Scenarios for meeting ambitious climate targets rely on large-scale deployment of negative emissions technologies (NETs), including direct air capture (DAC). However, the tradeoffs between food, water and energy created by deploying different NETs are unclear. Here we show that DAC could provide up to 3 GtCO2 yr−1 of negative emissions by 2035—equivalent to 7% of 2019 global CO2 emissions—based on current-day assumptions regarding price and performance. DAC in particular could exacerbate demand for energy and water, yet it would avoid the most severe market-mediated effects of land-use competition from bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and afforestation. This could result in staple food crop prices rising by approximately fivefold relative to 2010 levels in many parts of the Global South, raising equity concerns about the deployment of NETs. These results highlight that delays in aggressive global mitigation action greatly increase the requirement for DAC to meet climate targets, and correspondingly, energy and water impacts.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
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.
The full model is available for download at https://github.com/JGCRI/gcam-core.
Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).
IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).
Tokarska, K. B. & Gillett, N. P. Cumulative carbon emissions budgets consistent with 1.5 °C global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 296–299 (2018).
Fawcett, A. A. et al. Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? Science 350, 1168–1169 (2015).
Emissions Gap Report 2019 (UNEP, 2019).
Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2141–2194 (2018).
Lawrence, B. M. G. & Schäfer, S. Promises and perils of the Paris Agreement. Science 364, 829–830 (2019).
Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354, 182–184 (2016).
NRC Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018).
NRC Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration (National Research Council, 2015).
Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions—part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063001 (2018).
Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018).
Nemet, G. F. et al. Negative emissions—part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063003 (2018).
Roe, S. et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 817–828 (2019).
Fuhrman, J., McJeon, H., Doney, S. C., Shobe, W. & Clarens, A. F. From zero to hero?: Why integrated assessment modeling of negative emissions technologies is hard and how we can do better. Front. Clim. 1, 11 (2019).
Wise, M. et al. Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324, 1183–1186 (2009).
Calvin, K. et al. Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets. Clim. Change 123, 691–704 (2014).
Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).
Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 42–50 (2016).
Canadell, J. G. & Schulze, E. D. Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation. Nat. Commun. 5, 5282 (2014).
Keith, D. W., Holmes, G., St. Angelo, D. & Heidel, K. A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Joule 2, 1573–1594 (2018).
Realmonte, G. et al. An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 10, 3277 (2019).
Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals: a Technology Assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs (American Physical Society, 2011).
Carbon engineering’s large-scale direct air capture breakthrough. Carbon Engineering (7 June 2018); https://carbonengineering.com/news-updates/climate-change-breakthrough/
Simon, E. The Swiss company hoping to capture 1% of global CO2 emissions by 2025. Carbon Brief (22 June 2017); https://www.carbonbrief.org/swiss-company-hoping-capture-1-global-co2-emissions-2025
Peters, A. Can we suck enough CO2 from the air to save the climate? Global Thermostat (22 December 2017); https://globalthermostat.com/2017/12/global-thermostat-news-fastcompany-com-published-122217/
Chevron, occidental invest in CO2 removal technology. Reuters (9 January 2019); https://www.reuters.com/article/us-carbonengineering-investment/chevron-occidental-invest-in-co2-removal-technology-idUSKCN1P312R
ExxonMobil and Global Thermostat to advance breakthrough atmospheric carbon capture technology. Business Wire (27 June 2019); https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190627005137/en/ExxonMobil-Global-Thermostat-Advance-Breakthrough-Atmospheric-Carbon
Marcucci, A., Kypreos, S. & Panos, E. The road to achieving the long-term Paris targets: energy transition and the role of direct air capture. Climatic Change 144, 181–193 (2017).
Strefler, J. et al. Between Scylla and Charybdis: delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044015 (2018).
Chen, C. & Tavoni, M. Direct air capture of CO2 and climate stabilization: a model based assessment. Climatic Change 118, 59–72 (2013).
Holz, C., Siegel, L. S., Johnston, E., Jones, A. P. & Sterman, J. Ratcheting ambition to limit warming to 1.5 °C—trade-offs between emission reductions and carbon dioxide removal. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 64028 (2018).
Keith, D. W., Ha-Duong, M. & Stolaroff, J. K. Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air. Climatic Change 74, 17–45 (2006).
Honegger, M. & Reiner, D. The political economy of negative emissions technologies: consequences for international policy design. Clim. Policy 18, 306–321 (2018).
Bednar, J., Obersteiner, M. & Wagner, F. On the financial viability of negative emissions. Nat. Commun. 10, 1783 (2019).
Haddeland, I. et al. Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3251–3256 (2013).
Fricko, O. et al. Energy sector water use implications of a 2 °C climate policy. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 034011 (2016).
Calvin, K. et al. GCAM v5.1: representing the linkages between energy, water, land, climate, and economic systems. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 677–698 (2019).
BP Statistical Review of World Energy (BP, 2019).
New map of worldwide croplands supports food and water security. Global food security-support analysis data at 30 m. USGS (14 November 2017); https://www.usgs.gov/news/new-map-worldwide-croplands-supports-food-and-water-security
Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5 °C scenario explorer and data. IIASA https://doi.org/10.22022/SR15/08-2018.15429 (2018)
Hoff, H. et al. Greening the global water system. J. Hydrol. 384, 177–186 (2010).
Fajardy, M. & Mac Dowell, N. Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions? Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 1389–1426 (2017).
Ng, T. L., Eheart, J. W., Cai, X. & Miguez, F. Modeling miscanthus in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to simulate its water quality effects as a bioenergy crop. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 7138–7144 (2010).
Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).
Arnell, N. W., Lowe, J. A., Challinor, A. J. & Osborn, T. J. Global and regional impacts of climate change at different levels of global temperature increase. Climatic Change 155, 377–391 (2019).
Calvin, K. et al. Global market and economic welfare implications of changes in agricultural yields due to climate change. Clim. Change Econ. 11, 2050005 (2020).
Nelson, G. C. et al. Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3274–3279 (2014).
Snyder, A., Calvin, K., Phillips, M. & Ruane, A. A crop yield change emulator for use in GCAM and similar models: Persephone v1.0. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 1319–1350 (2019).
McLaren, D. & Markusson, N. The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and climate change targets. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 392–397 (2020).
Alvarez, R. A. et al. Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain. Science 361, 186–188 (2018).
Chu, E., Anguelovski, I. & Carmin, J. A. Inclusive approaches to urban climate adaptation planning and implementation in the Global South. Clim. Policy 16, 372–392 (2016).
Füssel, H. M. How inequitable is the global distribution of responsibility, capability, and vulnerability to climate change: a comprehensive indicator-based assessment. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 597–611 (2010).
Fuhrman, J. Replication Data for “Food Energy Water Tradeoffs of Negative Emissions Technologies in a + 1.5C Future” v1 (University of Virginia Dataverse, 2020); https://doi.org/10.18130/V3/JKJAOG
Peters, G. P. et al. Carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow amidst slowly emerging climate policies. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 3–6 (2020).
Mauna Loa CO2 Annual Mean Data (NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, 2019); https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Global Average Near Surface Temperatures Relative to the Pre-Industrial Period (European Environment Agency, 2019; https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/global-average-air-temperature-anomalies-5#tab-dashboard-02
Calvin, K. et al. The SSP4: a world of deepening inequality. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 284–296 (2017).
Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
Zeman, F. Energy and material balance of CO2 capture from ambient air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 7558–7563 (2007).
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).
Fasihi, M., Efimova, O. & Breyer, C. Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants. J. Clean. Prod. 224, 957–980 (2019).
Net Zero Technical Report 282, Fig. 10.2 (Committee on Climate Change, 2019).
Mazzotti, M., Baciocchi, R., Desmond, M. J. & Socolow, R. H. Direct air capture of CO2 with chemicals: optimization of a two-loop hydroxide carbonate system using a countercurrent air–liquid contactor. Climatic Change 118, 119–135 (2013).
GCAM v5.2 Documentation: GCAM Energy System (JGCRI, 2020).
GCAM v5.2 Documentation: Table of Contents (JGCRI, 2019). https://jgcri.github.io/gcam-doc/toc.html
We thank K. Holcomb of the UVA Advanced Research Computing Service for her assistance with setting up GCAM on UVA’s high-performance computing cluster. We also thank the University of Virginia’s Office of the Vice President for Research–3 Cavaliers Program, the University of Virginia Environmental Resilience Institute and the Joint Global Change Research Institute Global Technology Strategy Program for supporting this work.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Modelling results underpinning the IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C. The thicker coloured lines show the median projected deployments of the individual afforestation, BECCS, and DAC technologies, for those model results which report them. The thin grey lines represent the combined negative emissions deployment for individual scenarios. The grey shading represents the 68% confidence interval (+/− 1 standard deviation) on combined negative emissions deployment.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Effect of representative high and low overshoot of the 1.5 °C end-of-century temperature target.
a, Temperature anomalies from pre-industrial, b, CO2 concentrations, and c, emissions trajectories. Historical data for emissions, CO2 concentrations, and temperature are indicated by grey lines. The “no climate policy scenario” is the GCAM reference scenario. After the year 2020, CO2 emissions pathways represent imposed model constraints which result in the CO2 concentration and temperature trajectories reported.
Numerical source data for Fig. 1.
Numerical source data for Fig. 2.
Numerical source data for Fig. 3.
Numerical source data for Fig. 4.
Numerical source data for Fig. 5.
Numerical source data for Extended Data Fig. 1.
Numerical Source data for Extended Data Fig. 2.
About this article
Cite this article
Fuhrman, J., McJeon, H., Patel, P. et al. Food–energy–water implications of negative emissions technologies in a +1.5 °C future. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 920–927 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0876-z
Nature Communications (2022)
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2022)
Nature Communications (2021)
Nature Communications (2021)