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 review, part 2 of a three-part assessment, synthesises the literature on seven negative emissions technologies relevant to IPCC 1.5–2°C pathways. The authors provide bottom-up estimates of costs, potentials and side-effects for BECCS, afforestation/reforestation, DACCS, enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, biochar and soil carbon sequestration, concluding that no single technology is likely to sustainably meet projected deployment rates and that a portfolio approach will be necessary.

UK applicability

The review's assessment of afforestation potential and soil carbon sequestration has direct relevance to UK climate policy and land use strategy. However, UK applicability of cost and potential estimates depends on local conditions, policy support and land availability constraints not specified in this global assessment.

Key measures

Cost (per tonne CO₂ removed), sustainable global potential (GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ by 2050), permanency, cumulative potential beyond 2050, environmental and social side-effects

Outcomes reported

The study synthesised literature on seven negative emissions technologies (NETs), estimating their sustainable global potentials by 2050 and assessing costs, permanency, and side-effects. Best estimates ranged from 0.5–3.6 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ for afforestation/reforestation to 5 GtCO₂ yr⁻¹ for soil carbon sequestration.

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
BFmovi23dp-rctyu3

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.