gxceed
← 論文一覧に戻る

Opposing Carbon Dioxide Removals and emissions reductions confuses mitigation policies

二酸化炭素除去と排出削減の対立は緩和政策を混乱させる (AI 翻訳)

Romain Pirard, Kenneth Möllersten

プレプリント2026-05-30#炭素会計Origin: Global
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9744395/v1
原典: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9744395/v1

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

CDRとERの二分法は緩和政策を混乱させる。炭素市場の方法論の不一致を批判し、より現実的な優先順位付けとして低コスト、永続性等の基準を提案。

English

This paper critiques the counter-productivity of dichotomizing carbon dioxide removals and emissions reductions for mitigation policy. It identifies three flaws: economic dimensions overlooked, inconsistent methodologies in carbon crediting standards, and vagueness of residual emissions. The authors propose moving beyond the dichotomy and prioritizing actions based on low cost, no leakage, high permanence, co-benefits, and limited economic cost.

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters

日本のGX文脈において

本稿はCDRとERの区別の問題を指摘し、日本のカーボンクレジット市場やネットゼロ目標の設計に示唆を与える。特に、J-クレジット制度やGXリーグにおける排出削減と除去の扱いに重要な視点を提供する。

In the global GX context

This paper critiques the CDR/ER dichotomy relevant to global carbon markets and net-zero frameworks. It highlights inconsistencies in crediting standards that affect the integrity of corporate climate claims, pertinent to ISSB and CSRD disclosure requirements.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:This paper provides a critical analysis of CDR/ER categorization, essential for researchers working on carbon accounting and mitigation policy.

🏢実務担当者:Important for corporate sustainability teams to understand the pitfalls of separating removals from reductions in their net-zero strategies.

🏛政策担当者:Policymakers should note the call to move beyond the CDR/ER dichotomy and adopt criteria like cost, permanence, and leakage for funding allocation.

📄 Abstract（原文）

Abstract We analyse the relevance of Carbon Dioxide Removals (CDR) and emissions reductions (ER) categories for climate change mitigation, and assess associated methodologies used by carbon market crediting standards. We find that such a dichotomy is counter-productive for three reasons: (i) the economic dimensions to qualify CDR (intentionality, additionality, scope of projects) are overlooked in keystone definitions, which weakens the case for net zero objectives, (ii) methodologies by crediting standards are inconsistent and reveal the challenges for a practical distinction between CDR and ER, (iii) the distant prospects for net zero objectives and the vagueness of the concept of “residual emissions” challenge the relative urgency of acting on removals while large untapped potential remains for ER including via the development of new technologies. This assessment calls for at least two actions. At the very minimum, an improved definition of CDR with a better-defined scope, particularly for biomass-based activities, would guarantee its specific mitigation contributions compared to ER. More importantly we propose to move away from the CDR/ ER dichotomy, if only because mitigation actions tend to be hybrid, and to focus on the core characteristics that would lead to more efficient policies and funding allocation. Priority setting should thus be based on the following criteria in addition to the required additionality of any intervention: low costs of mitigation, no carbon leakage, high permanence, co-benefits, limited overall economic cost. Their application provides a more realistic and nuanced view on the content of the many mitigation actions and their contributions.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。

gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。