{"id":180364,"date":"2026-08-28T07:23:00","date_gmt":"2026-08-28T05:23:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/?p=180364"},"modified":"2026-08-21T13:33:13","modified_gmt":"2026-08-21T11:33:13","slug":"cities-need-robust-carbon-dioxide-removal-strategies-to-meet-net-zero-targets","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/cities-need-robust-carbon-dioxide-removal-strategies-to-meet-net-zero-targets\/","title":{"rendered":"Cities need robust carbon dioxide removal strategies to meet net-zero targets"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n

Leading European cities race to reach net-zero emissions, but residual emissions are tied to easier-to-abate sectors and temporary, land-intensive carbon removal for compensation. To keep climate neutrality credible and fair, policy must tighten expectations on cutting emissions and set clear rules for carbon removal and credits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recommendations for policy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Prioritize continued emissions reductions over compensation: use iterative analysis to identify residual emissions and consider distinct quantitative targets for emissions cuts and compensation.\n\nDiversify CDR portfolios to better handle permanence, market fluctuations, land competition, supply shortages, and distributional justice, leveraging the built environment as a distributed carbon sink.\n\nDevelop supranational\u2013national\u2013local compacts for permanent CDR, providing regulatory clarity, infrastructure development, and predictable support.\n\nSet up robust, transparent accounting frameworks that minimize double counting, align compensation and net-zero target timelines, and foreground social and ecological safeguards.\n\nEmbed residual emissions planning in multilevel, participatory governance that coordinates land-use, climate and development objectives, treating CDR as a shared, strategically managed resource.<\/code><\/pre>\n\n\n\n
based on G. Ulpiani et al. Nature Climate Change<\/em> https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41558-026-02691-0<\/a> (2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The policy problem<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In the absence of a clear definition and analytical criteria for what constitutes residual emissions, cities pledging to reach net-zero emissions risk overreliance on limited and contested removal capacities along with accusations of greenwashing and mitigation deterrence. Heavy dependence on land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) amplifies pressures on already scarce urban and peri-urban land, threatening biodiversity, food security and social justice, and outsourcing carbon removal to rural hinterlands. Weak quantification, monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and risks of double-counting and delayed carbon benefits, especially from temporary CDR, further jeopardize the credibility of ambitious targets and could prevent the achievement of a genuine structural transformation towards a low-carbon society. Without a more rigorous, transparent framework for defining and compensating residual emissions, net-zero targets could entrench inequities and undermine long-term climate integrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The findings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In Europe, more than 100 \u2018Mission\u2019 Cities have pledged to reach net zero by 2030. Our assessment of their action plans (Fig. 1) demonstrates an unprecedented decarbonization rate. However, residual emissions are structurally concentrated in energy and transport, commonly considered as easier-to-abate, risking oversized CDR and higher long-term spending. Compensation portfolios are dominated by land-based CDR, often without explicit consideration of competing land uses. Only a minority of cities consider carbon storage in buildings via bio-based materials or permanent CDR options (strongly correlated with the presence of national infrastructure), while carbon credits are widely distrusted. The Residual Emissions Strategy Robustness Index (RESRI) reveals relatively advanced governance architectures but also pervasive challenges in quantifying residual emissions and CDR potential, establishing solid MRV frameworks, and aligning the timing of compensation with the neutrality goals. Mission Cities are nevertheless pioneers and early adopters, offering inspiration and blueprints, with 39 best practices identified.<\/p>\n\n\n
\n
\"\"
Fig. 1:<\/strong> Residual emissions by 2030 and compensation options of 103 Mission Cities in Europe.
a<\/strong>, Statistical distribution of residual emissions per capita (left) and per cent contribution of stationary energy and transport (right). b<\/strong>, Percentage of cities that selected specific CDR options. c<\/strong>, Distribution of RESRI values (0\u20131) for the entire ensemble of cities (rectangles) and for different levels of residual emissions per capita (lines). CCS, carbon capture and storage; tCO2e, tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent. Figure adapted from G. Ulpiani et al. Nat. Clim. Change<\/em> https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41558-026-02691-0<\/a> (2026), \u00a9 Springer Nature Limited.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n
The study<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This analysis is based on a systematic review and coding of all available Climate Neutrality Action Plans submitted by Mission Cities, using a common data collection protocol. A team of 61 trained experts conducted manual content analysis of texts, figures and other material to extract information on residual emissions and compensation strategies. This information was coded against standardized definitions, divided between temporary and permanent CDR options, while tracking the consideration of carbon credits. We developed RESRI to condense six dimensions of analytical integrity and enabling conditions (residual emissions quantification, emissions compensation options, compensation potential, timing, MRV and governance), allowing cross-city comparison and identification of geographical patterns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Further reading<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Ulpiani, G., Vetters, N., Bertoldi, P. & Thiel, C. Shining light on residual emissions for cities. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 302\u2013305 (2024). This comment discusses the operational value, integrity and transparency of urban residual emissions and offers an analytical framework for their identification.

Article Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Lund, J. F., Markusson, N., Carton, W. & Buck, H. J. Net zero and the unexplored politics of residual emissions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 98, 103035 (2023). This perspective argues that residual emissions reflect socially constructed judgments about what emissions can and should be reduced and calls for renewed debate on the limits of abatement.

Article Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Buck, H. J., Carton, W., Lund, J. F. & Markusson, N. Why residual emissions matter right now. Nat. Clim. Change 13, 351\u2013358 (2023). This article examines residual emissions in governments\u2019 long-term climate strategies, finding that they are often conceptually and quantitatively underdefined.

Article Google Scholar<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Rodriguez Mendez, Q., Fuss, S., L\u00fcck, S. & Creutzig, F. Assessing global urban CO2 removal. Nat. Cities 1, 413\u2013423 (2024). This article assesses the global potential of urban CDR and identifies priorities for research, deployment and carbon accounting.

Article<\/a><\/strong> CAS<\/a><\/strong> Google Scholar<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Ulpiani, G. et al. Guidance on Negative Emissions for Cities: Guidance on the Definition of Residual Emissions in Net-zero Emissions Targets, on Decision-Making and Accounting Around Carbon Removal (EU, 2026). This guidance offers a framework for defining, compensating and transparently accounting for residual emissions in cities, along with real-world municipal examples.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Download references<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Acknowledgements<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
This study was funded under the Horizon Europe Work Programme 2023-2025, 12. Missions and Cross-cutting Activities (European Commission Decision C(2024) 2371 of 17 April 2024) and Horizon Europe Work Programme 2021-2022, 12. Missions (European Commission Decision C(2021)9128 of 15 December 2021). Q.R.M., S.F. and F.C. also acknowledge funding from the European Union\u2019s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the European Research Council (ERC) grant agreement no. 951542-GENIE-ERC-2020-SyG, \u2018GeoEngineering and Negative Emissions pathways in Europe\u2019 (GENIE). We thank all colleagues involved in the analysis of the Climate Neutrality Action Plans, who contributed to the knowledge and reflections presented in this paper. The views expressed here are purely those of the authors and may not, under any circumstances, be regarded as an official position of the European Commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Original Publication<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Ulpiani, G., Rodriguez Mendez, Q., Todeschi, V. et al. Cities need robust carbon dioxide removal strategies to meet net-zero targets. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2026). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41558-026-02676-z<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Leading European cities race to reach net-zero emissions, but residual emissions are tied to easier-to-abate sectors and temporary, land-intensive carbon removal for compensation. To keep climate neutrality credible and fair, policy must tighten expectations on cutting emissions and set clear rules for carbon removal and credits. Recommendations for policy based on G. Ulpiani et al. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":59,"featured_media":180379,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","nova_meta_subtitle":"Without a more rigorous, transparent framework for defining and compensating residual emissions, net-zero targets could entrench inequities and undermine long-term climate integrity","footnotes":""},"categories":[5571],"tags":[24190,19560,22310,14441,23935],"supplier":[2317,5585,24610],"class_list":["post-180364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-co2-based","tag-carbonemissions","tag-climateaction","tag-netzero","tag-policy","tag-residuals","supplier-european-commission","supplier-european-union","supplier-horizon-europe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180364","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/59"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180364"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180364\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":180403,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180364\/revisions\/180403"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/180379"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180364"},{"taxonomy":"supplier","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supplier?post=180364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}