Over-use of CDR in Climate Targets Risks Breaching 1.5°C Limit: Study
The report argues that the breach can cause serious, pervasive, and irreversible climate harms and focus should be on emission reduction than removal
The negative effects of CDR removal vary on the removal and storage methods used as well as the location and scale of the deployment.
A new study by University of Oxford researchers stated that countries relying heavily on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to reach their national climate targets risk breaching the 1.5°C limit and international legal obligations. The CDR process involves deliberate, human-led actions to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere and store it on a geological sphere.
International Law requires states to be precautionary with CDR deployment
The report argued that the International Court of Justice’s 2025 advisory opinion on climate change applies to state mitigation strategies. It concluded that this stringent objective legal standard mandates states to pursue deep and rapid greenhouse gas reductions while also adopting a precautionary approach to the uncertainties surrounding large-scale CDR deployment.
According to the report, the negative effects of CDR removal vary on the removal and storage methods used as well as the location and scale of the deployment. A significant risk identified is overshooting the 1.5°C temperature goal by a greater margin.
“In an uncertain world, some states are gambling on the future deployment of CDR techniques to meet their climate targets in place of more ambitious near-term mitigation measures,” said Professor Lavanya Rajamani, author of the report and Oxford’s faculty of law. “This approach risks overshooting the Paris temperature goal and causing serious, pervasive, and irreversible climate harms. Our findings emphasise that near-term emissions reductions and feasible CDR strategies are not only ethical imperatives – they are legal requirements.”
Emission reduction over removal is the way forward
The report emphasised the need for states to prioritise emissions reductions over removals. It also stressed the importance of ensuring any CDR strategy is both technically and socially feasible and minimising the negative impacts of mitigation and adaptation measures. The report highlighted that reliance on international credits should enhance overall mitigation efforts rather than simply compensating for domestic efforts that don’t meet the ‘highest possible ambition’ required by the due diligence standard.
Additionally, states should also provide transparent information on projected emissions and removals, distinguish between different types of CDR, and disclose the assumptions underlying long-term mitigation strategies, the report concluded.