This paper focuses on the risks associated with “negative emissions” technologies (NETs) for drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and storing it in land-based sinks or underground. Modelled mitigation pathways for 1.5 °C assume NETs that range as high as 1000 Gt CO2. We argue that this is two to three times greater than the amount of land-based NETs that can be realistically assumed, given critical social objectives and ecological constraints. Embarking on a pathway that assumes unrealistically large amounts of future NETs could lead society to set near-term targets that are too lenient and thus greatly overshoot the carbon budget, without a way to undo the damage. Pathways consistent with 1.5 °C that rely on smaller amounts of NETs, however, could prove viable. This paper presents a framework for assessing the risks associated with negative emissions in the context of equity and sustainable development. To do this, we identify three types of risks in counting on NETs: (1) that NETs will not ultimately prove feasible; (2) that their large-scale deployment involves unacceptable ecological and social impacts; and (3) that NETs prove less effective than hoped, due to irreversible climate impacts, or reversal of stored carbon. We highlight the technical issues that need to be resolved and—more importantly—the value judgements that need to be made, to identify the realistic potential for land-based NETs consistent with social and environmental goals. Given the critical normative issues at stake, these are decisions that should be made within an open, transparent, democratic process. As input, we offer here an indicative assessment of the realistic potential for land-based NETs, based on a precautionary assessment of the risks to their future effectiveness and a provisional assessment of the extent to which they are in conflict with sustainable development goals related to land, food and climate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Note that soil carbon sequestration is excluded from modelled pathways due to scientific uncertainties, and so we do not include it here as a common NET option.
The United Nations SDGs are explained here: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.
This paper is based on research originally presented in a working paper, available here: https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2016-08-Negative-emissions.pdf.
Net carbon uptake in living biomass peaks at around 50–70 years in mature forests, although studies show mature forests continue to sequester carbon in soil and dead organic matter after living biomass saturates (IPCC 2014).
Note that carbon capture and storage combined with fossil fuels cannot lead to negative emissions. Negative emissions are only possible with CCS combined with bioenergy, providing the carbon sequestered exceeds the net life-cycle carbon released from the land conversion, feedstock growth, harvest, transport, processing and usage of the bioenergy, including any ancillary fossil fuel use (See: Searchinger and Heimlich 2015).
This carbon sink potential is in addition to “other natural processes on land (that) remove approximately 25% of the carbon emitted each year” (Houghton et al. 2015, p. 1023).
Reforestation here refers to reforesting historically deforested lands, while afforestation refers to establishing forests on landscapes that do not naturally support forests, likely requiring even greater nutrient input. It is worth noting that, while there are many different definitions of forests at international and national levels (i.e.: FAO, UNFCCC), “there is no internationally agreed definition of what a forest is, and the understanding of this term is highly context-specific” (CBD 2012, p. 5).
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
Human appropriation of net primary production
Harvested wood products
Integrated assessment modelling
Negative emissions technologies
Net primary production
Sustainable development goals
Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J., (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision (No. ESA Working Paper 12-03). FAO, Rome.
Anderson, K., & Peters, G. (2016). The trouble with negative emissions. Science, 354, 182–183. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah4567.
Arora, V. K., & Montenegro, A. (2011). Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nature Geoscience, 4, 514–518. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1182.
Baccini, A., Walker, W., Carvalho, L., Farina, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., & Houghton, R. A. (2017). Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5962.
Bajželj, B., Richards, K. S., Allwood, J. M., Smith, P., Dennis, J. S., Curmi, E., et al. (2014). Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4, 924–929. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2353.
Barlow, J., Lennox, G. D., Ferreira, J., Berenguer, E., Lees, A. C., Nally, R. M., et al. (2016). Anthropogenic disturbance in tropical forests can double biodiversity loss from deforestation. Nature, 535, 144–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18326.
Brockerhoff, E. G., Jactel, H., Parrotta, J. A., Quine, C. P., & Sayer, J. (2008). Plantation forests and biodiversity: Oxymoron or opportunity? Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 925–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9380-x.
Canadell, J. G., & Schulze, E. D. (2014). Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation. Nature Communications, 5, 5282. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6282.
CBD. (2012). SBD SBSTTA, Background report on improving forest biodiversity monitoring and reporting, Convention on Biodiversity, UN Doc UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/25.
Creutzig, F., Ravindranath, N. H., Berndes, G., Bolwig, S., Bright, R., Cherubini, F., et al. (2015). Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: An assessment. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 916–944. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12205.
Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., & Plutzar, C. (2012). Dependency of global primary bioenergy crop potentials in 2050 on food systems, yields, biodiversity conservation and political stability. Energy Policy, 47, 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.066.
Fuss, S., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G. P., Tavoni, M., Andrew, R. M., Ciais, P., et al. (2014). Betting on negative emissions. Nature Climate Change, 4, 850–853. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2392.
Gibbs, H. K., & Salmon, J. M. (2015). Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Applied Geography, 57, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.024.
Gupta, J., & Arts, K. (2017). Achieving the 1.5 °C objective: Just implementation through a right to (sustainable) development approach. International Environmental Agreements. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9376-7.
Gustavsson, L., & Sathre, R. (2011). Energy and CO2 analysis of wood substitution in construction. Climate Change, 105, 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9876-8.
Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Running, S., Searchinger, T. D., & Kolby Smith, W. (2013). Bioenergy: How much can we expect for 2050? Environmental Research Letters, 8, 031004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/031004.
Hochman, G., Rajagopal, D., Timilsina, G. R., & Zilberman, D. (2014). Impacts of biofuels on food prices. In G. R. Timilsina & D. Zilberman (Eds.), The impacts of biofuels on the economy, environment, and poverty (pp. 47–64). New York, NY: Springer.
Holtsmark, B. (2015). Quantifying the global warming potential of CO2 emissions from wood fuels. GCB Bioenergy, 7, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12110.
Houghton, R. A. (2013). The emissions of carbon from deforestation and degradation in the tropics: Past trends and future potential. Carbon Management, 4, 539–546. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.41.
Houghton, R. A., Byers, B., & Nassikas, A. A. (2015). A role for tropical forests in stabilizing atmospheric CO2. Nature Climate Change, 5, 1022–1023. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2869.
ICCI. (2015). Thresholds and closing windows: Risks of irreversible cryosphere climate change. Paris: International Cryosphere Climate Initiative.
IPCC. (2014). Agriculture forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In O. Edenhofer et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, C. D., Ciais, P., Davis, S. J., Friedlingstein, P., Gaser, T., & Peters, G. P. (2016). Simulating the Earth system response to negative emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/095012.
Kemp-Benedict, E., Kartha, S., & Fencl, A. (2012). Biomass in a low-carbon economy: Resource scarcity, climate change, and business in a finite world. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.
Kolby Smith, W., Zaho, M., & Running, S. (2012). Global Bioenergy capacity as constrained by observed biospheric productivity rates. BioScience, 62, 911–922. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.10.11.
Laestadius, L., Maginnis, S., Minnemeyer, S., Potapov, P., Saint-Laurent, C., & Sizer, N. (2011). Mapping opportunities for forest landscape restoration. Unasylva, 62, 47–48.
Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma, 123, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.032.
Lamb, D., Erskine, P. D., & Parrotta, J. A. (2005). Restoration of degraded tropical forest landscapes. Science, 310, 1628–1632. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111773.
Lawson, S., Blundell, A., Cabarle, B., Basik, N., Jenkins, M., & Canby, K. (2014). Consumer goods and deforestation: an analysis of the extent and nature of illegality in forest conversion for agriculture and timber plantations. Washington, DC: Forest Trends.
Mackey, B. (Ed.). (2008). Green carbon: The role of natural forests in carbon storage. Canberra: ANU E Press.
Mackey, B., Prentice, I. C., Steffen, W., House, J. I., Lindenmayer, D., Keith, H., et al. (2013). Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nature Climate Change, 3, 552–557. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1804.
Meadowcroft, J. (2013). Exploring negative territory Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives. Climate Change, 118, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0684-1.
Miyake, S., Renouf, M., Peterson, A., McAlpine, C., & Smith, C. (2012). Land-use and environmental pressures resulting from current and future bioenergy crop expansion: A review. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 650–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.09.002.
Nilsson, S. (2012). Availability of cultivable land to meet expected demand in food, fibre and fuel. In F. Ingemarson, & S. Thunander (Eds.), The global need for food, fibre and fuel: Land use perspectives on constraints and opportunities in meeting future demand (pp. 37–42). Stockholm: Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry.
Nilsson, M. (2017). Important interactions among the sustainable development goals under review at the high-level political forum 2017. WP no 2017-06 Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden.
Nilsson, A. E., Gerger Swartling, Å., & Eckerberg, K. (2012). Knowledge for local climate change adaptation in Sweden: Challenges of multilevel governance. Local Environment, 17, 751–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.678316.
Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. M., & Soares-Filho, B. S. (2013). Governance regime and location influence avoided deforestation success of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 110(13), 4956–4961. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214786110.
Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Fang, J., Houghton, R., Kauppi, P. E., Kurz, W. A., et al. (2011). A large and persistent carbon sink in the World’s Forests. Science, 333, 988–993. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609.
Persha, L., Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331(6024), 1606–1608. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199343.
Peters, G. P., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Fuss, S., Jackson, R. B., Korsbakken, J. I., et al. (2017). Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nature Climate Change, 7, 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3202.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.
Rogelj, J., Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Kriegler, E., Schaeffer, M., Krey, V., et al. (2015). Energy System transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5°C. Nature Climate Change, 5, 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2572.
RRI. (2014). Recognizing indigenous and community rights: Priority steps to advance development and mitigate climate change. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.
RRI. (2015). Who owns the world’s land? A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous and community land rights. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.
Searchinger, T., & Heimlich, R. (2015). Avoiding bioenergy competition for food crops and land (Creating a Sustainable Food Future, No. 9). World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Shaffer, G. (2010). Long-term effectiveness and consequences of carbon dioxide sequestration. Nature Geoscience, 3, 464–467. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo896.
Smith, L. J., & Torn, M. S. (2013). Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal. Climate Change, 118, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0682-3.
Stevens, C., Winterbottom, R., Springer, J., & Reytar, K. (2014). Securing rights, combating climate change: How strengthening community forest rights mitigates climate change. Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Strassburg, B. B. N., Kelly, A., Balmford, A., Davies, R. G., Gibbs, H. K., Lovett, A., et al. (2010). Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 3, 98–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00092.x.
Tavoni, M., & Socolow, R. (2013). Modeling meets science and technology: An introduction to a special issue on negative emissions. Climate Change, 118, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0757-9.
Thompson, I., Mackey, B., McNulty, S., & Mosseler, A. (2014). Forest resilience, biodiversity, and climate change: A synthesis of the biodiversity, resilience, stability relationship in forest ecosystems, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Tokarska, K. B., & Zickfeld, K. (2015). The effectiveness of net negative carbon dioxide emissions in reversing anthropogenic climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 10, 094013. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094013.
UNFCCC. (2015). Paris agreement (No. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris.
Williamson, P. (2016). Emissions reduction: Scrutinize CO2 removal methods. Nature, 530, 153–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/530153a.
Wiltshire, A., & Davies-Barnard, T. (2015). Planetary limits to BECCS negative emissions (No. V1.1), 1104872/AVOID 2 WPD.2a Report 1. AVOID 2 programme.
Zickfeld, K., Arora, V. K., & Gillett, N. P. (2012). Is the climate response to CO2 emissions path dependent? Geophysical Reseach Letters, 39, L05703. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050205.
Ziegler, A. D., Phelps, J., Yuen, J. Q., Webb, E. L., Lawrence, D., Fox, J. M., et al. (2012). Carbon outcomes of major land-cover transitions in SE Asia: Great uncertainties and REDD + policy implications. Global Change Biology, 18, 3087–3099. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02747.x.
About this article
Cite this article
Dooley, K., Kartha, S. Land-based negative emissions: risks for climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development. Int Environ Agreements 18, 79–98 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9
- Negative emissions technologies (NETs)
- Ecosystem restoration
- Sustainable development