Abstract
Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We assess the opportunities and risks associated with these options through the lens of their potential impacts on ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People; NCPs) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that all land-based GGR options contribute positively to at least some NCPs and SDGs. Wetland restoration and SCS almost exclusively deliver positive impacts. A few GGR options, such as afforestation, BECCS, and biochar potentially impact negatively some NCPs and SDGs, particularly when implemented at scale, largely through competition for land. For those that present risks or are least understood, more research is required, and demonstration projects need to proceed with caution. For options that present low risks and provide cobenefits, implementation can proceed more rapidly following no-regrets principles.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 255-286 |
| Journal | Annual Review of Environment and Resources |
| Volume | 44 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 17 Oct 2019 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- afforestation/reforestation
- BECCS
- biochar
- bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
- carbon dioxide removal
- CDR
- ecosystem services
- greenhouse gas removal
- Nature's Contributions to People
- NCPs
- negative emission technology
- NET
- SDG
- soil carbon sequestration
- terrestrial enhanced weathering
- UN Sustainable Development Goals
- wetland restoration
Cite this
}
Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals. / Smith, Pete; Adams, Justin; Beerling, David J.; Beringer, Tim; Calvin, Katherine V.; Fuss, Sabine; Griscom, Bronson; Hagemann, Nikolas; Kammann, Claudia; Kraxner, Florian; Minx, Jan C.; Popp, Alexander; Renforth, Phil; Vicente Vicente, Jose Luis; Keesstra, Saskia.
In: Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 44, 17.10.2019, p. 255-286.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals
AU - Smith, Pete
AU - Adams, Justin
AU - Beerling, David J.
AU - Beringer, Tim
AU - Calvin, Katherine V.
AU - Fuss, Sabine
AU - Griscom, Bronson
AU - Hagemann, Nikolas
AU - Kammann, Claudia
AU - Kraxner, Florian
AU - Minx, Jan C.
AU - Popp, Alexander
AU - Renforth, Phil
AU - Vicente Vicente, Jose Luis
AU - Keesstra, Saskia
PY - 2019/10/17
Y1 - 2019/10/17
N2 - Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We assess the opportunities and risks associated with these options through the lens of their potential impacts on ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People; NCPs) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that all land-based GGR options contribute positively to at least some NCPs and SDGs. Wetland restoration and SCS almost exclusively deliver positive impacts. A few GGR options, such as afforestation, BECCS, and biochar potentially impact negatively some NCPs and SDGs, particularly when implemented at scale, largely through competition for land. For those that present risks or are least understood, more research is required, and demonstration projects need to proceed with caution. For options that present low risks and provide cobenefits, implementation can proceed more rapidly following no-regrets principles.
AB - Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) include afforestation or reforestation (AR), wetland restoration, soil carbon sequestration (SCS), biochar, terrestrial enhanced weathering (TEW), and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). We assess the opportunities and risks associated with these options through the lens of their potential impacts on ecosystem services (Nature's Contributions to People; NCPs) and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We find that all land-based GGR options contribute positively to at least some NCPs and SDGs. Wetland restoration and SCS almost exclusively deliver positive impacts. A few GGR options, such as afforestation, BECCS, and biochar potentially impact negatively some NCPs and SDGs, particularly when implemented at scale, largely through competition for land. For those that present risks or are least understood, more research is required, and demonstration projects need to proceed with caution. For options that present low risks and provide cobenefits, implementation can proceed more rapidly following no-regrets principles.
KW - afforestation/reforestation
KW - BECCS
KW - biochar
KW - bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
KW - carbon dioxide removal
KW - CDR
KW - ecosystem services
KW - greenhouse gas removal
KW - Nature's Contributions to People
KW - NCPs
KW - negative emission technology
KW - NET
KW - SDG
KW - soil carbon sequestration
KW - terrestrial enhanced weathering
KW - UN Sustainable Development Goals
KW - wetland restoration
U2 - 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129
DO - 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129
M3 - Article
VL - 44
SP - 255
EP - 286
JO - Annual Review of Environment and Resources
JF - Annual Review of Environment and Resources
SN - 1543-5938
ER -