Skip to main content

Accelerating net zero targets with carbon removals

New standards and regulatory requirements underscore the urgency of developing a carbon dioxide removal (CRD) strategy into corporate climate transition plans and net zero roadmaps.

The use of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to counterbalance unavoidable and hard-to-abate residual emissions is required if net zero emission targets are to be achieved1. A considerable scale-up of actions is necessary to close the gap between existing initiatives and the need to meet the international climate targets to limit the negative implications of climate change. New regulations in Switzerland and updates to Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) target setting standards are paving the way for companies to develop their carbon removal strategies now and enable them to fully meet their reduction targets.

Switzerland is committed to reaching net zero by 2050. The new Swiss Climate Protection and Innovation Act explicitly supports CDR technologies2, creating new opportunities, requirements, and incentives for both credit buyers and project developers. Similarly, the SBTi has updated its guidance3, urging early integration of CDR into corporate net zero strategies, making it an immediate planning priority. This shift in global standards underscores the urgency of incorporating CDR4 into corporate climate action plans.

As companies purchase CDR offsets, it is important that they understand the different CDR technologies to future-proof their climate commitments and to ensure they are securing high-integrity removal credits, which are essential for a credible transition plan. For developers, the regulatory shift opens new market demand and funding pathways for high-quality CDR projects, especially in Switzerland’s innovation-driven context.

Switzerland has become a CDR innovation hub, boasting a range of solutions from nature-based to technology-based. Among the many project developers are Swiss waste incineration plants. Biogenic waste, such as plant residues or wood materials, absorbs carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. When incinerated and the carbon is captured and stored, this atmospheric carbon is permanently removed, resulting in negative emissions. For buyers to finance and credibly account for negative emissions, the negative emission technology must be certified as high-integrity CDR offsets.

While carbon credits are traded in regulated compliance markets, carbon offsets from CDR operate in voluntary markets, requiring independent verification. Certification bodies such as Gold Standard, Verra, and puro.earth evaluate crucial quality dimensions like durability, additionality, and ease of monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV). These certification bodies contribute to the integrity of CDR offsets.

Our analysis indicates that Swiss buyers prioritise investing in high-quality carbon offsets from recognised certification bodies, adhering to stringent risk standards. Their focus is on fostering the CDR market by supporting start-ups with long-term offtake agreements and innovation, thereby facilitating the scale-up of CDR technologies.

Recognising these dynamics, Deloitte helps project developers scale their impact and access opportunities while supporting buyers with tailored strategies and insights to effectively navigate the negative emissions ecosystem, along with providing due diligence support for investment decisions.

If you woud like to discuss this topic, please reach out to our key contacts below.

Contributors

We are grateful to Dr. Ramona Achermann for her valuable contribution to this report.

“Summary for Policymakers”, Climate Change 2022:
   Mitigation of Climate Chang Sixth Assessment Report, IPCC, 2022

2 Swiss Climate and Innovation Act,
  SR 814.310 - Bundesgesetz vom 30. September 2022... | Fedlex

3 SBTi CORPORATE NET-ZERO STANDARD – Version 2.0, 
  CNZS V2.0_Consultation Draft with Narrative

4 Please refer to our full report for additional details on different CDR technologies and the landscape of climate solutions including a comparison of reduction and removal options.

Did you find this useful?

Thanks for your feedback