The risky promise of ‘negative emissions’: Why we should not assume that land-based measures will save the climate

This policy brief from the Stockholm Environment Institute examines the risks of relying on land-based 'negative emissions' to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. It argues that many climate models overstate the feasibility of these measures, particularly Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), and warns that counting on future carbon removal may dangerously delay necessary near-term emission reductions.

• Climate mitigation models frequently assume the deployment of large-scale negative emissions several decades in the future, with some requiring as much as 1,000 Gt CO2 to maintain warming below 1.5°C or 2°C.
• The brief identifies three primary risks associated with negative emissions: technological and biophysical infeasibility (Type 1), unacceptable social and ecological impacts (Type 2), and a lack of effectiveness due to carbon reversal or irreversible climate impacts (Type 3).
• The authors estimate that only 370–480 Gt CO2 of negative emissions could be achieved through reforestation and forest restoration without exceeding biophysical constraints, a figure that would still be difficult to reach and could conflict with food production.
• Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is considered an unreliable option because the technology is unproven at commercial scale and the required biomass supply would likely require doubling current human biomass harvest, posing severe social and ecological risks.
• Land-based carbon sequestration is vulnerable to 'reversal' caused by human or natural forces, and relying on these measures allows for 'climate overshoot,' which may trigger irreversible thresholds in permafrost, glaciers, and ice sheets.
• The goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C remains achievable without excessive reliance on negative emissions, provided there is immediate global mitigation that exceeds current Paris Agreement pledges and a reversal of forest loss.

APA

Kartha, S., & Dooley, K. (2016). The risky promise of ‘negative emissions’: Why we should not assume that land-based measures will save the climate. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-PB-2016-Negative-emissions-land-based-measures.pdf

Chicago

Kartha, Sivan, and Kate Dooley. The risky promise of ‘negative emissions’: Why we should not assume that land-based measures will save the climate. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2016. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-PB-2016-Negative-emissions-land-based-measures.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Kartha |first1=Sivan |last2=Dooley |first2=Kate |title=The risky promise of ‘negative emissions’: Why we should not assume that land-based measures will save the climate |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=2016 |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-PB-2016-Negative-emissions-land-based-measures.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{kartha2016risky, author = {Kartha, Sivan and Dooley, Kate}, title = {{The risky promise of ‘negative emissions’: Why we should not assume that land-based measures will save the climate}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2016}, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-PB-2016-Negative-emissions-land-based-measures.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }