Over-reliance on land for carbon dioxide removal in net-zero climate pledges
Paper Overview
This paper quantifies the land area implied in national climate pledges for carbon dioxide removal (CDR), revealing a significant and growing reliance on land-based removals—primarily reforestation and ecosystem restoration. The authors estimate that 990 million hectares—larger than the USA or two-thirds of global cropland—are required to fulfill existing pledges, with over 40% involving land-use change (e.g. afforestation, BECCS). The paper highlights the ecological and social risks of this over-reliance, including threats to biodiversity, food security, and land rights. The findings show unequal distribution in land-area pledges, with only four countries accounting for 70% of total land area, while several low-income countries pledge large land shares relative to national land area, raising risks of dispossession and reduced food security. Ultimately more transparency, better accounting of land area in climate pledges, and prioritisation of near-term emissions reductions are needed.
Key Messages
- National climate pledges in NDCs and 2050 strategies require ~1 billion ha of land for CDR—over two-thirds of global cropland or the land area of the USA.
- Over 40% of this land involves converting existing land uses (e.g. croplands, grasslands) to forests or energy crops, with implications for biodiversity and food security.
- The rate of land conversion implied in pledges—up to 13 Mha/year—is historically unprecedented, almost double the rate of land-use change seen in the global land rush of the early 2000s.
- Just four high-emitting countries (Russia, Saudi Arabia, US, Canada) account for over 70% of pledged land use. All of these countries are major fossil fuel exporters, raising concerns that CDR pledges are delaying fossil-fuel phase-out.
- The largest areas of land-based CDR pledges are included in 2050 net-zero targets, raising concerns about mitigation delay and reversibility, particularly when used to offset fossil emissions.
- Governance Gaps: Many pledges are vague or based on emission quantities, not area. This opacity impedes land-use planning and risks double-counting across restoration, climate, and biodiversity frameworks.
