PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 2, 2026Nature Climate Change0 citationsOpen Access

Biodiversity implications of land-intensive carbon dioxide removal

View Full Paper
RPRuben PrützJRJoeri RogeljGGGaurav Ganti

Key Points

  • The aim is to assess the impact of land-intensive carbon dioxide removal on global biodiversity.
  • Used five integrated assessment models to evaluate scenarios.
  • Analyzed land allocation for carbon dioxide removal in relation to biodiversity hotspots.
  • Examined potential conflicts between carbon dioxide removal and biodiversity conservation.
  • Up to 13% of areas important for biodiversity could be impacted by land-intensive carbon dioxide removal.
  • Higher allocation overlaps occur in low- and middle-income countries.
  • Protecting biodiversity hotspots could make over half of land for forestation and bioenergy unavailable.

Abstract

Abstract Pathways consistent with global climate objectives typically deploy billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from land-intensive methods such as forestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. Such large-scale deployment of land-intensive CDR may have negative consequences for biodiversity. Here we assess scenarios across five integrated assessment models and show that scenarios consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C allocate up to 13% of global areas of high biodiversity importance for land-intensive CDR. These overlaps are distributed unevenly, with higher shares in low- and middle-income countries. Understanding the potential conflicts between climate action and biodiversity conservation is crucial. An illustrative analysis shows that if current biodiversity hotspots were protected from land-use change, over half the land allocated for forestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in the assessed scenarios would be unavailable unless synergies between climate and conservation goals are leveraged. Our analysis also indicates CDR-related biodiversity benefits due to avoided warming.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Prütz et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6980feeac1c9540dea811697https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02557-5
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. 1Managing Forests for Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Change Mitigation2024 · 20 citations
  2. 2Biodiversity losses associated with global warming of 1.5 to 4 °C above pre-industrial levels in six countries2024 · 26 citations
  3. 3A taxonomy to map evidence on the co-benefits, challenges, and limits of carbon dioxide removal2024 · 37 citations
  4. 4National ‘fair shares’ in reducing greenhouse gas emissions within the principled framework of international environmental law2021 · 138 citations
  5. 5Scenarios for future biodiversity loss due to multiple drivers reveal conflict between mitigating climate change and preserving biodiversity2013 · 33 citations