{"id":78778,"date":"2026-05-29T12:02:58","date_gmt":"2026-05-29T09:02:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sweco.fi\/?p=78778"},"modified":"2026-05-29T12:02:58","modified_gmt":"2026-05-29T09:02:58","slug":"a-comparison-highlights-europes-significant-carbon-dioxide-removal-potential","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sweco.fi\/en\/insight\/press-releases\/a-comparison-highlights-europes-significant-carbon-dioxide-removal-potential\/","title":{"rendered":"A three\u2011country comparison highlights Europe\u2019s significant carbon dioxide removal potential"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t
\n\n
\n\t\t\t\"Aurinko\t\t<\/div>\n\n \n \n\t<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n
\n\t
\n\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n

A three\u2011country comparison highlights Europe\u2019s significant carbon dioxide removal potential<\/h1>\n

May 29,\u00a0 2026<\/p>\n

A new comparative assessment by Carbon Gap and Sweco evaluates the potential of carbon dioxide removal in Finland, Germany and Poland. The study analyses around ten CDR methods across both nature\u2011based and engineered approaches, combining technical potential with societal and policy readiness.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Across all three countries, the results show that CDR can play a critical role in addressing residual emissions and supporting the transition to climate neutrality. However, the scale, timing, and feasibility of deployment vary depending on resource availability, policy frameworks, and infrastructure development. The assessment combines method\u2011specific resource analysis, a review of climate and energy policy and legislation, and insights into public and stakeholder acceptance, based on interviews and a citizens\u2019 panel.<\/p>\n

\u201cConducting these bottom-up assessments has been extremely insightful and has highlighted the limits to how quickly CDR can be deployed. Even countries with significant theoretical potential may only be able to deploy several tens of MtCO\u2082 per year by 2050, because building the necessary infrastructure takes time. That is why it is so important for countries to start planning for and deploying CDR now”, says Sylvain Delerce<\/strong>, director of Research & Innovation in Carbon Gap.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt was insightful to compare how similar carbon removal approaches perform in very different national contexts. Each country has distinct policy frameworks, structural conditions, and resource bases that determine the most effective pathways. Carbon removal is inherently context\u2011dependent and requires coordinated policy, infrastructure and market development,\u201d says Heini Vassinen<\/strong>, Head of Green Transition Advisory Services at Sweco.<\/p>\n

Germany is positioning itself as a leader in carbon removal<\/h2>\n

Germany is aiming to take a leading role in carbon dioxide removal as part of its pathway to climate neutrality by 2045. The federal government allocated \u20ac500 million in 2025 for CDR\u2011related measures and has established a dedicated function within the administration to coordinate carbon removal policy and implementation. The analysis identifies strong potential for Germany to deploy both nature\u2011based and engineered CDR to address residual emissions. However, the development of geological CO\u2082 storage may become a bottleneck, particularly for storage\u2011dependent pathways such as BECCS and DACCS. <\/span>Germany\u2019s relatively balanced mix of CDR approaches provides resilience, but scaling will depend on infrastructure development and long\u2011term policy clarity.<\/p>\n

Report: Germany\u2019s potential to deploy CDR at scale and speed<\/a><\/p>\n

Poland has high potential but requires accelerated policy development<\/h2>\n

Poland has significant carbon removal potential, supported by extensive forests, agricultural land, peatlands, biomass resources, and mineral inputs. Nature\u2011based approaches are expected to play a dominant role in the near term, while engineered methods could scale with the right policy and infrastructure framework.<\/p>\n

Poland also holds substantial geological CO\u2082 storage capacity, but this remains largely underdeveloped and is currently prioritised for industrial emissions reductions (CCS) rather than atmospheric carbon removal (CDR). Unlocking this storage potential could enable Poland to become a regional carbon management hub, supporting neighbouring countries with limited storage capacity. However, Poland currently lacks dedicated CDR targets, a national climate neutrality target, and an integrated long\u2011term strategy, which risks delaying deployment and leaving significant potential untapped.<\/p>\n

Report: deploying CDR in Poland<\/a><\/p>\n

Finland Has Significant Potential to Leverage Nature\u2011Based and Technological Carbon Dioxide Removal Methods<\/h2>\n

The results of the report show that Finland has significant potential to utilise both nature-based and technological carbon removal methods to achieve the climate neutrality objective. According to the Government’s Climate and Energy Scenarios (PEIKKO), Finland will face an estimated CO\u2082 equivalent emissions gap of 16\u201319 million tonnes by 2035, and with the current development, it will not achieve the carbon neutrality target without additional measures and the introduction of carbon removal. The report presents three realistic carbon removal scenarios that help Finland close this emissions gap.<\/p>\n

Report: Deploying CDR in Finland
\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Read more: <\/h3> <\/div>\n \n
\n\n \n
\n
\n

Sweco studied the possibilities and potential of carbon dioxide removal methods for the first time in Finland<\/a><\/h4>