WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT CDR STRATEGY

A dedicated CDR strategy is an official plan that defines the role of removals in climate policy and connects that role to a sequence of public decisions. It can estimate the removals needed at different dates, set principles for temporary and permanent storage, identify priority actions across research, demand, infrastructure, regulation and accounting, and assign responsibility for delivery. A strategy coordinates other levers but does not itself fund a project, establish a standard or purchase a tonne. Its value therefore depends on subsequent budgets, laws and programmes.

The strategy needs to start from plausible residual emissions after ambitious reductions rather than use removals to weaken mitigation. Its scenarios need to distinguish gross from net removal, domestic from overseas activity, temporary from permanent storage and current capacity from future potential. Priorities need to cover the complete delivery chain, including inputs, energy, transport, storage, measurement, safeguards, finance and public authority. Named institutions, milestones, policy dependencies, resource needs and review dates make the plan usable. Treatment of imported removals, national inventories, Paris Agreement transfers and private claims needs to remain consistent with wider climate accounting.

A strategy can expose gaps and sequencing problems before separate policies are adopted. It gives ministries, legislators, infrastructure planners and investors a common account of future needs and clarifies which decisions depend on earlier standards, permits or networks. Published milestones make later inaction visible and allow research, skills and infrastructure planning to begin earlier. These benefits arise from coordination and commitment rather than from the document alone.

An aspirational strategy can create an appearance of action without budgets, authority or delivery. Inflated future-removal assumptions may delay emissions reductions, while technology quotas fixed too early can lock in weak options. National targets may ignore limited sustainable biomass, energy, land or storage and shift environmental burdens abroad. Frequent revisions weaken confidence, but a rigid plan can preserve obsolete cost and performance assumptions.

Evaluation should compare stated milestones with later legislation, budgets, programme launches, infrastructure decisions and verified removals. It should also test whether residual-emissions assumptions, method portfolios and resource constraints remain credible. Persistent gaps between commitments and implementation would support revised responsibilities, sequencing or ambition rather than simply a later target date.

Strategy development should combine climate science, removal expertise, infrastructure planning, public finance and national accounting with the experience of suppliers, workers and affected communities. Environmental and social scrutiny is needed where land, biomass, energy, water or geological storage may create competing claims. Legislatures and public representatives help test whether long-term choices carry democratic authority and realistic resources.

Supranational institutions can adopt a common strategy where they control climate targets, funding or cross-border infrastructure policy. National governments can align removal needs with domestic budgets, inventories and regulation. Regional and state governments can do the same where they hold material climate, land, industry or infrastructure powers. Each level needs authority to assign actions and review implementation, not merely publish aspirations.