To have a >50% chance of limiting warming below 2 °C, most recent scenarios from integrated assessment models (IAMs) require large-scale deployment of negative emissions technologies (NETs). These are technologies that result in the net removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. We quantify potential global impacts of the different NETs on various factors (such as land, greenhouse gas emissions, water, albedo, nutrients and energy) to determine the biophysical limits to, and economic costs of, their widespread application. Resource implications vary between technologies and need to be satisfactorily addressed if NETs are to have a significant role in achieving climate goals.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Le Quéré, C. et al. The global carbon budget 1959–2011. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 5, 165–185 (2013).
Peters, G. P. et al. The challenge to keep global warming below 2 °C. Nature Clim. Change 3, 4–6 (2013). A short article outlining the enormous challenge of meeting a 2 °C climate stabilization target.
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014). The latest IPCC Assessment Report on the mitigation options that are available to stabilize the climate.
Tavoni, M. et al. Post-2020 climate agreements in the major economies assessed in the light of global models. Nature Clim. Change 5, 119–126 (2015).
Krey, V., Luderer, G., Clarke, L. & Kriegler, E. Getting from here to there — energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Clim. Change 123, 369–382 (2014).
Edmonds, J. et al. Can radiative forcing be limited to 2.6 Wm−2 without negative emissions from bioenergy and CO2 capture and storage? Clim. Change 118, 29–43 (2013).
Van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2 °C — insights from integrated assessment modelling. Clim. Change 118, 15–27 (2013).
Rogelj, J., McCollum, D. L., Reisinger, A., Meinshausen, M. & Riahi, K. Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493, 79–83 (2013).
Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 6 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Riahi, K. et al. Locked into Copenhagen pledges — implications of short-term emission targets for the cost and feasibility of long-term climate goals. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 90, 8–23 (2015).
Obersteiner, M. et al. Managing climate risk. Science 294, 786–787 (2001).
Creutzig F. et al. Bioenergy and climate change mitigation: an assessment. Global Change Biol. Bioenergy 7, 916–944 (2015).
Keith, D. Why capture CO2 from the atmosphere. Science 325, 1654–1655 (2009).
Socolow, R. et al. Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: a technology assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs. (American Physical Society, 2011). An in-depth assessment of direct air-capture technologies.
Schuiling, R. D. & Krijgsman, P. Enhanced weathering: an effective and cheap tool to sequester CO2 . Climatic Change 74, 349–354 (2006).
Rau, G. H., Knauss, K. G., Langer, W. H. & Caldeira, K. Reducing energy-related CO2 emissions using accelerated weathering of limestone. Energy 32, 1471–1477 (2007).
Köhler, P., Hartmann, J. & Wolf-Gladrow, D. A. Geoengineering potential of artificially enhanced silicate weathering of olivine. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20228–20233 (2010).
Hartmann, J. & Kempe, S. What is the maximum potential for CO2 sequestration by “stimulated” weathering on the global scale? Naturwissenschaften 95, 1159–1164 (2008).
Kelemen, P. B. & Matter, J. M. In situ carbonation of peridotite for CO2 storage. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17295–17300 (2008).
Arora, V. K. & Montenegro, A. Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nature Geosci. 4, 514–518, (2011).
Canadell, J. G. & Raupach, M. R. Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 320, 1456–1457 (2008).
Jackson, R. B. et al. Protecting climate with forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 044006 (2008).
Sarmiento, J. L., Gruber, N., Brzezinski, M. A. & Dunne, J. P. High-latitude controls of thermocline nutrients and low latitude biological productivity. Nature 427, 56–60 (2004).
Joos, F., Sarmiento, J. L. & Siegenthaler, U. Estimates of the effect of Southern Ocean iron fertilization on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature 349, 772–775 (1991).
Kheshgi, H. S. Sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide by increasing ocean alkalinity. Energy 20, 915–922 (1995).
Smith, P. Soils and climate change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 4, 539–544 (2012).
Powlson, D. S. et al. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Clim. Change 4, 678–683 (2014).
Smith, P. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 789–813 (2008).
Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott. A., Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Commun. 1, 56 (2010).
Schiermeier, Q. Convention discourages ocean fertilization. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/news.2007.230 (2007).
Smith, P. et al. How much land based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals? Global Change Biol. 19, 2285–2302 (2013).
Smith, P. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 11 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Smith, P. Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies. Global Change Biol. (in the press).
Azar, C. et al. The feasibility of low CO2 concentration targets and the role of bio-energy carbon-capture and storage. Clim. Change 100, 195–202 (2010).
Kriegler, E. et al. What does the 2°C target imply for a global climate agreement in 2020? The LIMITS study on Durban Platform scenarios. Clim. Change Econ. 04, 1340008 (2013).
Strengers, B. J., Minnen, J. G. V. & Eickhout, B. The role of carbon plantations in mitigating climate change: potentials and costs. Clim. Change 88, 343–366 (2008).
Wise, M. et al. Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324, 1183–1186 (2009).
Reilly, J. et al. Using land to mitigate climate change: hitting the target, recognizing the trade-offs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 5672–5679 (2012).
Humpenöder, F. et al. Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 064029 (2014).
Chen, C. & Tavoni, M. Direct air capture of CO2 and climate stabilization: a model based assessment. Clim. Change 118, 59–72 (2013).
Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nature Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).
Kriegler E. et al. Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Clima. Change 118, 45–57 (2013).
Sims, R. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 8 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Kriegler, E. et al. Making or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Part A 90, 24–44 (2015). A study showing the impact of delay in implementation of mitigation on climate stabilization over the course of the twenty-first century.
National Academy of Sciences. Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration (National Academies Press, 2015). An in-depth report on carbon dioxide removal (equivalent to negative emissions) technologies.
Calvin, K. et al. A multi-model analysis of the regional and sectoral roles of bioenergy in near-and long-term CO2 emissions reduction. Clim. Change Econ. 4, 1340014 (2013).
Popp, A. et al. Land-use transition for bioenergy and climate stabilization: model comparison of drivers, impacts and interactions with other land use based mitigation options. Clim. Change 123, 495–509 (2014).
Bonsch, M. et al. Trade-offs between land and water requirements for large-scale bioenergy production. Global Change Biol. Bioenergy http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12226 (2014).
Wieder, W. R., Cleveland, C. C., Smith, W. K. & Todd-Brown, K. Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability. Nature Geosci. 8, 441–444 (2015).
Smith, L. J. & Torn, M. S. Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal. Clim. Change 118, 89–103 (2013). A study examining some ecological limits to land-based negative emission technologies.
Scott, V., Haszeldine, R. S., Tett, S. F. B. & Oschlies, A. Fossil fuels in a trillion tonne world. Nature Clim. Change 5, 419–423 (2015).
Benson, S. M. et al. in Global Energy Assessment Toward a Sustainable Future Ch. 13 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).
Zhao, K. & Jackson, R. B. Biophysical forcings of land-use changes from potential forestry activities in North America. Ecol. Monogr. 84, 329–353 (2014).
Zhuang, Q., Qin, Z & Chen, M. Biofuel, land and water: maize, switchgrass or Miscanthus? Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015020 (2013).
IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).
Renforth, P. The potential of enhanced weathering in the UK. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 10, 229–243 (2012).
Christian, D., Riche, A. B. & Yales, N. E. Growth, yield and mineral content of Miscanthus × giganteus grown as a biofuel for 14 successive harvests. Ind. Crop Prod. 28, 320–327 (2008).
St Clair, S., Hiller, J. & Smith, P. Estimating the pre-harvest greenhouse gas costs of energy crop production. Biomass Bioenergy 32, 442–452 (2008).
Swann, A. L., Fung, I. Y., Levis, S., Bonan, G. B. & Doney, S. C. Changes in Arctic vegetation amplify high-latitude warming through the greenhouse effect. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1295–1300 (2010).
Ma, D., Notaro, M., Liu, Z. Y., Chen, G. S. & Liu, Y. Q. Simulated impacts of afforestation in East China monsoon region as modulated by ocean variability. Clim. Dynam. 41, 2439–2450 (2013).
Betts, A. K. & Ball, J. H. Albedo over the boreal forest. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 28901–28910 (1997).
Betts R. A. Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408, 187–190 (2007).
Betts R. A., Falloon, P. D., Goldewijk, K. K. & Ramankutty, N. Biogeophysical effects of land use on climate: Model simulations of radiative forcing and large-scale temperature change. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 142, 216–233 (2007).
Schaeffer, M. et al. CO2 and albedo climate impacts of extratropical carbon and biomass plantations. Global Biogeochem. Cy. 20, GB2020 (2006).
Jones, A. D. et al. Greenhouse gas policy influences climate via direct effects of land-use change. J. Clim. 26, 3657–3670 (2013).
Mazzotti, M., Bociocchi, R., Desmond, M. J. & Socolow, R. Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: optimization of a two-loop hydroxide carbonate system using a countercurrent air-liquid contactor. Clim. Change 118, 119–135 (2013).
Klein, D. et al. The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE. Clim. Change 123, 705–718 (2014).
Lenton, T. M. in Geoengineering of the Climate System (eds Harrison, R. M. & Hester, R. E.) (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2014).
Haberl, H. et al. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in earth's terrestrial ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 12942–12947 (2007).
Schueler, V., Weddige, U., Beringer, T., Gamba, L. & Lamers, P. Global biomass potentials under sustainability restrictions defined by the European Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC. Global Change Biol. Bioenergy 5, 652–663 (2013).
FAOSTAT (accessed 25 June 2015); http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E
Canadell, J. G., Schulze, E.-D. Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation. Nature Commun. 5, 5282 (2014).
Smith, P. et al. Competition for land. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2941–2957 (2010).
Thompson, B. & Cohen, M. J. The impact of climate change and bioenergy on nutrition (Springer, 2012).
Valentine, J., Clifton-Brown, J., Hastings, A., Robson, P, Allison G. & Smith, P. Food vs. fuel: the use of land for lignocellulosic 'next generation' energy crops that minimise competition with primary food production. Global Change Biol. Bioenergy 4, 1–19 (2012).
Bustamante, M. et al. Co-benefits, trade-offs, barriers and policies for greenhouse gas mitigation in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector. Global Change Biol. 20, 3270–3290 (2014).
Powell, T. W. R. & Lenton, T. M. Future carbon dioxide removal via biomass energy constrained by agricultural efficiency and dietary trends. Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 8116–8133 (2012).
Smith, P. Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Global Food Sec. 2, 18–23 (2013).
Bajželj, B. et al. The importance of food demand management for climate mitigation. Nature Clim. Change 4, 924–929 (2014).
Vörösmarty, C. J. Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289, 284–288 (2000).
Stolaroff, J. K., Keith, D. W. & Lowry, G. V. Carbon dioxide capture from atmospheric air using sodium hydroxide spray. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 2728–2735 (2008).
Oki, T. & Kanae, S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313, 1068–1072 (2006).
Postel, S. L., Daily, G. C. & Ehrlich, P. R. Human appropriation of renewable freshwater. Science 271, 785–788 (1996).
Rockstrom, J. et al. The unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: towards a resilience-based perspective on water for global sustainability. Ecohydrol. 7, 1249–1261 (2014).
Creutzig, F. et al. Reconciling top-down and bottom-up modelling on future bioenergy deployment. Nature Clim. Change 2, 320–327 (2012).
Cowie, A. L., Smith, P. & Johnson, D. Does soil carbon loss in biomass production systems negate the greenhouse benefits of bioenergy? Mitigation Adapt. Strateg. Global Chang. 11, 979–1002 (2006).
McCollum, D. et al. Energy investments under climate policy: a comparison of global models. Clim. Change Econ. 4, 1340010 (2013).
Creutzig, F. Economic and ecological views on climate change mitigation with bioenergy and negative emissions. Global Change Biol. Bioenergy http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12235 (2015).
Kato, E. & Yamagata, Y. BECCS capability of dedicated bioenergy crops under a future land-use scenario targeting net negative carbon emissions. Earth's Future 2, 421–439 (2014).
Scott, V., Gilfillan, S., Markusson, N., Chalmers, H., Haszeldine, R. S. Last chance for carbon capture and storage. Nature Clim. Change 3, 105–111 (2012).
Blackford, J. et al. Detection and impacts of leakage from sub-seafloor deep geological carbon dioxide storage. Nature Clim. Change 4, 1011–1016 (2014).
Luderer, G. et al. Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034033 (2013). A study showing the urgency of climate mitigation action.
Gasser, T., Guivarch, G., Tachiiri, K., Jones, C. D. & Ciais, P. Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2°C. Nature Commun. 6, 7958 (2015).
Boden, T. A., Marland, G. & Andres, R. J. Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, 2015).
Krey, V. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Annex Ch. 2, 1308–1318 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
The views expressed herein are those of the authors, and do not represent those of a particular governmental agency or interagency body. This analysis was initiated at a Global Carbon Project meeting on NETs in Laxenburg, Austria, in April 2013 and contributes to the MaGNET program (http://www.cger.nies.go.jp/gcp/magnet.html). G.P.P. was supported by the Norwegian Research Council (236296). C.D.J. was supported by the Joint UK DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101). J.G.C. acknowledges support from the Australian Climate Change Science Program. E.Ka. and Y.Y. were supported by the ERTDF (S-10) from the Ministry of the Environment, Japan.
M.O. was given a share in Biorecro, a company that cooperates with BECCS projects globally, honouring his pioneering work on BECCS. The other authors declare no competing financial interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, P., Davis, S., Creutzig, F. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nature Clim Change 6, 42–50 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870
Environmental and health impacts of atmospheric CO2 removal by enhanced rock weathering depend on nations’ energy mix
Communications Earth & Environment (2022)
Plant conversions and abatement technologies cannot prevent stranding of power plant assets in 2 °C scenarios
Nature Communications (2022)
Communications Earth & Environment (2022)
Computational and Applied Mathematics (2022)
Probabilistic projections of baseline twenty-first century CO2 emissions using a simple calibrated integrated assessment model
Climatic Change (2022)