fashion: Of 15 companies analyzed in these sectors, only H&M and Stellantis are investing in durable CDR.
• Utilities: Two of five companies, Eon and Orsted, support durable CDR projects, but issues such as unclear intentions and potential double-counting of removals were identified.
• Fossil Fuels: The five companies analyzed focus primarily on carbon capture and storage (CCS), which prevents new emissions at the source but does not reduce existing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, thereby failing to contribute to CDR goals.

Environmental Risks and Corporate Transparency in Relation to SDG 15

A critical finding was the complete lack of public reporting by companies on the environmental and social risks associated with their CDR investments. This lack of transparency is a significant concern for environmental stewardship goals, including SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy).

• Some CDR methods may jeopardize biodiversity.
• Certain technologies require vast amounts of renewable energy, potentially diverting it from other critical decarbonization efforts.

The failure to disclose and mitigate these risks undermines corporate responsibility and the holistic approach required to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Recommendations for Aligning Corporate Climate Action with Global Goals

To bridge the gap between corporate claims and effective climate action, the report and external experts propose several measures that reinforce SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by involving corporations, governments, and standard-setting bodies.

1. Prioritize Emissions Reduction: The primary focus must remain on decarbonization. CDR should be reserved for neutralizing residual emissions in hard-to-abate sectors, not as a substitute for direct emissions cuts.
2. Strengthen Voluntary Initiatives: Standard-setting bodies, such as the Science-Based Targets initiative, should provide clearer definitions of durable CDR and require companies to set separate, transparent targets for emissions reductions and CDR support. This promotes accountability under SDG 12.
3. Promote “Climate Contributions”: Companies should be encouraged to frame their investments as contributions to scaling up durable CDR technology rather than making claims about neutralizing specific quantities of CO2.
4. Implement Government Regulation: Experts conclude that voluntary guidelines are insufficient. Government mandates for emissions reductions and investments in durable CDR are essential to drive meaningful progress and ensure corporate commitments are met.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues related to climate change mitigation, corporate responsibility, technological innovation, and environmental protection, which connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

• SDG 13: Climate Action: This is the central theme of the article. It focuses on the goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The entire discussion revolves around strategies for climate mitigation, specifically carbon dioxide removal (CDR).
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: The article highlights the critical need for technological advancement and innovation in the field of “durable CDR.” It mentions that these techniques, such as injecting carbon into geological formations, “don’t work at scale” yet and that the next decade is “crucial for developing the technology.” This directly relates to building resilient infrastructure and fostering innovation.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article scrutinizes the climate claims of 35 of the world’s largest companies. It points out a “dangerous mismatch between corporate climate claims and the reality,” criticizing companies for relying on non-durable solutions and for not decarbonizing their operations first. This addresses the need for companies to adopt sustainable practices and report transparently.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article illustrates the interplay between different stakeholders. It discusses the role of think tanks (NewClimate Institute), the private sector (corporate investments from Microsoft, H&M, etc.), governments (“government-mandated emissions reduction targets”), and international standard-setting bodies (Science-Based Targets initiative, International Organization for Standardization) in tackling the climate crisis.
• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: A direct link is made when the article notes that some CDR methods “require large amounts of renewable energy that would have to be diverted from other uses.” This highlights the challenge of scaling up CDR without compromising the availability of clean energy for other essential services, connecting to the goal of ensuring access to sustainable energy for all.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: The article touches upon this goal in two ways. First, it discusses “nondurable” carbon removal methods like “planting trees” and “restoring wetlands.” Second, it raises concerns that some CDR methods may “jeopardize biodiversity,” directly connecting to the protection of terrestrial ecosystems.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s focus, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

• Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. The article supports this target by stating that “voluntary initiatives are no substitute for government-mandated emissions reduction targets and investments in durable CDR” and that proper regulation “will fall on governments.”
• Target 9.5: Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries. The article directly speaks to this by emphasizing the need to “scale up durable CDR” and for the private sector to help by “funding durable CDR projects and research.”
• Target 12.6: Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle. The core of the article is a critique of corporate climate strategies. It calls for companies to prioritize decarbonization and criticizes them because “Not a single company in our report disclosed details on potential risks of projects they support.”
• Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships. The article describes the need for a multi-pronged approach, where the private sector funds innovation, standard-setters like the Science-Based Targets initiative provide guidance, and governments create regulations to ensure accountability.
• Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. The article implies the need for this target by highlighting that scaling CDR technology is dependent on the availability of “large amounts of renewable energy.”
• Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species. The article connects to this by noting the potential environmental risks of CDR, stating that some methods may “jeopardize biodiversity.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Indicator for Target 13.2: The goal of achieving “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050” is the primary indicator. Progress can be measured by the annual amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. The article provides a baseline: “only 0.0023 gigatons of CO2 were removed from the atmosphere each year using these [durable] methods.”
• Indicator for Target 9.5: The proportion of durable CDR in the total global carbon removal effort. The article states that durable techniques currently “account for just 0.1 percent of global carbon removal each year,” providing a clear metric to track improvement. Another indicator is the level of investment, with the article noting “Microsoft alone is responsible for 70 percent of all durable CDR ever contracted.”
• Indicator for Target 12.6: The number of companies with credible net-zero plans that prioritize decarbonization over offsetting. The report’s analysis of 35 companies serves as a baseline. Additionally, the number of companies that publicly report on the “environmental and social risks” of their CDR projects is a key indicator of transparency, with the article noting the current number is zero among the companies studied.
• Indicator for Target 17.17: The amount of private sector capital committed to durable CDR projects. The article mentions specific purchases, such as H&M’s purchase of “10,000 metric tons of durable CDR,” which can be aggregated to track overall private sector contribution.
• Indicator for Target 15.5: The existence and quality of environmental impact assessments for CDR projects. The article implies this indicator by highlighting that no company disclosed “details on potential risks of projects they support,” such as threats to biodiversity.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: grist.org