将二氧化碳去除纳入选定的ETS：现状

Thematic Brief Stephanie La Hoz Theuer and Anna Charlotte WenzelSecretariat of the International Carbon Action Partnership Introduction Recent months have seenampleattention on the potential interaction between emissions trading sys-tems (ETSs) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR), with systems such as the EU ETSand theUK ETSengagingin policy discussions on this issue.Among others,introducingCDRin an ETS can support compliance costcontrol for regulated entities (if removal units are cost competitive vis à vis abatement in the ETS), create ‘space’for hard-to-abate1emissions in the ETS, andprovidean incentive for CDR development and deployment. How- To date, experience withremoval unitsin compliance marketspertains exclusively tonature-basedac-tivities.For example, the ETSs inAustralia,California,Canada,China, Korea,New Zealand,andQuébec allowfor the use ofnature-basedremoval units, covering activities such as afforestation,reforestation,andimprovedforest management.Yet recent developmentsfocus onengineeredCDR.The UK government has confirmed Building on previous ICAP work(onETS and CDR,onETS and CCS,and on therole of ETSs in net zeroand net negative societies),this note provides a briefsurveyof provisions for removal unit use in se-lected ETSs.4It contains three tables:Table 1provides a summary description ofhowindividualETSsinteractwithCDR.Table2provides more details oneligibility(the accepted types andgeographic locationof CDRactivities), on therelationship with ETS scope(i.e., whether removal units are generated inside or outside the The tables exemplify that most ETS experience with CDR to date pertains to domestic CDR from forestry,outside the scope of the ETS, from domestic crediting programs, and subject to limits.Oneligibility, allsystems surveyed here except for the UK accept units from forest-related activities (with a decision by the UKgovernment pending on this matter). Other common protocols includesoil carbon, blue carbonandmangroves,with protocols for BECCS and DACCS under development. All systems accept units generated domestically, imposing limits of up to 10% of compliance obligations, one (Canada) with a limit of 75%, and two (Australiaand New Zealand) allowing unlimited use of CDR in the ETS.6 On permanence and reversals, the survey identified ample diversity.Supply-side liability and buffer poolsare the most common approaches employed, each used by five out of the eight jurisdictions surveyed here.Three of the surveyed jurisdictions make a distinction between intentional and unintentional reversals.Discountat issuance is employed bytwoout of the eight.Two jurisdictions include provisions for methods related to Overall, and although not exhaustive, the survey helps identify points of convergence and divergenceacrossjurisdictionsmaking use of CDR in their ETSs.Further work in this area could, among others, inves-tigate the evidence base for the effects of different limits in CDR use, as well as on the effectiveness of the