LIKE-FOR-LIKE DURABILITY MATCHING

Like-for-like durability matching requires removals used to counterbalance emissions to store carbon for a period appropriate to those emissions' effect on the climate. Governments, standard-setters and buyers can make this a condition of targets, claims or purchasing programmes. For example, a rule can require long-lived fossil CO₂ emissions to be matched with long-lived storage, rather than treating a few decades of storage as permanent compensation. Buyers must then select eligible removals or change future procurement plans. This can direct existing commitments towards durable removal supply and strengthen confidence that the claimed climate benefit will last. Its effect on purchasing depends on the size and credibility of the commitments to which buyers apply it.

Implementors must define the emissions covered and the storage characteristics needed to counterbalance them. Durability classifications should consider both expected storage duration and reversal risk, meaning the possibility that stored carbon returns to the atmosphere. Any accepted replacement obligation must specify who supplies replacement removals, for how long and with what financial support. Transition rules should state when requirements tighten, how existing contracts are treated and when exceptions expire. Limited durable supply may justify a phased introduction and separate support for new projects. Common definitions across standards and registries can help buyers compare offers without implying that temporary storage provides the same service as permanent neutralisation.

Applying durability requirements to existing commitments can increase demand for long-lived removals and give developers clearer information about the supply buyers will need. A published transition can encourage earlier contracts and investment, helping durable methods compete on the climate service they provide rather than price alone. Explaining why different storage durations support different claims can also improve public understanding and trust. Temporary storage can remain useful for purposes consistent with its duration, while persistent emissions receive the more durable response needed for neutralisation. These benefits require buyers to implement the matching condition alongside continuing emissions reductions.

Strict matching can reduce eligible supply and raise the cost of fulfilling commitments. Incompatible definitions may fragment markets or lead buyers to seek weaker claims elsewhere. Long transitions and open-ended exceptions can postpone durable procurement, while abrupt rule changes can undermine existing contracts. A broad label such as 'long-lived' may also hide important differences in reversal risk and monitoring. Selecting durable storage alone does not address land, water, energy or community impacts, so those safeguards still need assessment. Nor should an eligible removal purchase be presented as permission to avoid feasible emissions reductions.

Evaluation should examine the durability of removals contracted and delivered, compliance with phase-in dates, eligible supply and changes in purchasing. Audits should test matching against covered emissions and identify exceptions. Persistent supply or compliance problems should inform transition measures without silently weakening the climate claim.

Climate scientists should explain how emission persistence, storage duration and reversal risk affect the required match. Standard-setters and registry operators can turn those findings into usable eligibility records, while buyers and developers test the contracting and supply implications. Civil society and consumer representatives should assess whether the resulting claims are understandable and credible. Governments and major purchasers should scrutinise exceptions and their effect on both removal procurement and continued emissions reductions.

International standard-setters can define matching requirements for their users. Supranational, national and subnational authorities can incorporate them into targets or programmes within their powers. Municipalities, companies and philanthropic organisations can apply the principle to their own purchasing and climate commitments. These actors pull the lever when they set and enforce the matching condition, rather than merely endorse its scientific rationale. Common classifications can reduce fragmentation while the underlying purchasing or compliance instrument determines demand.