Madison, Wis. – Ahead of COP30, a new Insight Reportby the State of Carbon Dioxide Removal – which features Professors Morgan Edwards and Gregory Nemet of the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison – finds the G20 pledges falling short in their ambition and credibility to scale up carbon dioxide removal (CDR) alongside plans for emission cuts. While reducing emissions remains as the largest lever for slowing climate change through 2035, the report warns that CDR must also begin to scale this decade to stay aligned with Paris consistent pathways.
Only seven G20 members — Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (US) — have submitted updated 2035 climate pledges as of September 2025. However, most have not specified how much CDR they will deliver by 2030 or 2035. Only a handful include measurable targets for CDR, with the UK being the sole country to specify contributions from novel CDR technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). The result is a widening ‘CDR gap’ between current national pledges and the levels of removal needed to meet global temperature goals.
Across the G20, proposed removals amount to 214–265 MtCO₂ by 2030, a marginal increase on today’s roughly 2 GtCO₂ of CDR per year, most of which come from land-based activities like planting trees. In contrast, according to the State of CDR Edition 2, around 7–9 GtCO₂ of removals per year is needed by 2050, alongside rapid emission cuts. Nine G20 members have yet to clarify how removals from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) contribute to their climate targets, limiting understanding of their policy intentions. China has a dedicated forest stock target equivalent to an additional 48 MtCO₂ of removals by 2030, while India also projects that it will exceed its LULUCF target. In contrast, recent data show that the European Union is off track to meet its land sink goal, and several countries, including Japan, South Korea and Türkiye, expect decreases in their current CDR levels.
Dr William F. Lamb, Lead Author, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said: “The current pledges pose a real risk of further delaying the groundwork needed to make carbon removal viable later this century. Developing the institutions, monitoring systems, and investment frameworks for CDR will take decades, and many countries have yet to start. Without early action to build this foundation, the world could find itself relying on removals that don’t exist when they are most needed.”
Beyond transparency, the report finds that the credibility of current CDR pledges remains weak. Only a small number of G20 members meet core conditions identified by the authors as indicators that make delivery more likely. These include having their existing net zero targets set in law, policies and measures in place to scale CDR, and sector-level projections showing how CDR will be developed and implemented over time. The three parties that meet these criteria are the EU, South Korea, and the UK. Together they account for only a small share of the G20’s proposed removals. By contrast, countries with larger potential contributions, including China, India, and Indonesia, have yet to put their announced net zero targets into law or publish detailed plans for how removals will scale in the coming decades.
Carley C. Reynolds, Lead Author, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said: “Governments have a short window to turn vague pledges into actionable plans. Clearer targets, legal commitments, and practical measures are all needed now to ensure carbon removal develops responsibly and at the scale required later in the century.”
The report concludes that while rapid emissions cuts must remain the priority, countries need to act now to lay the groundwork for scaling CDR sustainably in the decades ahead. The authors also call for near-term policy action within the next five years to support the scaling of CDR methods.
Morgan Edwards, La Follette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin–Madison, said: “Consistent, transparent reporting is essential for turning climate pledges into real progress. Without clear accounting for how much carbon removal countries are planning for, it’s impossible to assess credibility or sustain the investments needed to make these efforts succeed.”
