What Comes When the Global Carbon Budget Is Gone? The CRO and a Negative Carbon Economy

Justin Macinante, PhD, MEL, LLB • September 21, 2023

At our present GHG emissions level, it is clear that emission reductions alone will not limit global surface temperature increase to the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C by end of century. Justin Macinante, PhD, MEL, LLB, a Climate Change Research Fellow at the University of Edinburgh Law School, presents a proposed mechanism that could drive the necessary CO2 removals — and meet the Paris target.


Global carbon budget


At the present level of GHG emissions, it is clear that emission reductions alone will be insufficient to achieve the Paris Agreement aspirational target of restricting average global surface temperature increase to 1.5°C by the end of the century. As well, emission reductions alone will be insufficient to meet the various commitments of signatory governments, often framed as achieving ‘net zero’ by a specified date.


The UN World Meteorological Organization gives a 66% likelihood that the global average surface temperature will exceed the long-term average, at least temporarily, by 1.5°C in the next 5 years. Researchers predict the global carbon emissions budget for staying under 1.5°C to be exceeded within the next decade. Emissions need to be significantly reduced and warnings continue to be given of this need: the carbon budget for staying below a 1.5°C increase will soon be exhausted. The Earth’s geophysical systems seem to be issuing warnings as well: extreme weather records are piling up in 2023, with July being the hottest month on record.


Once we exhaust the global carbon emissions budget to remain under 1.5°C — in other words, 'overshoot' — we are in ‘carbon budget deficit’ territory. In which case, every additional tonne of carbon emissions will increase this carbon debt that must be extinguished if we are to have any hope of achieving the 1.5°C target by the end of the century.



Removals, a necessity


The need for removals of carbon from the atmosphere has long been recognised by the IPCC. Land-based removals include biological means — such as afforestation and reforestation, geological means — such as direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture  and storage (BECCS), and lithospheric means— such as biochar and enhanced rock weathering. Although these solutions need to rapidly grow to an industrial scale comparable to the energy sector to achieve the impact necessary, this is a virtually non-existent industry sector at present. And there are ocean-based removals, including chemical approaches, such as increasing alkalinity, and biotic approaches, such as promoting photosynthesising organisms like seaweed or adding nutrients to promote phytoplankton growth. All these approaches need to be massively scaled up as a matter of urgency. To drive the scaling up of removals requires a mechanism to significantly increase investment, that is, a mechanism that will significantly increase the incentives to invest in removals.


Once the carbon emissions budget is exhausted, emissions trading schemes based on trading emission allowances cease to be logical. By definition, there are no ‘allowable emissions’ left: emissions after that point only increase the budget deficit, that is, the carbon debt.

 

Calling a spade, a spade: emissions as carbon debt


Climate change researchers have proposed a mechanism to address this situation: once there is overshoot, emissions would be defined legally as carbon debt that needs to be repaid — just as is the case for other debt obligations. And to the extent that the ‘debt facility’ is extended to the emitting entity, as debtor, that entity would need to pay interest on it.


How could this arrangement work? Johannes Bednar, PhD and colleagues at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna and Oxford University provide the argument for such a mechanism – the  Carbon Removal Obligation (CRO). Recently, I have been working with them on how such a proposal could be implemented (Bednar, J., et al., “Beyond Emission Trading to a Negative Carbon Economy, The Carbon Removal Obligation and its Implementation”, 2023; submitted for publication).


The CRO policy framework, consists of two elements: a principal mechanism obliging emitters of a tonne of CO2 to remove a tonne of CO2 at the time of maturity of the CRO — issued to them as a legal instrument. This is the ‘capital’ borrowed and that needs to be repaid. Additionally, CRO holders would pay a fee: the ‘interest’ on the capital borrowed. This element of the mechanism is used by regulators to steer the carbon emissions and removals pathways.

 

Role for central banks and commercial banks


Who would be the regulators in such an arrangement? In the legal framework proposed, control of the climate change mitigation pricing lever — that is, the interest element — is placed in the hands of the traditional managers of financial stability, namely central banks. Doing so allows the externality of carbon emissions and climate change mitigation response management to be integrated into the economic mainstream.


Commercial banks would issue CROs, on which they charge interest, to their emitting customers in much the same way they provide debt finance to customers. Similarly, the central bank would require commercial banks to maintain reserve accounts with it, on which it would charge a base rate of interest. Thus, implementation of the proposed framework applies legal mechanisms that would be familiar to all entities involved.


Carbon debt as evidenced by the CRO instruments would be extinguished by the emitter entities acquiring and retiring removal units, which are generated and issued by removal projects. Hence, the need to extinguish carbon debt would drive demand for removals, prompting greater investment in removals projects.


Interest payments on the commercial banks’ accounts with the central bank – and perhaps also a portion of the interest payments by the emitter entities to their issuer commercial banks — could be applied to a fund, like a sovereign fund, against future climate change management risks.


In this way, applying the polluter pays principle to make emitting entities responsible for removing their emissions also addresses intergenerational equity, by providing for the cost of achieving the 1.5°C target by the end of the century. It leverages existing legal mechanisms to ensure that the removals will be real.

 

Standard


Additionally, it is proposed that a standard be established for the creation of removal units by removals projects, including in relation to ecosystem and social impact benefits. This would also facilitate a smoother running, more efficient market by reducing transaction costs and enhancing price discovery. At the same time, this would increase the potential for cross-jurisdictional application and trading.

Early action by governments to promote development of such a standard and put in place legislative measures indicating the direction of policy, such as a timetable for introducing CROs, would enhance private sector confidence and engagement in developing and scaling up the removals project sector.

 

Conclusion


The CRO policy framework sets out mechanisms by which substantially more ambitious emissions mitigation and significantly greater deployment of CO2 removals might be achieved. It is innovative in placing the climate change mitigation pricing lever in the hands of the traditional managers of financial and price stability, namely central banks, integrating the climate change mitigation response management into the economic mainstream, as part of core economic and financial management. It can drive the negative carbon economy necessary to limiting average global surface temperature increase to 1.5°C by the end of the century — notwithstanding the impending overshoot soon to be upon us.



Selected 2023 extreme weather-related events


About the Author:

Justin Macinante, PhD, MEL, LLB
Research Fellow in Climate Change, University of Edinburgh Law School
Research Associate, CO2RE


PHOTO: Cody Chan | British Columbia Forest | Unsplash


Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

By Ioannis Ioannou, PhD June 19, 2025
London Business School Professor Ioannis Ioannou, PhD examines the vulnerable narrative infrastructure surrounding ESG. By collaboratively engaging those most affected by ESG transitions—indigenous peoples, workers, young people, small businesses, and communities, particularly in the Global South—we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment for meaningful progress. Who Gets to Tell the Story of ESG? For more than a decade, ESG rapidly evolved from a specialized investor consideration into an elaborate global infrastructure of standards, metrics, taxonomies, and disclosure frameworks. Investor attention soared, corporate sustainability teams grew exponentially, and ESG vocabulary— climate risk, fiduciary duty, and double materiality—became firmly embedded in corporate boardrooms and regulatory discussions globally. Yet, despite ESG’s impressive institutional and technical advancements, the narrative meant to support it remained remarkably fragile. While ESG developed sophisticated standards, disclosures, and metrics, it never invested in the narrative infrastructure to explain its purpose, build public understanding, or secure legitimacy beyond institutional circles. Without the broader stakeholder engagement and effective storytelling that would connect ESG to people’s lived realities, it became vulnerable. Critics didn’t need to challenge carbon accounting or materiality frameworks; instead, they recast ESG as a job killer, an elite agenda, or an unwelcome intrusion into everyday life. The backlash caught many ESG professionals off guard, though the warning signs were visible. ESG’s rapid adoption by investors and regulatory bodies created an illusion of momentum, but this obscured a deeper structural gap. ESG rarely connected meaningfully with those directly affected by ESG-driven transitions—workers facing disruption, small business owners adapting to shifting expectations, and communities, particularly in vulnerable regions, confronting real and immediate climate risks. For these groups, ESG often seemed abstract, distant, and disconnected from their daily concerns. Narrative infrastructure might sound like an unusual concept, but it's foundational to widespread support. It connects people and institutions, conveys meaning, and determines whether ESG is seen as genuine leadership or merely corporate branding. Robust narrative infrastructure ensures resilience under political pressure; without it, initiatives can rapidly lose whatever public approval they may have had. Constructing narrative infrastructure requires explicitly recognizing storytelling— and who contributes to that storytelling—as integral to ESG strategy, not simply a communications exercise. Effective narratives generate trust precisely because they emerge from transparent dialogue, clear accountability, and inclusive stakeholder engagement. By contrast, greenwashing uses storytelling deceptively, aiming to conceal poor performance, and deflect scrutiny. Strong narrative infrastructure, unlike greenwashing, strengthens credibility and legitimacy by openly connecting ESG commitments to shared realities, tangible actions, and measurable outcomes. It is a fundamental strategic asset for ESG success. Importantly, narrative infrastructure also concerns who gets to tell these stories. Over the last decade, the central narrators of the ESG story have largely been institutional actors: executives, investors, sustainability professionals, academics, and regulators. Their contributions have been invaluable, driven by expertise, rigor, and genuine commitment. Yet these narrators also represent a relatively narrow perspective, shaped by institutional backgrounds and professional incentives. Many important voices have remained largely excluded from shaping ESG narratives: indigenous people whose lives are often fundamentally changed by corporate activities, workers whose livelihoods are directly impacted by ESG transitions, young people deeply invested in future outcomes, small businesses continuously adapting to new ESG-related requirements, and especially communities—particularly in the Global South —directly facing the worst of climate disruptions. While these stakeholders' experiences occasionally appear within ESG reporting, they seldom influenced strategy or shape decisions in a substantial way. This exclusion poses significant, practical risks. Stakeholders naturally resist initiatives perceived as imposed from above or disconnected from their lived realities—not necessarily because they oppose ESG’s goals, but because they feel unheard and invisible within such ESG narratives. The resistance appears as political backlash, active public scepticism, or disengagement, all severely undermining ESG’s legitimacy, effectiveness, and public support. Addressing this critical weakness requires deliberately building ESG’s narrative infrastructure through inclusive, collaborative, and ongoing engagement. Practically, companies should move beyond occasional or reactive consultations toward sustained processes where stakeholders actively shape strategies. This can involve establishing community advisory boards with real decision-making power, participatory scenario planning that integrates diverse local perspectives, and internal cross-functional councils that ensure workers, communities, and youth voices directly influence ESG outcomes. Such sustained, authentic collaboration bridges the gap between institutional intentions and genuine public legitimacy. Within companies, narrative stewardship should not be limited to corporate communications or sustainability departments alone. Effective ESG storytelling depends on regular, structured collaboration across multiple functions—including strategy, human resources, procurement, product development, and finance—to ensure ESG commitments align authentically with core business decisions and reflect real-world stakeholder experiences. Companies can institutionalize this collaboration by creating dedicated cross-functional ESG committees tasked with integrating diverse internal perspectives, monitoring stakeholder feedback, and ensuring ESG initiatives clearly connect to tangible social outcomes. At an institutional level, building ESG narrative infrastructure involves establishing platforms that broaden participation in ESG discourse. It requires supporting initiatives that improve public understanding of ESG standards and practices, funding research that evaluates public perceptions of ESG alongside traditional financial metrics and ensuring ESG disclosures transparently reflect diverse stakeholder concerns. ESG narrative legitimacy grows stronger when diverse perspectives genuinely shape how ESG commitments are determined and communicated, implemented, and monitored—not merely as token inclusions, but as integral, strategic components of ESG itself. Regulators have an essential role in shaping ESG narrative infrastructure. Current ESG disclosure standards typically prioritize technical accuracy and financial materiality, mostly targeting investor needs. Broadening these frameworks to explicitly incorporate public legitimacy could significantly enhance ESG’s impact. For example, regulators could introduce clear criteria assessing whether companies effectively communicate their ESG strategies to diverse stakeholders and evaluate how these communications influence brand value and reputational risk—approaches already emerging in Europe’s Green Claims Directive and the CSRD/ESRS focus on double materiality. Additionally, policy evaluations could systematically measure whether ESG initiatives are genuinely perceived as fair, inclusive, and beneficial by the communities they affect. Public support and trust require deliberate and continuous effort; they cannot be assumed or taken for granted. Fortunately, inspiring examples of effective ESG narrative infrastructure already exist. Companies like Patagonia have openly integrated supplier and worker voices into their ESG narratives, transparently highlighting labour practices and sourcing standards, significantly enhancing their credibility. Unilever’s inclusive “living wage” campaigns have similarly leveraged stories from frontline workers to connect ESG metrics with tangible social outcomes, strengthening stakeholder trust. Industry-specific initiatives, such as the Bangladesh Accord in apparel, demonstrate how authentically incorporating diverse stakeholder experiences—including employees, unions, and community representatives—into ESG reporting can reinforce accountability and legitimacy. These examples highlight how inclusive storytelling, grounded in genuine stakeholder participation, can transform ESG commitments from abstract promises into credible actions with real-world impact. ESG professionals now face an exciting strategic opportunity: intentionally building a narrative infrastructure that's genuinely inclusive, collaborative, and resilient. Yes, involving diverse stakeholders means navigating complexity, dialogue, and occasionally tough compromises. It also means embracing participatory processes that might feel messier or less predictable. But it's exactly this diversity of voices and collective authorship that generates persuasive, robust narratives—ones that not only resonate widely but can confidently withstand shifts in politics, culture, and public sentiment. Beyond strengthening ESG's narrative infrastructure, it's important for ESG professionals to step back and consider sustainability more broadly. By explicitly linking ESG narratives to overarching sustainability objectives—such as respecting planetary boundaries and enabling a just transition—professionals can better illustrate how financial markets, corporate strategies, and policy frameworks actively support broader ecological and social well-being. Making these broader connections explicit can deepen trust, enhance engagement, and ensure the interconnected ESG-sustainability story resonates meaningfully with all those whose futures depend on it. We stand at a turning point, facing a critical opportunity to strengthen ESG’s narrative foundations. While ESG’s narrative fragility has been clearly exposed, this moment also offers an inspiring chance to intentionally build a more inclusive, credible, and resilient narrative infrastructure. The future of sustainability depends not only on rigorous metrics or detailed disclosures, but ultimately on whether those whose lives are impacted recognize themselves clearly in its story. By authentically amplifying diverse voices, explicitly connecting ESG initiatives to broader sustainability goals, and developing narratives rooted in real-world experiences, we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment necessary for meaningful and lasting progress.
By Alex Smith June 4, 2025
Join the ISSP Programming Committee: Shape the Future of Sustainability Learning! Are you passionate about sustainability and eager to help professionals grow their skills and leadership? The International Society of Sustainability Professionals (ISSP) is seeking volunteers to join our 2026 Programming Committee! What’s Involved? Collaborate with a diverse team to plan impactful webinars and interactive working sessions. Help select topics, speakers, and resources that empower sustainability professionals worldwide. Commit to two monthly Zoom meetings (one 90-minute working session and one 60-minute full committee meeting). Spend 2-5 hours monthly researching ideas and contributors. Why Volunteer? Make a meaningful impact in the sustainability field. Gain hands-on experience in program development and nonprofit leadership. Connect with a network of like-minded sustainability professionals. Receive recognition for your valuable contributions. Key Dates: Application Deadline: June 23, 2025, 8am ET Meetings begin August 2025 (all virtual via Zoom) Ready to help shape sustainability education and make a difference? Sign up here to join a community dedicated to advancing sustainability worldwide!
By Antoinette de Crombrugghe May 15, 2025
I belong to a generation raised in the shadow of the climate crisis. But it wasn’t something we were taught in school. It wasn’t part of our curriculum, our standardized tests, our childhood vocabulary. We came across it slowly, in fragments, through social media, activism, panic headlines, and documentaries. We educated ourselves. We connected the dots. And still, many of us are figuring out how to carry this knowledge and how to live with it without being crushed by it.
More blog posts