The second edition of the Bellona Climate Action Conference took place on October 2^nd, 2025. It brought together top EU and national policy makers, CSOs, industry representatives, and academics in stimulating debates and presentations focusing on accelerating European industrial decarbonisation. 

Panel discussions covered topics such as electrification, carbon accounting, and enabling low-carbon technologies like hydrogen and CCS – as well as policy measures to create lead markets, finance the transition, and ensure a just transition for all. The event also included a presentation of E3G and Bellona’s upcoming flagship report, the CCS Ladder 2.0.¹  

This article summarises the key takeaways from the event.  

Powering Industry – Electrification, Renewable Integration and Grid Readiness 

As the EU works to accelerate electrification in support of its climate, energy security, and industrial competitiveness goals, the challenge of scaling up electricity use across sectors is rising on the policy agenda. This was the focus of the panel “The Role of Electrification in EU Industry,” which brought together Ignacio Asenjo from the European Commission (DG ENER), Marco Giuli from think tank Agora Industry, and Claire Sandevoir from energy supplier Vattenfall. The discussion centred on the key barriers to electrification and the policy, financial, and infrastructure reforms needed to overcome them. 

Speakers noted the mismatch between electrification ambitions and current economic and regulatory conditions. It was highlighted that electricity remains 2–3 times more expensive than gas, limiting uptake, while grid expansion lags behind industrial needs. Grid connection delays, and organisational knowledge gaps were mentioned as additional constraints. Industry stressed the need for greater demand-side support, including long-term policy stability, faster permitting, and improved cross-border connections to unlock investment.  

Panellists agreed on the importance of integrating electrification into industrial strategy through targeted financial instruments like the Innovation Fund, stronger R&D for emerging technologies, and better coordination between grid planning and industrial demand. In closing, all agreed that while electrification comes with high upfront costs, it represents a long-term investment in Europe’s resilience, economic stability, and independence from fossil fuel imports. 

The role of CDR in the post-2030 framework 

As EU decision-makers negotiate the bloc’s climate targets for 2035 and 2040 and the European Commission advances work on certification methodologies for carbon removals alongside a new Bioeconomy Strategy expected by the end of the year, the question on how to integrate carbon removals into the EU post-2030 climate framework is moving steadily up to the policy agenda. This was the focus of the panel “The Role of CDR in the Post-2030 Framework”, moderated by Mark Preston Aragonès, Head of Carbon Accounting at Bellona Europa. The discussion brought together Valeria Forlin, Deputy Head of Unit for land economy and carbon removals at the European Commission, Ulriikka Aarnio, Senior Policy Coordinator at CAN Europe, and Winston Beck, VP for Group Government and Public Affairs at Heidelberg Materials.  

The panellists offered contrasting views on whether the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) integration is the right tool to stimulate demand for carbon removals. Yet, they shared common grounds on several key points:  the importance of strong Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) systems, keeping emissions reductions at the centre of EU climate policy, and ensuring that only permanent, high-quality removals could interact with the ETS. The debate also touched on the declining EU land sink and the pressure for biomass use, and the need to establish clear, separate targets for emissions reductions, the land sector and permanent carbon removals – an essential step to preserve environmental integrity and send clear investment signals for industry and land managers.  

Lead Markets: Untapped potential to drive decarbonised growth 

This panel explored how green public procurement (GPP) can accelerate Europe’s decarbonisation of construction, materials, and heavy industry. Speakers from Volvo Construction Equipment, ACR+ (Association of Cities and Regions for Sustainable Resource Management), and Romania’s Energy Policy Group think tank agreed that while low-carbon technologies already exist, demand remains weak due to high upfront costs, voluntary rules, and limited institutional capacity, highlighting the situation in Central and Eastern Europe. Examples from Oslo, Stockholm, and Östersund showed that zero-emission construction is feasible with only marginal cost increases, proving the need for mandatory procurement criteria, life-cycle costing, and political leadership to scale these solutions across Europe. 

They emphasised that public procurement, worth 14% of EU GDP and 10% of emissions, has huge leverage to create lead markets for low-carbon steel, cement, and equipment. To unlock this potential, the panel called for EU-wide minimum standards, joint procurement, better funding and capacity for local authorities, and integration with financial tools such as green loans and carbon contracts. The discussion closed with a clear message: the technology is ready – what’s missing is the mindset and regulatory certainty to make green procurement the default business case for Europe’s transition. 

The panel highlighted several real-world case studies demonstrating that zero-emission construction and green procurement are already achievable across Europe: 

• City of Oslo (Norway): Transitioned from 0% to 85% zero-emission construction machinery in municipal projects within four years. The switch added only 1–4% in extra project costs, mainly related to grid access, proving large-scale electrification is feasible with strong political direction and mandatory criteria. 

• Östersund (Sweden): Built a preschool entirely with zero-emission machinery, even in sub-zero winter conditions. The additional cost was about 5%, showing that sustainable construction is possible even in challenging climates. 

• Stockholm (Sweden): Required 50% electric machinery in a major urban redevelopment project. Thanks to digital planning and productivity gains, the city reported no significant cost increase compared to traditional methods. 

• Belgian Regions: Collaborated to create shared national standards for sustainable construction, helping architects and contractors adopt greener materials and methods consistently across the country. 

• Sweden & Netherlands: Implemented material reuse and monitoring systems—for example, reusing components from demolished buildings and tracking sustainable materials for road repairs—demonstrating how circular practices can be built into public works. 

Together, these cases illustrated that political will, clear standards, and knowledge sharing can make green public procurement both practical and cost-effective. 

From Policy to Implementation: Scaling up CO₂ Storage in Europe 

This panel discussed that increasing the focus on the buildout of CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure is essential for creating viable CCS value chains in Europe. The discussion featured experts from across Europe involved in policy development, regulation, research and implementation. 

Ceri Vincent, of the geological survey network CO2GeoNet, explained the role of the organisation in capacity building and training the next generation of CCS scientists, knowledge sharing (e.g., permit evaluations, geological data), promoting transparency and collaboration. She emphasised the importance of geological data for enabling storage projects, and of the Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA) as a critical step, setting clear targets and requiring data release, which enables more informed decision-making and planning. She also announced that a Pan-European CO₂ Storage Atlas is in progress, built on national datasets and expertise. According to her, CCS is not limited by theoretical storage capacity: the challenge is getting sites permitted, financed, and integrated into the infrastructure. Local geological knowledge is critical; CCS development must be bottom-up, based on national and regional expertise. 

Daniel Kitscha from the European Commission’s DG CLIMA recalled that the NZIA requires oil & gas operators to develop 50 million tonnes/year of CO₂ injection capacity. The Regulation’s implementation is currently underway, with a progress report to be published by the end of the year. The Commission recognises that creating a business case for CO₂ storage is challenging but essential and that public support has enabled projects like Northern Lights, but long-term viability depends on a market-based solution. Th EU’s upcoming CO₂ transport infrastructure and market regulation is considering whether tariff regulation (currently a regulatory gap), as well as fair and non-discriminatory third-party access obligations will need to be addressed. In terms of cross-border transport needs, there are many emitters and storage sites in different countries, which require EU-wide infrastructure planning. The emphasis should be on joint EU-level planning to build effective CO₂ networks and aligning transport planning with available storage capacity (e.g., via a CO₂ Storage Atlas). The Flemish, Dutch, Danish, Greek, and UK models will all inform this discussion. The EU also wants to balance national regulation with harmonized European oversight. 

Dutch Ministry of Climate representative Niels Berghout described the Netherlands’ business-to-business model, where the government sets frameworks but industry delivers projects (e.g., Portos, Aramis). A government-commissioned report recommended more active oversight on transport tariffs to ensure fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination. Government taking on some utilisation risk to help de-risk large CCS transport projects like Aramis could also be helpful.  

Lucas Maurer from the Flemish Energy and Climate Agency, explained that Flanders has high industrial emissions (e.g., steel, chemicals, cement), but no domestic CO₂ storage capacity, requiring cross-border transport. A key concern of his is to anticipate natural monopolies in CO₂ pipeline transport. He supports a hands-on, regulated model rather than a market-based one like in the Netherlands. The Flemish model gives one company the monopoly under strict rules: tariff approval by regulators, predetermined access conditions, a mandatory network development plan every 2 years and different rules for different infrastructure types (e.g., terminals, local clusters, CCU networks). This aims to ensure transparency, fairness, and non-discrimination for all industrial CCS participants. Industry feedback even suggests government should take a more active role, indicating strong demand for certainty and coordination.  

An audience member asked what would happen if infrastructure fails (e.g., a pipeline or storage isn’t available), and the fact that emitters may face a “double penalty” of venting CO₂ while still paying EU ETS carbon costs and lose subsidies. Niels Berghout acknowledged this as one of the biggest risks raised in industry consultations, and while governments try to mitigate risks this ETS-related risk is very difficult to solve at national level – he hopes the EU will take action. Daniel Kitscha confirmed that the issue is well known and under active discussion, noting that the challenge is new value chains with no historical precedent, requiring trust between emitters, transporters, and storage operators. He highlighted upcoming knowledge-sharing workshops (funded by the EU Innovation Fund) to address this exact issue. 

Launching the CCS Ladder 2.0 report 

Georg Kobiela, from Bellona Deutschland, presented the upcoming “CCS Ladder 2.0” co-written with think tank E3G. The CCS Ladder is a strategic assessment framework originally developed to introduce nuance into the polarised debate around CCS. The updated “2.0” version refines and expands this framework to reflect changing technologies, infrastructure developments, and climate policy needs through 2030 and 2050. 

Rather than presenting CCS as inherently good or bad, the ladder evaluates where and when CCS makes the most sense, based on technical, economic, and environmental criteria. The CCS landscape has changed, with infrastructure maturing and climate goals tightening. There was a need to update application categories, refine the methodology, respond to stakeholder feedback and update the time dynamics (2030 vs. 2050). The updated methodology dropped the “CO₂ source” criterion due to ambiguity and overlapping interpretations. It also weighted more heavily the competition from alternatives. Evaluations were done using a 1–5 scoring system per criterion, per application, and a heat map approach added to visualise how each application scores across criteria and time. 

The CCS Ladder evaluates each application in two time slices. For 2030, many industrial applications rank higher (e.g., cement, lime, steam generation) while fossil power applications rank low due to rising renewable competition. Blue hydrogen (especially via SMR) has short-term relevance but long-term uncertainty. For 2050, some applications drop in climate value due to alternatives (like electrification) becoming viable. Few cases (e.g. chemical recycling) gain importance. Overall, there’s a worsening business case for CCS in many sectors over time. 

Georg Kobiela highlighted key takeaways from the ladder. Overall, CCS utility varies significantly by sector and over time. Non-metallic minerals (lime, cement) remain top priorities for CCS but power generation generally ranks low for CCS as alternatives (renewables) are more viable. Regarding prioritisation, he recommended to start early with hard-to-abate sectors even if they’re not highest priority long term and not to just pursue “low-hanging fruit” (e.g., low-cost capture) at the expense of strategic need. In addition, policy support must be tailored per application. Planning CO₂ transport networks should also be done with 2050 needs in mind, not just short-term priorities. 

The sectors most reliant to CCS so far have been lime and cement, as well as waste incineration. Some pushback came from proponents of alternatives (e.g. zero-waste advocates), but the team emphasises realistic assumptions and tech readiness. 

Conclusion 

The second edition of the Bellona Climate Action Conference underscored the urgency and complexity of Europe’s industrial decarbonisation journey, revealing both the progress made and the gaps that remain. From electrification and carbon removals to green public procurement and CCS infrastructure, each panel highlighted the growing alignment around climate goals while also surfacing critical challenges – economic, regulatory, and infrastructural – that must be addressed through coordinated EU action. A key message resonated across all discussions: the technologies needed to decarbonise are largely available, now what’s needed is clear policy signals, long-term investment frameworks, and inclusive governance models,  in order to maintain and raise the momentum for timely deployment. As the EU shapes its post-2030 climate framework, the event made clear that strategic prioritisation, public-private collaboration, and systems-level thinking will be essential to accelerate the industrial transition and ensure it is both just and resilient. 

---

¹ Find our CCS Ladder 1.0 here: Carbon Capture and Storage Ladder: Assessing the Climate Value of CCS Applications in Europe – Bellona.org