PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 11, 2019Annual Review of Environment and Resources377 citationsOpen Access

Land-Management Options for Greenhouse Gas Removal and Their Impacts on Ecosystem Services and the Sustainable Development Goals

PSPete SmithJAJustin AdamsDBDavid J. Beerling

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate land-management options for greenhouse gas removal and their effects on ecosystem services and sustainable development goals.
  • Assessment of various land-management options including afforestation, wetland restoration, and soil carbon sequestration.
  • Analysis of the impacts on ecosystem services and sustainable development goals.
  • Identification of risks and opportunities associated with each option.
  • All land-based greenhouse gas removal options positively contribute to some ecosystem services and sustainable development goals.
  • Wetland restoration and soil carbon sequestration deliver almost exclusively positive impacts.
  • Some options, like afforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, may negatively affect certain ecosystem services and sustainable development goals when implemented at scale.

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.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Smith et al. (2019) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69dbdc6f7d378569a983669fhttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033129
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Evaluation of national Greenhouse Gas Removal potential under a changing climate using a process-based land surface model2025
  2. 2Enhancing Carbon Sequestration through Sustainable Land Management for Climate Resilience and SDG Achievement2025
  3. 3Meta-analysis shows the impacts of ecological restoration on greenhouse gas emissions2024 · 62 citations
  4. 4Evaluating the near- and long-term role of carbon dioxide removal in meeting global climate objectives2024 · 35 citations
  5. 5Pros and Cons of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Peatlands: Review of Possibilities2024 · 14 citations