Pulse Brain · Growing Health Evidence Index
Tier 1 — Meta-analysis / systematic reviewPeer-reviewed

Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects

Sabine Fuss, William F. Lamb, Max Callaghan, Jérôme Hilaire, Felix Creutzig, Thorben Amann, Tim Beringer, Wagner de Oliveira Garcia, Jens Hartmann, Tarun Khanna, Gunnar Luderer, Gregory F. Nemet, Joeri Rogelj, Pete Smith, José Luis Vicente‐Vicente, Jennifer Wilcox, Maria del Mar Zamora Dominguez, Jan C. Minx

Environmental Research Letters · 2018

Read source ↗ All evidence

Summary

This systematic literature review presents bottom-up assessments of costs, potentials, and side-effects for seven negative emissions technologies identified as relevant to IPCC 1.5 °C and 2 °C pathways. The authors synthesise published literature to derive sustainable global potential estimates ranging from 0.5–5 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ for most technologies by 2050, with wide variation in costs and permanency. The review concludes that a portfolio approach combining multiple technologies will be necessary, as no single NET can sustainably meet the carbon uptake demands of low-warming scenarios.

UK applicability

The findings are applicable to UK climate policy and agricultural planning, particularly regarding soil carbon sequestration and afforestation/reforestation potential on UK land. However, the global cost and potential estimates will require downscaling and contextualisation to UK-specific land availability, soil types, and economic conditions.

Key measures

CO₂ removal costs (USD per tonne), sustainable global potentials (GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ in 2050), permanency characteristics, cumulative potentials beyond 2050, and environmental side-effects

Outcomes reported

The study presents systematic bottom-up cost and potential estimates for seven negative emissions technologies (BECCS, afforestation/reforestation, DACCS, enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, biochar, and soil carbon sequestration) and qualifies them with assessments of permanency, side-effects, and scaling feasibility. It reports sustainable global potential ranges for each technology by 2050 and concludes that no single technology can meet the carbon uptake rates required for 1.5 °C pathways.

Theme
Climate & resilience
Subject
Climate & greenhouse gas mitigation
Study type
Systematic Review
Study design
Systematic review
Source type
Peer-reviewed study
Status
Published
Geography
Global
System type
Mixed farming
DOI
10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f
Catalogue ID
BFmovbmhmv-zlmwmc

Topic tags

Pulse AI · ask about this record

Dig deeper with Pulse AI.

Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.