Europe is heading into a new chapter of climate policy, paving the way for negative emissions from the bioenergy sector, Renew Europe lawmaker Emma Wiesner told Euractiv in an interview.

In February, Wiesner, a Swedish EU lawmaker in the liberal Renew Europe Group, successfully co-negotiated a “world-first” agreement on standards for carbon removal. This paved the way for carbon capture to help deliver on global net zero climate targets.

Burning biomass and subsequently capturing the resulting CO2 is at the heart of the negative emission debate in Sweden, and in all European countries which today depend on bioenergy.

Euractiv interviewed Wisner to dive into this debate, as well as voluntary offsets, and the role of farmers.

Emma Wiesner, you’ve recently been part of an EU compromise on a world-first framework for carbon removals, where does that leave Europe?

We’re entering a new chapter in EU climate policy, opening a door to what the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] says is absolutely necessary to reach climate targets. And we’re enhancing both the possibilities and benefits of carbon sinks and removals from the atmosphere.

What we’ve done is the first step, by creating a framework for certifying removed carbon and defining what one ton of negative emissions actually is. Absolutely critical, but only the first step.

What comes next?

Now, we really need to establish a market and set targets for member states to contribute to climate sink or negative emissions. I see it as a climate debt that each country has to pay.

Countries have emitted large amounts of CO2 in the past, and now have an extra large responsibility of absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. We should set a target for technical negative emissions and establish a market. But that should not be in the EU’s emission trading scheme. We shouldn’t ‘cover up’ our emissions.

But we should establish some sort of platform, a bidding zone for them. I’m thinking especially specifically of the small scale district heating operators that are bio-based today. If they start investing in CCS (carbon capture and storage), that brings new carbon removals, but given their size, it’s really hard for them to find someone that wants to buy their negative CO2 credit.

I don’t want to kill the voluntary market, but we need to make sure you cannot say whatever you want just based on carbon removals. And that’s why it’s so important that the framework separates between long term permanent [industrial] removals and also the short term bio-based ones.

We introduced a clear separation between various forms of sequestration, whether it be carbon farming, biochar or bio-sequestration in plow-free fields as well as the use of legumes. This distinction is something we as Renew Europe are rather proud of.

What impact does this have in practice?

When you’re then using the carbon removals at an industrial scale, you really need to differentiate between biogenic and permanent. A transatlantic flight causes permanent emissions, those need to be covered by permanent certificates. Agriculture emissions are less permanent and can be covered by biogenic removals.

So that’s creating a robust and reliable scheme on what actually constitutes a removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.

It could be massive for farmers, who can generate extra income. Because currently, farmers are not rewarded for removing CO2 from the air, but with this framework, that becomes possible.

We’re really just dipping the toe into the potential of carbon removals. But we have set a standard, that we hope will be adopted internationally.

Aside from farmers, what impact will this have on Europe’s natural environment?

In Sweden, we have a big bioenergy sector. This new framework should not be an incentive for more bioenergy, but in installations where you have bioenergy, this should be the incentive to add CCS so that you create a Bio-CCS facility.

Often, there are misunderstandings in Germany, where rewarding bio-CCS is perceived as an incentive for bioenergy. It is not.

But won’t CO2 captured by burning trees be among the cheapest ways to generate climate credits?

To be honest, there’s a real competition right now for the biomass, and this will become worse in the future. Sectors like green aviation fuel, green chemicals, green textiles, green glass and green products all rely on biomass.

This makes biomass extremely valuable, too valuable to burn.

I take the opportunity every time I meet a district heating company in Sweden to tell them to have a serious discussion about this. Look at waste streams, look for industrial waste heat and all other sources of energy because biomass will be too valuable for bioenergy. But where there is bioenergy, I think it should be combined with CCS.