As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) convenes the SB64 climate meetings at Bonn, new analysis from InfluenceMap finds that corporate actors are lobbying the UNFCCC to weaken standards for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) under the Paris Agreement’s Article 6.4 mechanism, including advocating for weaker safeguards and downplaying scientific concerns around uncertain CDR technologies. This comes as reports of greenwashing and “phantom credits” that do not represent real carbon reductions erode trust in voluntary carbon markets.
As part of UN efforts to develop a standardized global mechanism for trading carbon credits, the UNFCCC’s Article 6.4 Supervisory Body has launched more than 50 public consultations, attracting significant engagement from industry actors seeking to shape the framework. InfluenceMap identified nine companies and six industry associations across the LobbyMap database that responded to the consultations, with the energy sector dominating engagement.
Five of the seven most engaged entities were companies or associations that promote carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the energy sector. Several participating actors—including the American Petroleum Institute and Edison Electric Institute (EEI)—have records of obstructive, pro-fossil fuel advocacy on climate policy. The most engaged entity was the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), while other major participants included the Global CCS Institute (GCCSI), the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA), energy companies Drax and Oxy, and tech company Microsoft.
The research finds that several industry actors—including Drax, Microsoft, Oxy, JPMorgan & Chase, CCSA, and Global CCS Institute—dismissed concerns raised by the UNFCCC Supervisory Body around carbon capture and storage (CCS)-based carbon removals, primarily direct air capture (DAC/DACCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).
While the Supervisory Body concluded that these technologies “are technologically and economically unproven, especially at scale, and pose unknown environmental and social risks,” echoing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidance, energy sector responses argued that these technologies should be treated as proven and ready for deployment under the UNFCCC’s framework.
Energy sector actors also advocated to dilute other principles designed to ensure credible, science-aligned standards for CDR, including: advocating against proposed standards for durability and “reversals” in carbon storage, opposing stricter criteria for biomass sourcing under BECCS, and pushing for technologies that emit CO₂ to be classified as carbon removals. Overall, no assessed entity supported a role for DACCS or BECCS that reflected the uncertainties and limitations identified by the IPCC.
The IPCC identifies CDR as a necessary complement to emissions reductions in achieving net zero. However, it warns that many technology-based removal approaches (as opposed to land-based, such as afforestation), including DACCS and BECCS, remain uncertain and largely unproven at scale, raising concerns about their cost, readiness, risks, and long-term effectiveness. The IPCC further stresses that carbon removals cannot substitute deep reductions in fossil fuel emissions.
