Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Food–energy–water implications of negative emissions technologies in a +1.5 °C future


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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Side effects of limiting warming to below 1.5 °C without DAC available.
Fig. 2: Positive and negative CO2 emissions by sector and region.
Fig. 3: Food crop price and global land-use impacts of NET deployment.
Fig. 4: Water use and displacement of emissions abatement of large-scale DAC.
Fig. 5: Effects of DAC on primary energy consumption.

Data availability

To enable replication of our work, the input files required to run our scenarios, as well as python scripts used in generating figures for this study, may be downloaded at Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The full model is available for download at


  1. 1.

    Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).

  2. 2.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).

  3. 3.

    IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  4. 4.

    Tokarska, K. B. & Gillett, N. P. Cumulative carbon emissions budgets consistent with 1.5 °C global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 296–299 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Fawcett, A. A. et al. Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? Science 350, 1168–1169 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Emissions Gap Report 2019 (UNEP, 2019).

  7. 7.

    Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 2141–2194 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lawrence, B. M. G. & Schäfer, S. Promises and perils of the Paris Agreement. Science 364, 829–830 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354, 182–184 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    NRC Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018).

  11. 11.

    NRC Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration (National Research Council, 2015).

  12. 12.

    Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions—part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063001 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Fuss, S. et al. Negative emissions—part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063002 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Nemet, G. F. et al. Negative emissions—part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063003 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Roe, S. et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 817–828 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wise, M. et al. Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324, 1183–1186 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 42–50 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Canadell, J. G. & Schulze, E. D. Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation. Nat. Commun. 5, 5282 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Keith, D. W., Holmes, G., St. Angelo, D. & Heidel, K. A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Joule 2, 1573–1594 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Realmonte, G. et al. An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 10, 3277 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Direct Air Capture of CO2 with Chemicals: a Technology Assessment for the APS Panel on Public Affairs (American Physical Society, 2011).

  25. 25.

    Carbon engineering’s large-scale direct air capture breakthrough. Carbon Engineering (7 June 2018);

  26. 26.

    Simon, E. The Swiss company hoping to capture 1% of global CO2 emissions by 2025. Carbon Brief (22 June 2017);

  27. 27.

    Peters, A. Can we suck enough CO2 from the air to save the climate? Global Thermostat (22 December 2017);

  28. 28.

    Chevron, occidental invest in CO2 removal technology. Reuters (9 January 2019);

  29. 29.

    ExxonMobil and Global Thermostat to advance breakthrough atmospheric carbon capture technology. Business Wire (27 June 2019);

  30. 30.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Chen, C. & Tavoni, M. Direct air capture of CO2 and climate stabilization: a model based assessment. Climatic Change 118, 59–72 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Keith, D. W., Ha-Duong, M. & Stolaroff, J. K. Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air. Climatic Change 74, 17–45 (2006).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Honegger, M. & Reiner, D. The political economy of negative emissions technologies: consequences for international policy design. Clim. Policy 18, 306–321 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bednar, J., Obersteiner, M. & Wagner, F. On the financial viability of negative emissions. Nat. Commun. 10, 1783 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Haddeland, I. et al. Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3251–3256 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Fricko, O. et al. Energy sector water use implications of a 2 °C climate policy. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 034011 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    BP Statistical Review of World Energy (BP, 2019).

  41. 41.

    New map of worldwide croplands supports food and water security. Global food security-support analysis data at 30 m. USGS (14 November 2017);

  42. 42.

    Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5 °C scenario explorer and data. IIASA (2018)

  43. 43.

    Hoff, H. et al. Greening the global water system. J. Hydrol. 384, 177–186 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Fajardy, M. & Mac Dowell, N. Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions? Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 1389–1426 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Nelson, G. C. et al. Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3274–3279 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    McLaren, D. & Markusson, N. The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and climate change targets. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 392–397 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Alvarez, R. A. et al. Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain. Science 361, 186–188 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Fuhrman, J. Replication Data for “Food Energy Water Tradeoffs of Negative Emissions Technologies in a + 1.5C Future” v1 (University of Virginia Dataverse, 2020);

  56. 56.

    Peters, G. P. et al. Carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow amidst slowly emerging climate policies. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 3–6 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Mauna Loa CO2 Annual Mean Data (NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, 2019);

  58. 58.

    Global Average Near Surface Temperatures Relative to the Pre-Industrial Period (European Environment Agency, 2019;

  59. 59.

    Calvin, K. et al. The SSP4: a world of deepening inequality. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 284–296 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Zeman, F. Energy and material balance of CO2 capture from ambient air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 7558–7563 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Fasihi, M., Efimova, O. & Breyer, C. Techno-economic assessment of CO2 direct air capture plants. J. Clean. Prod. 224, 957–980 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Net Zero Technical Report 282, Fig. 10.2 (Committee on Climate Change, 2019).

  66. 66.

    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).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    GCAM v5.2 Documentation: GCAM Energy System (JGCRI, 2020).

  68. 68.

    GCAM v5.2 Documentation: Table of Contents (JGCRI, 2019).

Download references


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.

Author information




J.F., H.M., S.C.D., W.M.S. and A.F.C. led the study design and the writing of the paper, J.F., H.M. and P.P. conducted the modelling.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andres F. Clarens.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Projected NET deployments to limit global warming to 1.5 °C.

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. Source data

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. Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–16, discussion and Tables 1 and 2.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Numerical source data for Fig. 1.

Source Data Fig. 2

Numerical source data for Fig. 2.

Source Data Fig. 3

Numerical source data for Fig. 3.

Source Data Fig. 4

Numerical source data for Fig. 4.

Source Data Fig. 5

Numerical source data for Fig. 5.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Numerical source data for Extended Data Fig. 1.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Numerical Source data for Extended Data Fig. 2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing