Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).
Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).
Google Scholar
Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions — part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063001 (2018).
Google Scholar
Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).
Google Scholar
Gattuso, J.-P., Williamson, P., Duarte, C. M. & Magnan, A. K. The potential for ocean-based climate action: negative emissions technologies and beyond. Front. Clim. 2, 37 (2021).
Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration (The National Academies Press, 2019).
IGBP Terrestrial Carbon Working Group. The terrestrial carbon cycle: implications for the Kyoto Protocol. Science 280, 1393–1394 (1998).
Google Scholar
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1783–1838 (2019).
Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Proceedings of the IPCC Conference on Tropical Forestry Response Options to Global Climate Change (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1990).
Griscom, B. W. et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 11645–11650 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hua, F. et al. Opportunities for biodiversity gains under the world’s largest reforestation programme. Nat. Commun. 7, 12717 (2016).
Google Scholar
Putz, F. E. et al. Improved tropical forest management for carbon retention. PLoS Biol. 6, e166 (2008).
Google Scholar
Moomaw, W. R., Masino, S. A. & Faison, E. K. Intact forests in the United States: proforestation mitigates climate change and serves the greatest good. Front. For. Glob. Change 2, 27 (2019).
Google Scholar
Nolan, R. H. et al. Safeguarding reforestation efforts against changes in climate and disturbance regimes. For. Ecol. Manag. 424, 458–467 (2018).
Google Scholar
Morecroft, M. D. et al. Measuring the success of climate change adaptation and mitigation in terrestrial ecosystems. Science 366, eaaw9256 (2019).
Google Scholar
Smith, P. et al. Towards an integrated global framework to assess the impacts of land use and management change on soil carbon: current capability and future vision. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 2089–2101 (2012).
Google Scholar
Bastin, J.-F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76–79 (2019).
Google Scholar
Roe, S. et al. Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5 °C world. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 817–828 (2019).
Google Scholar
Paustian, K. et al. Soil C sequestration as a biological negative emission strategy. Front. Clim. 1, 8 (2019).
Google Scholar
Seddon, N. et al. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1518–1546 (2021).
Google Scholar
World Resources Institute. Global Forest Watch https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/global-forest-watch (2014).
Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. Financing Emissions Reductions for the Future: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets 2019 (Forest Trends, 2019).
Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. Fertile Ground: State of Forest Carbon Finance 2017 (Forest Trends, 2017).
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Clean Development Mechanism Project Search https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html.
Pozo, C., Galán-Martín, Á., Reiner, D. M., Mac Dowell, N. & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. Equity in allocating carbon dioxide removal quotas. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 640–646 (2020).
Google Scholar
Mulligan, J. A. et al. CarbonShot: Federal Policy Options for Carbon Removal in the United States (World Resources Institute, 2020).
Fargione, J. E. et al. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat1869 (2018).
Google Scholar
Cameron, D. R., Marvin, D. C., Remucal, J. M. & Passero, M. C. Ecosystem management and land conservation can substantially contribute to California’s climate mitigation goals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12833–12838 (2017).
Google Scholar
Baker, S. E. et al. Getting to Neutral: Options for Negative Carbon Emissions in California (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2020).
Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Rightsizing carbon dioxide removal. Science 356, 706–707 (2017).
Google Scholar
Prentice, I. C. et al. in Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Ch. 3 (eds Houghton, J. T. et al.) 185–237 (World Meteorological Organization, 2001).
Mackey, B. et al. Untangling the confusion around land carbon science and climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 552–557 (2013).
Google Scholar
Hurteau, M. D., Koch, G. W. & Hungate, B. A. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 493–498 (2008).
Google Scholar
McDowell, N. G. et al. Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world. Science 368, eaaz9463 (2020).
Google Scholar
Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).
Google Scholar
Houghton, R. A. & Nassikas, A. A. Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31, 456–472 (2017).
Google Scholar
DeFries, R. S., Field, C. B., Fung, I., Collatz, G. J. & Bounoua, L. Combining satellite data and biogeochemical models to estimate global effects of human-induced land cover change on carbon emissions and primary productivity. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 803–815 (1999).
Google Scholar
Hansis, E., Davis, S. J. & Pongratz, J. Relevance of methodological choices for accounting of land use change carbon fluxes. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 29, 1230–1246 (2015).
Google Scholar
Erb, K.-H. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553, 73–76 (2018).
Google Scholar
Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G. J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9575–9580 (2017).
Google Scholar
Churkina, G. et al. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 3, 269–276 (2020).
Google Scholar
Stallard, R. F. Terrestrial sedimentation and the carbon cycle: Coupling weathering and erosion to carbon burial. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 12, 231–257 (1998).
Google Scholar
Kondo, M. et al. Plant regrowth as a driver of recent enhancement of terrestrial CO2 uptake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 4820–4830 (2018).
Google Scholar
Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).
Google Scholar
Pugh, T. A. M. et al. Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, 4382–4387 (2019).
Google Scholar
Nabuurs, G.-J. et al. First signs of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 792–796 (2013).
Google Scholar
Peñuelas, J. et al. Shifting from a fertilization-dominated to a warming-dominated period. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1438–1445 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hubau, W. et al. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579, 80–87 (2020).
Google Scholar
Griscom, B. W. et al. National mitigation potential from natural climate solutions in the tropics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190126 (2020).
Google Scholar
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections due to carbon cycle feedbacks. J. Clim. 27, 511–526 (2014).
Google Scholar
Krause, A. et al. Large uncertainty in carbon uptake potential of land-based climate-change mitigation efforts. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3025–3038 (2018).
Google Scholar
Jones, C. D. et al. Simulating the Earth system response to negative emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 095012 (2016).
Google Scholar
Jones, C. D. et al. C4MIP — the coupled climate–carbon cycle model intercomparison project: experimental protocol for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2853–2880 (2016).
Google Scholar
Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2973–2998 (2016).
Google Scholar
Fernández-Martínez, M. et al. Global trends in carbon sinks and their relationships with CO2 and temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 73–79 (2019).
Google Scholar
Terrer, C. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus constrain the CO2 fertilization of global plant biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 684–689 (2019).
Google Scholar
Hong, S. et al. Divergent responses of soil organic carbon to afforestation. Nat. Sustain. 3, 694–700 (2020).
Google Scholar
Li, D., Niu, S. & Luo, Y. Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: a meta-analysis. New Phytol. 195, 172–181 (2012).
Google Scholar
Baldocchi, D. & Penuelas, J. The physics and ecology of mining carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1191–1197 (2018).
Google Scholar
Gómez-González, S., Ochoa-Hueso, R. & Pausas, J. G. Afforestation falls short as a biodiversity strategy. Science 368, 1439 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bellamy, R. & Osaka, S. Unnatural climate solutions. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 98–99 (2020).
Google Scholar
Indigo Ag. Indigo launches The Terraton Initiative. https://www.indigoag.com/en-au/pages/news/indigo-launches-the-terraton-initiative (2019).
Schlesinger, W. H. & Amundson, R. Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 386–389 (2019).
Google Scholar
Betts, R. A. Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408, 187–190 (2000).
Google Scholar
Bala, G. et al. Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 6550–6555 (2007).
Google Scholar
Jackson, R. B. et al. Protecting climate with forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 044006 (2008).
Google Scholar
Li, Y. et al. Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations. Nat. Commun. 6, 6603 (2015).
Google Scholar
Prevedello, J. A., Winck, G. R., Weber, M. M., Nichols, E. & Sinervo, B. Impacts of forestation and deforestation on local temperature across the globe. PloS ONE 13, e0213368 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bonan, G. B. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320, 1444–1449 (2008).
Google Scholar
Zhang, Q. et al. Reforestation and surface cooling in temperate zones: mechanisms and implications. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3384–3401 (2020).
Google Scholar
California Air Resources Board. Compliance Offset Program. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-program (2013).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2019).
Hemes, K. S., Chamberlain, S. D., Eichelmann, E., Knox, S. H. & Baldocchi, D. D. A biogeochemical compromise: the high methane cost of sequestering carbon in restored wetlands. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 6081–6091 (2018).
Google Scholar
CarbonPlan Team. The cost of temporary carbon removal (2020).
Holl, K. D. & Brancalion, P. H. S. Tree planting is not a simple solution. Science 368, 580–581 (2020).
Google Scholar
Chen, W., Meng, J., Han, X., Lan, Y. & Zhang, W. Past, present, and future of biochar. Biochar 1, 75–87 (2019).
Google Scholar
Nemet, G. F. et al. Negative emissions — part 3: innovation and upscaling. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063003 (2018).
Google Scholar
Chazdon, R. & Brancalion, P. Restoring forests as a means to many ends. Science 365, 24–25 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kalt, G. et al. Natural climate solutions versus bioenergy: Can carbon benefits of natural succession compete with bioenergy from short rotation coppice. GCB Bioenergy 11, 1283–1297 (2019).
Google Scholar
Seddon, N. et al. Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375, 20190120 (2020).
Google Scholar
Seddon, N., Turner, B., Berry, P., Chausson, A. & Girardin, C. A. J. Grounding nature-based climate solutions in sound biodiversity science. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 84–87 (2019).
Google Scholar
Dass, P., Houlton, B. Z., Wang, Y. & Warlind, D. Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 074027 (2018).
Google Scholar
Jackson, R. B. et al. Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 310, 1944–1947 (2005).
Google Scholar
Buck, H. J. After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration (Verso Books, 2019).
House, J. I., Prentice, I. C. & Le Quere, C. Maximum impacts of future reforestation or deforestation on atmospheric CO2. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 1047–1052 (2002).
Google Scholar
Boysen, L. R., Lucht, W. & Gerten, D. Trade-offs for food production, nature conservation and climate limit the terrestrial carbon dioxide removal potential. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 4303–4317 (2017).
Google Scholar
Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A. & Koch, A. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568, 25–28 (2019).
Google Scholar
Smith, P. et al. How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2285–2302 (2013).
Google Scholar
Popp, A. et al. The economic potential of bioenergy for climate change mitigation with special attention given to implications for the land system. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 034017 (2011).
Google Scholar
Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
Google Scholar
Turner, P. A., Field, C. B., Lobell, D. B., Sanchez, D. L. & Mach, K. J. Unprecedented rates of land-use transformation in modelled climate change mitigation pathways. Nat. Sustain. 1, 240–245 (2018).
Google Scholar
Campbell, J. E., Lobell, D. B., Genova, R. C. & Field, C. B. The global potential of bioenergy on abandoned agriculture lands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 5791–5794 (2008).
Google Scholar
Bell, S., Barriocanal, C., Terrer, C. & Rosell-Melé, A. Management opportunities for soil carbon sequestration following agricultural land abandonment. Environ. Sci. Policy 108, 104–111 (2020).
Google Scholar
FAO and UNEP. The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity, and people. http://www.fao.org/3/ca8642en/ca8642en.pdf (2020).
The Food and Land Use Coalition. Growing Better: Ten Critical Transitions to Transform Food and Land Use. https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FOLU-GrowingBetter-GlobalReport.pdf (2019).
Smith, P. et al. Land-management options for greenhouse gas removal and their impacts on ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 255–286 (2019).
Google Scholar
Dorner, P. & Thiesenhusen, W. Land Tenure and Deforestation: Interactions and Environmental Implications (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1992).
Ferreira, S. Deforestation, property rights, and international trade. Land Econ. 80, 174–193 (2004).
Google Scholar
Robinson, B. E., Holland, M. B. & Naughton-Treves, L. Does secure land tenure save forests? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 281–293 (2014).
Google Scholar
Laurance, W. F. Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis. Biol. Conserv. 91, 109–117 (1999).
Google Scholar
Murtazashvili, I., Murtazashvili, J. & Salahodjaev, R. Trust and deforestation: a cross-country comparison. For. Policy Econ. 101, 111–119 (2019).
Google Scholar
Koyuncu, C. & Yilmaz, R. The impact of corruption on deforestation: a cross-country evidence. J. Dev. Areas 42, 213–222 (2009).
Google Scholar
Pailler, S. Re-election incentives and deforestation cycles in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 88, 345–365 (2018).
Google Scholar
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Decision 4/CP.15 Methodological guidance for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (2009).
Anderson, C. M., Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Forest offsets partner climate-change mitigation with conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 359–365 (2017).
Google Scholar
Merenlender, A. M., Huntsinger, L., Guthey, G. & Fairfax, S. K. Land trusts and conservation easements: who is conserving what for whom. Conserv. Biol. 18, 65–75 (2004).
Google Scholar
Alix-Garcia, J. & Wolff, H. Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 6, 361–380 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jayachandran, S. et al. Cash for carbon: a randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357, 267–273 (2017).
Google Scholar
Biggs, E. M. et al. Sustainable development and the water–energy–food nexus: a perspective on livelihoods. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 389–397 (2015).
Google Scholar
Buchner, B. et al. Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2019 (Climate Policy Initiative, 2019).
The Food and Land Use Coalition. Nature for Net-Zero: consultation document on the need to raise corporate ambition towards nature-based net-zero emissions (2020).
Asner, G. P. et al. A universal airborne LiDAR approach for tropical forest carbon mapping. Oecologia 168, 1147–1160 (2012).
Google Scholar
Schimel, D. & Schneider, F. D., JPL Carbon and Ecosystem Participants. Flux towers in the sky: global ecology from space. New Phytol. 224, 570–584 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kurz, W. A., Stinson, G., Rampley, G. J., Dymond, C. C. & Neilson, E. T. Risk of natural disturbances makes future contribution of Canada’s forests to the global carbon cycle highly uncertain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1551–1555 (2008).
Google Scholar
Marland, G., Fruit, K. & Sedjo, R. Accounting for sequestered carbon: the question of permanence. Environ. Sci. Policy 4, 259–268 (2001).
Google Scholar
Sedjo, R. A., Marland, G. & Fruit, K. Renting carbon offsets: the question of permanence. Resources for the Future Manuscript 12 pp (2001).
Marland, G. & Marland, E. Trading permanent and temporary carbon emissions credits. Clim. Change 95, 465 (2009).
Google Scholar
van Oosterzee, P., Blignaut, J. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. iREDD hedges against avoided deforestation’s unholy trinity of leakage, permanence and additionality. Conserv. Lett. 5, 266–273 (2012).
Google Scholar
May, P. J. Policy learning and failure. J. Public Policy 12, 331–354 (1992).
Google Scholar
Geist, H. J. & Lambin, E. F. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience 52, 143–150 (2002).
Google Scholar
Zeng, Y. et al. Economic and social constraints on reforestation for climate mitigation in Southeast Asia. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 842–844 (2020).
Google Scholar
Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D. & McDowell, N. G. On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere 6, 1–55 (2015).
Google Scholar
Anderson, C. M. et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science 363, 933–934 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lal, R. et al. The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 73, 145A–152A (2018).
Google Scholar
Arora, V. K. & Montenegro, A. Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nat. Geosci. 4, 514–518 (2011).
Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration (The National Academies Press, 2015).
Chabbi, A. et al. Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 307–309 (2017).
Google Scholar
Vaughan, N. E. & Lenton, T. M. A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim. Change 109, 745–790 (2011).
Google Scholar
Houghton, R. A., Unruh, J. D. & Lefebvre, P. A. Current land cover in the tropics and its potential for sequestering carbon. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 7, 305–320 (1993).
Google Scholar
Houghton, R. A. & Nassikas, A. A. Negative emissions from stopping deforestation and forest degradation, globally. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 350–359 (2018).
Google Scholar
Busch, J. et al. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 463–466 (2019).
Google Scholar
Nilsson, S. & Schopfhauser, W. The carbon-sequestration potential of a global afforestation program. Clim. Change 30, 267–293 (1995).
Google Scholar
Winjum, J. K., Dixon, R. K. & Schroeder, P. E. Estimating the global potential of forest and agroforest management practices to sequester carbon. Water Air Soil Pollut. 64, 213–227 (1992).
Google Scholar
Sohngen, B. & Sedjo, R. Carbon sequestration in global forests under different carbon price regimes. Energy J. 27, 109–126 (2006).
Mayer, A., Hausfather, Z., Jones, A. D. & Silver, W. L. The potential of agricultural land management to contribute to lower global surface temperatures. Sci. Adv. 4, eaaq0932 (2018).
Google Scholar
van Minnen, J. G., Strengers, B. J., Eickhout, B., Swart, R. J. & Leemans, R. Quantifying the effectiveness of climate change mitigation through forest plantations and carbon sequestration with an integrated land-use model. Carbon Balance Manag. 3, 3 (2008).
Google Scholar
Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change. Geoderma 123, 1–22 (2004).
Google Scholar
Sathaye, J., Makundi, W., Dale, L., Chan, P. & Andrasko, K. GHG mitigation potential, costs and benefits in global forests: a dynamic partial equilibrium approach. Energy J. 27, 127–162 (2006).
Canadell, J. G. & Schulze, E. D. Global potential of biospheric carbon management for climate mitigation. Nat. Commun. 5, 5282 (2014).
Google Scholar
Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., Sommer, R. & Verchot, L. V. Global sequestration potential of increased organic carbon in cropland soils. Sci. Rep. 7, 15554 (2017).
Google Scholar
Caldecott, B., Lomax, G. & Workman, M. Stranded Carbon Assets and Negative Emissions Technologies (Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, 2015).
Chazdon, R. L. et al. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501639 (2016).
Google Scholar
Source: Ecology - nature.com
