EU Emissions Trading System as lever for systemic carbon removal integration: balancing industrial transition with ecological integrity

Indigenous knowledge systems view carbon removals as a continuation of colonial land grabs, where 'nature-based solutions' often displace local communities for monoculture plantations. The EU ETS’s market logic conflicts with Indigenous stewardship, which prioritizes reciprocal relationships with land over commodification. Traditional fire management in Australia or Amazonian agroforestry offer proven, low-tech alternatives to industrial removals, yet are excluded from EU policy models.

The EU’s emissions trajectory is rooted in centuries of fossil-fueled industrialization, with historical emissions accounting for ~25% of global CO₂ despite representing 7% of the population. The ETS itself emerged from the Kyoto Protocol’s market mechanisms, which failed to reduce emissions while enabling corporate profiteering. Colonial-era land dispossession in the Global South created the conditions for today’s carbon-intensive economies, yet this legacy is erased in favor of ahistorical policy designs.

In the Global South, carbon removals are often framed as neo-colonial 'carbon colonialism,' where wealthy nations outsource their emissions to poorer regions via offset schemes. Indigenous communities in Canada and Scandinavia have resisted BECCS projects on their lands, citing violations of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). African and Latin American movements advocate for 'climate reparations' rather than market-based removals, emphasizing historical responsibility.

Scientific consensus warns that removals cannot compensate for delayed emissions cuts, with overshoot risks leading to irreversible tipping points. The study’s model assumes linear scalability of removals, ignoring ecological constraints like land availability, water use, and biodiversity loss. Peer-reviewed research highlights the high energy demands of Direct Air Capture (DAC) and the permanence risks of geological storage, which are underplayed in EU policy narratives.

Artists like Olafur Eliasson and indigenous creators such as the Māori collective *Te Hiku Media* reframe carbon as a relational force, not a commodity, through installations and storytelling that challenge extractive logics. Spiritual traditions from Hinduism to African cosmologies view the Earth as a living entity deserving of reverence, contrasting with the EU’s utilitarian approach to 'managing' carbon. Creative resistance—such as the *Carbon Sink* protests in the Amazon—exposes the violence of removals as a false solution.

Future scenarios must prioritize absolute emissions cuts over removals, with models like *C-Roads* showing that overshoot pathways risk catastrophic feedback loops. The EU ETS’s phased integration could lock in high-emission industries for decades, delaying the transition to circular economies. Alternative models—such as degrowth or steady-state economics—are systematically excluded from mainstream policy debates, despite their alignment with planetary boundaries.

Frontline communities in the Niger Delta and Arctic regions bear the brunt of fossil fuel extraction yet are excluded from EU ETS decision-making. Women in the Global South, who are disproportionately affected by climate impacts, are sidelined in favor of corporate-led 'solutions.' The study’s focus on 'hard-to-abate' industries ignores the labor rights violations in supply chains (e.g., cobalt mining for DAC) that perpetuate global inequalities.