A new study published in Nature Climate Change examines how carbon dioxide removal (CDR)—the process of extracting carbon from the atmosphere and storing it—could shape the future of global biodiversity. Led by scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), the research combines projections from five large-scale climate models with data on 135,000 species and 70 biodiversity hotspots to map where land-based carbon removal is most likely to occur in coming decades.
The analysis focuses primarily on nature-based approaches such as reforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). These methods can help cool the planet by drawing down atmospheric CO₂, but they also require vast areas of land—raising concerns about competition with ecosystems that already support high levels of biodiversity.
Rather than treating climate mitigation and conservation as separate challenges, the researchers apply a “risk–risk” framework. This approach evaluates both the risks of deploying CDR in sensitive landscapes and the risks of failing to act on climate change. Their findings show a complex picture: while land-based carbon removal can encroach on ecologically important regions, it can also significantly reduce climate-driven biodiversity loss by limiting long-term warming.
In ambitious emissions pathways where global temperatures temporarily exceed 1.5°C before returning to that threshold by 2100, up to 13% of land allocated to CDR overlaps with key biodiversity areas. The authors stress that overlap does not automatically mean destruction—outcomes depend heavily on how projects are implemented—but many species are highly sensitive to human disturbance, making careful planning essential.
Lead author Ruben Prütz emphasizes that cutting emissions remains the top priority, yet carbon removal will also be necessary. The study’s spatial maps reveal that poorly planned CDR could undermine natural refuges that help species survive in a warmer world. As a result, refined site selection criteria are critical to prevent unintended ecological damage.
The research also highlights potential conflicts with global conservation goals, including the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which aims to halt losses in areas of high ecological importance by 2030. While alternative technologies such as direct air carbon capture and storage could reduce pressure on land, these approaches are still expensive and at earlier stages of deployment.
Importantly, the study finds that effective use of reforestation and BECCS could lower climate-related biodiversity losses by as much as 25%, delivering net benefits if ecosystems can recover from peak warming. However, this recovery is highly uncertain, underscoring the risks of relying too heavily on future carbon removal instead of rapid emissions cuts today.
Equity is another central concern. Models suggest that up to 15% of biodiversity-relevant land in low- and middle-income countries could be allocated to forest-based CDR, compared with only 7% in wealthier nations. This imbalance places a disproportionate burden on regions that have historically contributed less to global emissions. Co-author Sabine Fuss argues this makes international climate finance essential, enabling richer countries to support biodiversity protection elsewhere.
Overall, the study makes clear that carbon dioxide removal is neither a silver bullet nor inherently harmful. Its impact depends on where and how it is deployed. Strategic planning, strong conservation safeguards, and equitable funding mechanisms will be crucial to ensure carbon removal supports both climate stability and the protection of the world’s most vulnerable ecosystems.
https://phys.org/news/2026-01-intensive-carbon-requires-siting-biodiversity.html