Take on a podcast episode from The CDR Policy Scoop, originally published Tue, 08 Se. Listen: https://shows.acast.com/the-cdr-policy-scoop/episodes/mep-peter-liese-the-rapporteurs-take-on-removals-in-the-eu

TL;DR

  • Liese wants Parliament to pull removals integration forward to 2028, not the Commission’s 2031 — big signal for offtake timing.
  • He argues for scrapping the cap on removal volumes in the ETS; if costs fall like solar did, why limit uptake. Bold, will meet resistance.
  • Wants biochar added to eligible methods alongside DACCS and BECCS, capped ~20% max. First MEP I’ve heard commit to this on record.
  • If the CDR-cost gap is bigger than the Commission modeled, his fix is to issue more allowances to fund the shortfall. Novel mechanism.
  • Backs a strong link to the CRCF and wants removals inside the international-credits envelope — Namibia cement plant DACCS as concrete example.

Hosts Sebastian Manhart and Eve Tamme get Peter Liese — the European People’s Party MEP who is Parliament’s rapporteur on the current EU ETS (Emissions Trading System) revision — on the record days before his draft report drops on 11 September 2026. The conversation is a near-exhaustive walk through what Parliament’s amendments to the Commission’s July 2026 removals-in-ETS proposal could look like.

The substantive news is how far Liese wants to push beyond the Commission text. The Commission proposal integrates removals indirectly from 2031, capped at roughly 250 Mt, limited to DACCS (direct air capture with storage) and BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), funded via a dedicated auction pool rather than letting operators surrender removal credits directly. Liese wants the start pulled to 2028, the volume cap removed entirely, and biochar added — capped at ~20% so the bulk of support still flows to DACCS and BECCS. He concedes direct integration (operators buying removals in lieu of EUAs) is politically unreachable this round, but treats the current design as “the first 10 kilometres of a marathon.”

The most interesting mechanism is his answer to the price-gap problem — Isometric’s estimate, cited by Manhart, that scaling removals could cost €20B more than the Commission modeled. Liese’s proposed fix: issue additional allowances if needed to hit the removal-purchase target. That’s a structurally different lever than most CDR-in-ETS debates have considered, and it deserves scrutiny — it papers over a cost-modeling miss by loosening the cap, which cuts against ambition purists. On the linear reduction factor he wants 3.4 in the first phase and 2.3 in the second (versus the Commission’s 1.7 in phase two, which he calls “shocked”-worthy). On international credits he supports the 40% share flowing to ETS 1, wants removals eligible, and wants the review clause narrowed so it can’t kill the mechanism in 2033.

Worth pairing this with the show’s own prior episode on the CDR cost gap in the ETS proposal, and with the Isometric modeling Manhart references. The CRCF (Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming) certification link Liese endorses matters because it decides which future methods automatically become ETS-eligible — enhanced weathering, mineralization, and marine pathways all sit downstream of that question. His Namibia cement-plant anecdote — European operator, 360 days of sun, co-locating CCS and DACCS — is the clearest articulation I’ve heard from an MEP of why international removal credits are not just an offset flanker but a supply-side lever.

Useful for anyone tracking EU ETS amendments, buyers modeling 2028–2035 European demand, and biochar suppliers who just got a named advocate in Parliament.