In 2023, the land use and forestry sector in the European Union removed 198 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent from the atmosphere. The LULUCF Regulation sets a target of 310 million metric tons for 2030. According to Member States’ projections, current measures will achieve a maximum of 209 million metric tons—less than two-thirds of the target.
Carbon removals have been declining for a decade, mainly because climate change is weakening the absorption capacity of European forests. The 2021 Climate Law sets a target for the EU to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. That target depends on natural carbon sinks that are shrinking as a result of the very process the target aims to halt.
Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 stipulates that residual greenhouse gas emissions—those that cannot be eliminated— must be offset by equivalent removals. The “net” in “net zero” is not an accounting detail: it is the difference between what is emitted and what is removed from the atmosphere. The removals envisaged in the European model come largely from the LULUCF sector: forests, soils, peatlands, and agricultural land. Not from industrial carbon capture technologies—which currently account for negligible amounts—but from natural ecosystems whose capacity depends on climate and management. The problem is circular in nature. The removal capacity of European forests is declining as the climate warms: higher temperatures, more frequent droughts, and extreme events (fires, insect infestations, wind) are damaging forests faster than they can regrow. The new 2025 EU inventory documents an even sharper decline than previous estimates. The target of 310 million metric tons by 2030 becomes more difficult to achieve precisely in those areas where climate policies are progressing more slowly, because the longer emissions continue, the more the carbon sinks degrade before they can contribute to carbon balance.
An analogy might help. A person who wants to reduce their household water consumption by 50% relies on a rainwater cistern to cover one-third of the savings. But the local drought is intensifying due to the very same inadequate water management that the plan aims to correct: the cause of the problem is depleting the very resource on which the plan relies. The plan is still heading in the right direction. Its feasibility depends on how quickly action is taken.
“Zero emissions” and “climate neutrality” sound similar in everyday language. However, they describe different concepts. “Zero emissions” means producing without emitting. “Climate neutrality” or “net zero” means that
residual emissions are offset by removals. The former eliminates the source. The latter requires that something remove what is still being emitted. This distinction is not apparent in the target’s title, but it determines whether the
target is achievable with available resources. The EU has addressed this issue with two instruments. The Carbon Removal Certification Framework (2024/3012) seeks to standardize technological removals, such as Direct Air Capture and BECCS, as an additional contribution to natural sinks. The Nature Restoration Law (2024/1991) sets ecosystem restoration targets to maintain and increase removal capacity. Both instruments operate over time horizons that overlap with the target itself, and the pace at which technological CDR
and ecosystem restoration can be scaled up remains uncertain. It should be acknowledged that the circularity described does not render the target incorrect.
Climate models show that, under rapid decarbonization scenarios, the forest carbon sink tends to stabilize: less warming means less stress on forests. Circular dependence is a problem in slow decarbonization scenarios, not a structural flaw in the concept.
“Net zero” remains the correct term to describe the ultimate goal. The question is whether the default projections account for the variability of natural sinks or treat them as constants. This column explores climate terms whose technical meanings differ from common perceptions. “Net zero” introduces a new mechanism: a target that depends on resources whose conditions are influenced by the pace at which the target is pursued. The word “net” embodies this framework. In public discourse, “climate neutrality by 2050” sounds like a goal of eliminating emissions. It is a goal of balancing emissions through carbon sinks that must grow, not shrink.
The next time you read “net zero by 2050” in a policy document, there’s one question to ask: Do the carbon removals planned to offset residual emissions come from growing sinks or shrinking sinks? The answer determines how achievable the target is with the measures currently in place.
