1. United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target – Continued Collective Inaction Puts Global Temperature Goal at Risk. https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/48854 (2025).

2. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926 (2022).

3. Liu, Z., Deng, Z., Davis, S. J. & Ciais, P. Global carbon emissions in 2023. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 5, 253–254 (2024).

   
   Google Scholar 

4. Smith, S. M. et al. The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2024 – 2nd Eddition. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F85QJ (2024).

5. Nemet, G. F. et al. Near-term deployment of novel carbon removal to facilitate longer-term deployment. Joule 7, 2653–2659 (2023).

   
   Google Scholar 

6. Galán-Martín, � et al. Delaying carbon dioxide removal in the European Union puts climate targets at risk. Nat. Commun. 12, 6490 (2021).

   
   Google Scholar 

7. Smith, S. M. et al. The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal – 1st Edition. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W3B4Z (2023).

8. Bednar, J. et al. Operationalizing the net-negative carbon economy. Nature 596, 377–383 (2021).

   
   Google Scholar 

9. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (1987).

10. Cobo, S. et al. Sustainable scale-up of negative emissions technologies and practices: where to focus. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 02301 (2023).

    
    Google Scholar 

11. Terlouw, T., Bauer, C., Rosa, L. & Mazzotti, M. Life cycle assessment of carbon dioxide removal technologies: a critical review. Energy Environ. Sci. 14, 1701–1721 (2021).

    
    Google Scholar 

12. Deutz, S. & Bardow, A. Life-cycle assessment of an industrial direct air capture process based on temperature–vacuum swing adsorption. Nat. Energy 6, 203–213 (2021).

    
    Google Scholar 

13. Madhu, K., Pauliuk, S., Dhathri, S. & Creutzig, F. Understanding environmental trade-offs and resource demand of direct air capture technologies through comparative life-cycle assessment. Nat. Energy 6, 1035–1044 (2021).

    
    Google Scholar 

14. Terlouw, T., Treyer, K., Bauer, C. & Mazzotti, M. Life cycle assessment of direct air carbon capture and storage with low-carbon energy sources. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 11397–11411 (2021).

    
    Google Scholar 

15. Ottenbros, A. B. et al. Prospective environmental burdens and benefits of fast-swing direct air carbon capture and storage. Sci. Rep. 14, 16549 (2024).

    
    Google Scholar 

16. Bouaboula, H., Belmabkhout, Y. & Zaabout, A. Life cycle assessment of electrochemical pH-swing direct air capture. Energy Convers. Manag. 342, 120134 (2025).

    
    Google Scholar 

17. Zhang, B., Kroeger, J., Planavsky, N. & Yao, Y. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment of enhanced rock weathering: a case study from the Midwestern United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 57, 13828–13837 (2023).

    
    Google Scholar 

18. Lefebvre, D. et al. Assessing the potential of soil carbonation and enhanced weathering through life cycle assessment: a case study for Sao Paulo State, Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 233, 468–481 (2019).

    
    Google Scholar 

19. Eufrasio, R. M. et al. Environmental and health impacts of atmospheric CO2 removal by enhanced rock weathering depend on nations energy mix. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 106 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

20. Foteinis, S., Campbell, J. S. & Renforth, P. Life cycle assessment of coastal enhanced weathering for carbon dioxide removal from air. Environ. Sci. Technol. 57, 6169–6178 (2023).

    
    Google Scholar 

21. Shi, L. et al. Carbon capture and storage via enhanced carbonate weathering coupled with aquatic photosynthesis: potential, cost, and advantages. Earth Sci. Rev. 266, 105149 (2025).

    
    Google Scholar 

22. Foteinis, S., Andresen, J., Campo, F., Caserini, S. & Renforth, P. Life cycle assessment of ocean liming for carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. J. Clean. Prod. 370, 133309 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

23. Yan, Q., Zheng, L., Zhuang, W. & Liu, J. Alkalinity factory can achieve positive climate benefits within decades. J. Clean. Prod. 504, 145406 (2025).

    
    Google Scholar 

24. Full, J. et al. Carbon-negative hydrogen production (HyBECCS): an exemplary techno-economic and environmental assessment. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 52, 594–609 (2024).

    
    Google Scholar 

25. Lask, J. et al. Lignocellulosic ethanol production combined with CCS—A study of GHG reductions and potential environmental trade-offs. GCB Bioenergy 13, 336–347 (2021).

    
    Google Scholar 

26. Rojas Michaga, M. F. et al. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) potential in jet fuel production from forestry residues: a combined techno-economic and life cycle assessment approach. Energy Convers. Manag. 255, 115346 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

27. Wu, N., Lan, K. & Yao, Y. An integrated techno-economic and environmental assessment for carbon capture in hydrogen production by biomass gasification. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 188, 106693 (2023).

    
    Google Scholar 

28. Zakrisson, L., Azzi, E. S. & Sundberg, C. Climate impact of bioenergy with or without carbon dioxide removal: influence of functional unit and parameter variability. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 28, 907–923 (2023).

    
    Google Scholar 

29. Bello, S., Galán-Martín, �, Feijoo, G., Moreira, M. T. & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. BECCS based on bioethanol from wood residues: potential towards a carbon-negative transport and side-effects. Appl. Energy 279, 115884 (2020).

    
    Google Scholar 

30. Susmozas, A., Iribarren, D., Zapp, P., Linβen, J. & Dufour, J. Life-cycle performance of hydrogen production via indirect biomass gasification with CO2 capture. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 41, 19484–19491 (2016).

    
    Google Scholar 

31. Peters, J. F., Iribarren, D. & Dufour, J. Biomass pyrolysis for biochar or energy applications? A life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 5195–5202 (2015).

    
    Google Scholar 

32. Azzi, E. S., Karltun, E. & Sundberg, C. Prospective life cycle assessment of large-scale biochar production and use for negative emissions in Stockholm. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 8466–8476 (2019).

    
    Google Scholar 

33. Roberts, K. G., Gloy, B. A., Joseph, S., Scott, N. R. & Lehmann, J. Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic, and climate change potential. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 827–833 (2010).

    
    Google Scholar 

34. Hammond, J., Shackley, S., Sohi, S. & Brownsort, P. Prospective life cycle carbon abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK. Energy Policy 39, 2646–2655 (2011).

    
    Google Scholar 

35. Kane, S. et al. Uncertainty in determining carbon dioxide removal potential of biochar. Environ. Res. Lett. 20, 014062 (2025).

    
    Google Scholar 

36. Kavindi, G. A. G., Tang, L. & Sasaki, Y. Assessing GHG emission reduction in biomass-derived biochar production via slow pyrolysis: a cradle-to-gate LCA approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 212, 107900 (2025).

    
    Google Scholar 

37. Forster, E. J., Healey, J. R., Dymond, C. & Styles, D. Commercial afforestation can deliver effective climate change mitigation under multiple decarbonisation pathways. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–12 (2021).

    
    Google Scholar 

38. Liu, Y. & Guo, M. Environmental load analysis of forestation and management process of Larix olgensis plantation by life cycle analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2463–2470 (2017).

    
    Google Scholar 

39. García-Quijano, J. F. et al. Carbon sequestration and environmental effects of afforestation with Pinus radiata D. Don in the Western Cape, South Africa. Clim. Change 83, 323–355 (2007).

    
    Google Scholar 

40. Brunori, A. M. E. et al. Carbon balance and life cycle assessment in an oak plantation for mined area reclamation. J. Clean. Prod. 144, 69–78 (2017).

    
    Google Scholar 

41. Lefebvre, D. et al. Assessing the carbon capture potential of a reforestation project. Sci. Rep. 11, 2–11 (2021).

    
    Google Scholar 

42. Saharudin, D. M., Jeswani, H. K. & Azapagic, A. Reforestation of tropical rainforests as a negative emissions technology in Malaysia: an environmental and economic sustainability assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 371, 123250 (2024).

    
    Google Scholar 

43. Zhao, J., Smith, W., Wang, J., Zhang, X. & Bergman, R. Life-cycle impact assessment of hardwood forest resources in the eastern United States. Sci. Total Environ. 909, 168458 (2024).

    
    Google Scholar 

44. Levasseur, A., Lesage, P., Margni, M. & Samson, R. Biogenic carbon and temporary storage addressed with dynamic life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 17, 117–128 (2013).

    
    Google Scholar 

45. Khatri, P. et al. California’s harvested wood products: a time-dependent assessment of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. Sci. Total Environ. 886, 163918 (2023).

    
    Google Scholar 

46. Saharudin, D. M., Jeswani, H. K. & Azapagic, A. Building with biomass using tropical timber as a negative emissions technology (NET): sustainability assessment, comparison with other bio-based NETs and their potential in Malaysia. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 58, 293–318 (2025).

    
    Google Scholar 

47. Shen, Z., Tiruta-Barna, L. & Hamelin, L. From hemp grown on carbon-vulnerable lands to long-lasting bio-based products: uncovering trade-offs between overall environmental impacts, sequestration in soil, and dynamic influences on global temperature. Sci. Total Environ. 846, 157331 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

48. Babakhani, P. et al. Potential use of engineered nanoparticles in ocean fertilization for large-scale atmospheric carbon dioxide removal. Nat. Nanotechnol. 17, 1342–1351 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

49. Jeswani, H. K., Saharudin, D. M. & Azapagic, A. Environmental sustainability of negative emissions technologies: a review. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 33, 608–635 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

50. Cooper, J., Dubey, L. & Hawkes, A. The life cycle environmental impacts of negative emission technologies in North America. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 32, 880–894 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

51. Qiu, Y. et al. Environmental trade-offs of direct air capture technologies in climate change mitigation toward 2100. Nat. Commun. 13, 3635 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

52. Cobo, S., Galán-Martín, �, Tulus, V., Huijbregts, M. A. J. & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. Human and planetary health implications of negative emissions technologies. Nat. Commun. 13, 2535 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

53. Heck, V., Gerten, D., Lucht, W. & Popp, A. Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 151–155 (2018).

    
    Google Scholar 

54. Lade, S. J. et al. Human impacts on planetary boundaries amplified by Earth system interactions. Nat. Sustain. 3, 119–128 (2020).

    
    Google Scholar 

55. Keith, D. W., Holmes, G., St. Angelo, D. & Heidel, K. A process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Joule 2, 1573–1594 (2018).

    
    Google Scholar 

56. Beuttler, C., Charles, L. & Wurzbacher, J. The role of direct air capture in mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Front. Clim. 1, 10 (2019).

    
    Google Scholar 

57. Renforth, P., Jenkins, B. G. & Kruger, T. Engineering challenges of ocean liming. Energy 60, 442–452 (2013).

    
    Google Scholar 

58. Stanton, B. J., Neale, D. B. & Li, S. Populus breeding: from the classical to the genomic approach. Genet. Genom. Popul. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1541-2_14 (2010).

    
    Google Scholar 

59. Heaton, E. A. et al. Miscanthus: a promising biomass crop. in Advances in Botanical Research, Vol 56, Ch 3, 75–137 (Academic Press, 2010).

60. Biomass CCS Study. https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/archive/hub/publications/98606/biomass-ccs-study.pdf (2009).

61. Cabral, R. P., Bui, M. & Mac Dowell, N. A synergistic approach for the simultaneous decarbonisation of power and industry via bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Int. J. Greenh. Gas. Control 87, 221–237 (2019).

    
    Google Scholar 

62. Braakhekke, M. C. et al. Modeling forest plantations for carbon uptake with the LPJmL dynamic global vegetation model. Earth Syst. Dyn. 10, 617–630 (2019).

    
    Google Scholar 

63. Aalde, H. et al. Forest Land. In: IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Ch 4 (IPCC, 2006).

64. Ye, L. et al. Biochar effects on crop yields with and without fertilizer: a meta-analysis of field studies using separate controls. Soil Use Manag 36, 2–18 (2020).

    
    Google Scholar 

65. Gupta, S. & Kua, H. W. Factors determining the potential of biochar as a carbon capturing and sequestering construction material: critical review. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29, 04017086 (2017).

    
    Google Scholar 

66. Cobo, S. NETPs LCI datasets. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17574760 (2025).

67. Van Der Hulst, M. K., Hauck, M., Hoeks, S., Van Zelm, R. & Huijbregts, M. A. J. Learning curves in prospective life cycle assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 59, 16501–16512 (2025).

    
    Google Scholar 

68. Woolf, D. et al. Greenhouse gas inventory model for biochar additions to soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 14795–14805 (2021).

    
    Google Scholar 

69. United Nations Environmental Programme. Spreading like Wildfire – The Rising Threat of Extraordinary Landscape Fires. 48–50 https://www.unep.org/resources/report/spreading-wildfire-rising-threat-extraordinary-landscape-fires (2022).

70. Rhodes, J. S. & Keith, D. W. Engineering economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage. Biomass Bioenergy 29, 440–450 (2005).

    
    Google Scholar 

71. World Health Organization. Global health estimates: leading causes of DALYs. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/global-health-estimates-leading-causes-of-dalys.

72. Huijbregts, M. A. J. et al. ReCiPe 2016 v1.1. A Harmonized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level. Report I: Characterization (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. The Netherlands, 2017).

73. Richardson, K. et al. Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh2458 (2023).

    
    Google Scholar 

74. Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

    
    Google Scholar 

75. European Commission. Study on the Critical Raw Materials for the EU 2023 – Final Report. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2873/725585 (2023).

76. Lebling, K. et al. Direct Air Capture: Assessing Impacts to Enable Responsible Scaling. World Resources Institute. https://doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.21.00058 (2022).

77. Bobba, S., Carrara, S., Huisman, J., Mathieux, F. & Pavel, C. Critical Raw Materials for Strategic Technologies and Sectors in the EU – a Foresight Study. (European Commission, 2020).

78. Erans, M. et al. Direct air capture: process technology, techno-economic and socio-political challenges. Energy Environ. Sci. 15, 1360–1405 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

79. Campbell, J. S. et al. Geochemical negative emissions technologies: part I. Rev. Front. Clim. 4, 879133 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

80. Camatti, E. et al. Short-term impact assessment of ocean liming: a copepod exposure test. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 198, 115833 (2024).

    
    Google Scholar 

81. Ho, D. T. et al. Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification for Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement. in State of the Planet, Ch12 (Copernicus Publications, 2023).

82. Lv, W. et al. Enhancing classification and recovery of barite from waste drilling fluid by inlet particle arranging of hydrocyclone. J. Water Process Eng. 56, 104341 (2023).

    
    Google Scholar 

83. Xia, Y. et al. Application and mechanistic insights of a washing/microwave/ultrasonic ternary pretreatment for enhancing barite flotation in waste drilling fluids. Sci. Rep. 14, 20887 (2024).

    
    Google Scholar 

84. Van Der Voet, E., Van Oers, L., Verboon, M. & Kuipers, K. Environmental implications of future demand scenarios for metals: methodology and application to the case of seven major metals. J. Ind. Ecol. 23, 141–155 (2019).

    
    Google Scholar 

85. Raabe, D., Tasan, C. C. & Olivetti, E. A. Strategies for improving the sustainability of structural metals. Nature 575, 64–74 (2019).

    
    Google Scholar 

86. International Energy Agency. Recycling of Critical Minerals. Strategies to Scale up Recycling and Urban Mining. https://www.iea.org/reports/recycling-of-critical-minerals (2024).

87. Fajardy, M. & Mac Dowell, N. Can BECCS deliver sustainable and resource efficient negative emissions? Energy Environ. Sci. 10, 1389–1426 (2017).

    
    Google Scholar 

88. Rosa, L., Sanchez, D. L. & Mazzotti, M. Assessment of carbon dioxide removal potential via BECCS in a carbon-neutral Europe. Energy Environ. Sci. 14, 3086–3097 (2021).

    
    Google Scholar 

89. Braun, J. et al. Multiple planetary boundaries preclude biomass crops for carbon capture and storage outside of agricultural areas. Commun. Earth Environ. 6, 102 (2025).

    
    Google Scholar 

90. Pett-Ridge, J. et al. Roads to Removal: Options for Carbon Dioxide Removal in the United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/2301853 (2023).

91. Smith, P. et al. Biophysical and economic limits to negative CO₂ emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 42–50 (2016).

    
    Google Scholar 

92. Cobo, S., Dominguez-Ramos, A. & Irabien, A. Trade-offs between nutrient circularity and environmental impacts in the management of organic waste. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 10923–10933 (2018).

    
    Google Scholar 

93. Schmidt, H. et al. Biochar in agriculture – A systematic review of 26 global meta-analyses. GCB Bioenergy 13, 1708–1730 (2021).

    
    Google Scholar 

94. Smith, H. B., Vaughan, N. E. & Forster, J. Long-term national climate strategies bet on forests and soils to reach net-zero. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 1–12 (2022).

    
    Google Scholar 

95. Hickey, C., Fankhauser, S., Smith, S. M. & Allen, M. A review of commercialisation mechanisms for carbon dioxide removal. Front. Clim. 4, 1101525 (2023).

96. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. A Research Strategy for Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration. https://doi.org/10.17226/26278 (The National Academies Press, 2021).

97. International Standards Organization. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. ISO 14040 https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html#amendment (2006).

98. International Standards Organization. Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. ISO 14044 https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html (2006).

99. European Commission – Joint Research Centre – Institute for Environment and Sustainability. in International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook – General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment – Detailed Guidance https://doi.org/10.2788/38479 (2010).

100. McKay, D. I. A. et al. Exceeding 1.5 °C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science 377, 1171 (2022).

     
     Google Scholar 

101. Mutel, C. Brightway: An open source framework for life cycle assessment. J. Open Source Softw. 2, 236 (2017).

     
     Google Scholar 

102. Arvidsson, R. et al. Environmental assessment of emerging technologies: recommendations for prospective LCA. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 1286–1294 (2018).

     
     Google Scholar 

103. Sacchi, R. et al. PRospective EnvironMental Impact asSEment (premise): a streamlined approach to producing databases for prospective life cycle assessment using integrated assessment models. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 160, 112311 (2022).

     
     Google Scholar 

104. Mendoza Beltran, A. et al. When the background matters: using scenarios from integrated assessment models in prospective life cycle assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 24, 64–79 (2020).

     
     Google Scholar 

105. Wernet, G. et al. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 1218–1230 (2016).

     
     Google Scholar 

106. Baumstark, L. et al. REMIND2.1: transformation and innovation dynamics of the energy-economic system within climate and sustainability limits. Geosci. Model Dev. 14, 6571–6603 (2021).

     
     Google Scholar 

107. Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).

     
     Google Scholar 

108. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. RCP2.6: Exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2. C. Clim. Change 109, 95–116 (2011).

     
     Google Scholar 

109. Byers, E. et al. AR6 Scenarios Database. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5886911 (2022).

110. Levasseur, A., Lesage, P., Margni, M., Deschěnes, L. & Samson, R. Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 3169–3174 (2010).

     
     Google Scholar 

111. Smith, C. et al. The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks and climate sensitivity-supplementary material. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2021).

112. Millar, J. R., Nicholls, Z. R., Friedlingstein, P. & Allen, M. R. A modified impulse-response representation of the global near-surface air temperature and atmospheric concentration response to carbon dioxide emissions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 7213–7228 (2017).

     
     Google Scholar 

113. Ryberg, M. W., Owsianiak, M., Richardson, K. & Hauschild, M. Z. Development of a life-cycle impact assessment methodology linked to the Planetary Boundaries framework. Ecol. Indic. 88, 250–262 (2018).

     
     Google Scholar 

114. Cobo, S. Method to quantify metal extraction in life cycle models, showing supply risk levels for the EU. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15084711 (2025).

115. U.S. Geological Survey Miner. Commod. Summ. 2023 https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2023 (2023).

     
     Google Scholar 

Download references