Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is increasingly recognized as essential for achieving the Paris Agreement's climate goals. Current CDR strategies primarily involve land-based measures, such as afforestation, reforestation, and soil carbon enhancement. These approaches, often labeled as nature-based solutions (NBS) or natural climate solutions (NCS), have sparked debate due to their potential adverse effects on biodiversity and uncertainty around the scale and durability of potential climate benefits. This paper introduces a framework for evaluating trade-offs in land-based CDR activities following the recent United Nations Environment Assembly definition of NBS. This framework emphasizes ecosystem integrity, human rights, and sustainable development, aligning with the objectives of the three Rio Conventions, which provide a guardrail to inform pathways toward feasible and equitable implementation. By applying this framework, we provide a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental and social constraints on CDR, ensuring that climate mitigation efforts do not compromise biodiversity, ecosystem services, or human well-being.
Dooley et al. (Sun,) studied this question.