IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-6 - Revision history

Laura: /* CCB9 Climate and land pathways */

2026-05-31T14:45:33Z

CCB9 Climate and land pathways

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:45, 31 May 2026
Line 3,477:		Line 3,477:

	Future pathways for climate and land use include portfolios of response and policy options. Depending on the response options included, policy portfolios implemented, and other underlying socio-economic drivers, these pathways result in different land-use consequences and their contribution to climate change mitigation. Agricultural area declines by more than 5 Mkm <sup>2</sup> in one SSP but increases by as much as 5 Mkm <sup>2</sup> in another. The amount of energy cropland ranges from nearly zero to 11 Mkm <sup>2</sup>, depending on the SSP and the warming target. Forest area declines in SSP3 but increases substantially in SSP1. Subsequently, these pathways have different implications for risks related to desertification, land degradation, food insecurity, and terrestrial GHG fluxes, as well as ecosystem services, biodiversity, and other aspects of sustainable development.		Future pathways for climate and land use include portfolios of response and policy options. Depending on the response options included, policy portfolios implemented, and other underlying socio-economic drivers, these pathways result in different land-use consequences and their contribution to climate change mitigation. Agricultural area declines by more than 5 Mkm <sup>2</sup> in one SSP but increases by as much as 5 Mkm <sup>2</sup> in another. The amount of energy cropland ranges from nearly zero to 11 Mkm <sup>2</sup>, depending on the SSP and the warming target. Forest area declines in SSP3 but increases substantially in SSP1. Subsequently, these pathways have different implications for risks related to desertification, land degradation, food insecurity, and terrestrial GHG fluxes, as well as ecosystem services, biodiversity, and other aspects of sustainable development.
			</div>
	<span id="potential-consequences-of-delayed-action"></span>		<span id="potential-consequences-of-delayed-action"></span>
	=== 6.4.5 Potential consequences of delayed action ===		=== 6.4.5 Potential consequences of delayed action ===
Line 3,512:		Line 3,512:

	<span id="sm-supplementary-material"></span>		<span id="sm-supplementary-material"></span>

	== Supplementary Material ==		== Supplementary Material ==

Laura: /* 6.4.4.3 Resolving challenges in response option implementation */

2026-05-31T14:44:55Z

6.4.4.3 Resolving challenges in response option implementation

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 31 May 2026
Line 3,401:		Line 3,401:

	<span id="ccb9-climate-and-land-pathways"></span>		<span id="ccb9-climate-and-land-pathways"></span>
			<div class="container-box col-cross">

	== CCB9 Climate and land pathways ==		== CCB9 Climate and land pathways ==

Laura: /* CCB8 Ecosystem services and Nature’s Contributions to People, and their relation to the land–climate system */

2026-05-31T14:44:03Z

CCB8 Ecosystem services and Nature’s Contributions to People, and their relation to the land–climate system

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 31 May 2026
Line 3,088:		Line 3,088:

	In Chapter 6, the concept of NCP is used. For example, Tables 6.70 to 6.72, possible response options to respond to climate change, to address land degradation or desertification, and to ensure food security, are cross-referenced against the 18 NCPs identified by Díaz et al. (2018)<sup>[[#fn:r1041\|1041]]</sup> to see where there are co-benefits and adverse side effects. For instance, while BECCS may deliver on climate mitigation, it results in a number of adverse side effects that are significant with regard to water provisioning, food and feed availability, and loss of supporting identities if BECCS competes against local land uses of cultural importance. Chapter 7 has Section 7.2.2.2, explicitly covering risks due to loss of biodiversity and ES, and Table 7.1 which includes policy responses to various land–climate–society hazards, some of which are likely to enhance risk of loss of biodiversity and ES. A case study on the impact of renewable energy on biodiversity and ES is also included. Chapter 7 also notes that, because there is no Sustainable Development Goal covering freshwater biodiversity and aquatic ecosystems, this policy gap may have adverse consequences for the future of rivers and associated ES.		In Chapter 6, the concept of NCP is used. For example, Tables 6.70 to 6.72, possible response options to respond to climate change, to address land degradation or desertification, and to ensure food security, are cross-referenced against the 18 NCPs identified by Díaz et al. (2018)<sup>[[#fn:r1041\|1041]]</sup> to see where there are co-benefits and adverse side effects. For instance, while BECCS may deliver on climate mitigation, it results in a number of adverse side effects that are significant with regard to water provisioning, food and feed availability, and loss of supporting identities if BECCS competes against local land uses of cultural importance. Chapter 7 has Section 7.2.2.2, explicitly covering risks due to loss of biodiversity and ES, and Table 7.1 which includes policy responses to various land–climate–society hazards, some of which are likely to enhance risk of loss of biodiversity and ES. A case study on the impact of renewable energy on biodiversity and ES is also included. Chapter 7 also notes that, because there is no Sustainable Development Goal covering freshwater biodiversity and aquatic ecosystems, this policy gap may have adverse consequences for the future of rivers and associated ES.
			</div>
	<span id="impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-natures-contributions-to-people-ncp-and-the-un-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs"></span>		<span id="impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-natures-contributions-to-people-ncp-and-the-un-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs"></span>
	=== 6.4.3 Impacts of integrated response options on Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ===		=== 6.4.3 Impacts of integrated response options on Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ===
Line 3,401:		Line 3,401:

	<span id="ccb9-climate-and-land-pathways"></span>		<span id="ccb9-climate-and-land-pathways"></span>

	== CCB9 Climate and land pathways ==		== CCB9 Climate and land pathways ==

Laura: /* 6.4.2 Sensitivity of the integrated response options to climate change impacts */

2026-05-31T14:43:32Z

6.4.2 Sensitivity of the integrated response options to climate change impacts

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, 31 May 2026
Line 3,048:		Line 3,048:

	<span id="ccb8-ecosystem-services-and-natures-contributions-to-people-and-their-relation-to-the-landclimate-system"></span>		<span id="ccb8-ecosystem-services-and-natures-contributions-to-people-and-their-relation-to-the-landclimate-system"></span>
			<div class="container-box col-cross">

	== CCB8 Ecosystem services and Nature’s Contributions to People, and their relation to the land–climate system ==		== CCB8 Ecosystem services and Nature’s Contributions to People, and their relation to the land–climate system ==

Laura: /* CCB7 Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in mitigation scenarios */

2026-05-31T14:41:27Z

CCB7 Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in mitigation scenarios

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 31 May 2026
Line 1,313:		Line 1,313:

	Bioenergy and BECCS are discussed throughout this special report. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to bioenergy and BECCS and its links to land and climate. Chapter 2 discusses mitigation potential, land requirements and biophysical climate implications. Chapter 4 includes a discussion of the threats and opportunities with respect to land degradation. Chapter 5 discusses linkages between bioenergy and BECCS and food security. Chapter 6 synthesises the co-benefits and adverse side effects for mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation, and food security, as well as barriers to implementation (e.g., cost, technological readiness, etc.). Chapter 7 includes a discussion of risk, policy, governance, and decision-making with respect to bioenergy and BECCS.		Bioenergy and BECCS are discussed throughout this special report. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to bioenergy and BECCS and its links to land and climate. Chapter 2 discusses mitigation potential, land requirements and biophysical climate implications. Chapter 4 includes a discussion of the threats and opportunities with respect to land degradation. Chapter 5 discusses linkages between bioenergy and BECCS and food security. Chapter 6 synthesises the co-benefits and adverse side effects for mitigation, adaptation, desertification, land degradation, and food security, as well as barriers to implementation (e.g., cost, technological readiness, etc.). Chapter 7 includes a discussion of risk, policy, governance, and decision-making with respect to bioenergy and BECCS.
			</div>
			<span id="potentials-for-addressing-the-land-challenges"></span>

	~~<span id="potentials-for-addressing-the-land-challenges"></span>~~
	== 6.3 Potentials for addressing the land challenges ==		== 6.3 Potentials for addressing the land challenges ==

Laura: /* 6.2.3 Integrated response options based on risk management */

2026-05-31T14:40:51Z

6.2.3 Integrated response options based on risk management

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:40, 31 May 2026
Line 1,256:		Line 1,256:

	<span id="ccb7-bioenergy-and-bioenergy-with-carbon-capture-and-storage-beccs-in-mitigation-scenarios"></span>		<span id="ccb7-bioenergy-and-bioenergy-with-carbon-capture-and-storage-beccs-in-mitigation-scenarios"></span>
			<div class="container-box col-cross">

	== CCB7 Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in mitigation scenarios ==		== CCB7 Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in mitigation scenarios ==

Laura: /* 6.2.3.1 Risk management options */

2026-05-31T14:40:22Z

6.2.3.1 Risk management options

Show changes

Laura: /* 6.2.1.5 Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) */

2026-05-31T14:30:16Z

6.2.1.5 Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:30, 31 May 2026
Line 1,034:		Line 1,034:
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
	\|-		\|-
			! Integrated response option
	Integrated response option		! Description
			! Context and caveats
	Description		! Supporting evidence

	Context and caveats

	Supporting evidence

	\|-		\|-
			\| Enhanced weathering of minerals
	~~Enhanced~~ weathering of minerals		\| The enhanced weathering of minerals that naturally absorb CO <sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere has been proposed as a CDR technology with a large mitigation potential. The rocks are ground to increase the surface area and the ground minerals are then applied to the land where they absorb atmospheric CO2.
			\| Enhanced mineral weathering can remove atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO <sub>2</sub>). Since ground minerals can increase pH, there could be some benefits for efforts to prevent or reverse land degradation where acidification is the driver of degrada- tion. Since increasing soil pH in acidified soils can increase productivity, the same effect could provide some benefit for food security. Minerals used for enhanced weathering need to be mined, and mining has large impacts locally, though the total area mined is likely to be small on the global scale.
	The enhanced weathering of minerals that naturally absorb CO <sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere has been proposed as a CDR technology with a large mitigation potential. The rocks are ground to increase the surface area and the ground minerals are then applied to the land where they absorb atmospheric CO2.		\| Beerling et al. 2018<sup>[[#fn:r1536\|1536]]</sup>; Lenton 2010<sup>[[#fn:r1537\|1537]]</sup>; Schuiling and Krijgsman 2006<sup>[[#fn:r1538\|1538]]</sup>; Smith et al. 2016a<sup>[[#fn:r1539\|1539]]</sup>; Taylor et al. 2016<sup>[[#fn:r1540\|1540]]</sup>

	~~Enhanced~~ mineral weathering can remove atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO <sub>2</sub>). Since ground minerals can increase pH, there could be some benefits for efforts to prevent or reverse land degradation where acidification is the driver of degrada- tion. Since increasing soil pH in acidified soils can increase productivity, the same effect could provide some benefit for food security. Minerals used for enhanced weathering need to be mined, and mining has large impacts locally, though the total area mined is likely to be small on the global scale.

	~~Beerling~~ et al. 2018<sup>[[#fn:r1536\|1536]]</sup>; Lenton 2010<sup>[[#fn:r1537\|1537]]</sup>; Schuiling and Krijgsman 2006<sup>[[#fn:r1538\|1538]]</sup>; Smith et al. 2016a<sup>[[#fn:r1539\|1539]]</sup>; Taylor et al. 2016<sup>[[#fn:r1540\|1540]]</sup>

	\|-		\|-
			\| Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
	~~Bioenergy~~ and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)		\| Bioenergy production can mitigate climate change by delivering an energy service, therefore avoiding combustion of fossil energy. It is the most common renewable energy source used in the world today and has a large potential for future deployment (see Cross- Chapter Box 7 in this chapter). BECCS entails the use of bioenergy technologies (e.g., bioelectricity or biofuels) in combination with CO <sub>2</sub> capture and storage (see also Glossary). BECCS simultaneously provides energy and can reduce atmospheric CO <sub>2</sub> concentrations (Chapter 2; Cross-Chapter Box 7 in this chapter) for a discussion of potentials and atmospheric effects); thus, BECCS is considered a CDR technology. While several BECCS demonstration projects exist, it has yet to be deployed at scale. Bioenergy and BECCS are widely-used in many future scenarios as a climate change mitigation option in the energy and transport sector, especially those scenarios aimed at a stabilisation of global climate at 2°C or less above pre-industrial levels.
			\| Bioenergy and BECCS can compete for land and water with other uses. Increased use of bioenergy and BECCS can result in large expansion of cropland area, significant deforestation, and increased irrigation water use and water scarcity. Large- scale use of bioenergy can result in increased food prices and can lead to an increase in the population at risk of hunger. As a result of these effects, large-scale bioenergy and BECCS can have negative impacts for food security. Interlinkages of bioenergy and BECCS with climate change adaptation, land degradation, desertification, and biodiversity are highly dependent on local factors such as the type of energy crop, management practice, and previous land use. For example, intensive agricultural practices aiming to achieve high crop yields, as is the case for some bioenergy systems, may have significant effects on soil health, including depletion of soil organic matter, resulting in negative impacts on land degradation and desertification. However, with low inputs of fossil fuels and chemicals, limited irrigation, heat/drought tolerant species, using marginal land, biofuel programmes can be beneficial to future adaptation of ecosystems.
	~~Bioenergy~~ production can mitigate climate change~~<br />~~		\| Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6
	by delivering an energy service, therefore avoiding combustion of fossil energy. It is the most common renewable energy source used in the world today and has a large potential for future deployment (see Cross- Chapter Box 7 in this chapter). BECCS entails the use of bioenergy technologies (e.g., bioelectricity or biofuels) in combination with CO <sub>2</sub> capture and storage (see also Glossary). BECCS simultaneously provides energy and can reduce atmospheric CO <sub>2</sub> concentrations (Chapter 2; Cross-Chapter Box 7 in this chapter) for a discussion of potentials and atmospheric effects); thus, BECCS~~<br />~~
	is considered a CDR technology. While several BECCS demonstration projects exist, it has yet to be deployed at scale. Bioenergy and BECCS are widely-used in many future scenarios as a climate change mitigation option in the energy and transport sector, especially those scenarios aimed at a stabilisation of global climate~~<br />~~
	at 2°C or less above pre-industrial levels.

	Bioenergy and BECCS can compete for land and water with other uses. Increased use of bioenergy and BECCS can result in large expansion of cropland area, significant deforestation, and increased irrigation water use and water scarcity. Large- scale use of bioenergy can result in increased food prices and can lead to an increase in the population at risk of hunger. As a result of these effects, large-scale bioenergy and BECCS can have negative impacts for food security. Interlinkages

	of bioenergy and BECCS with climate change adaptation, land degradation, desertification, and biodiversity are highly dependent on local factors such as the type of energy crop, management practice, and previous land use. For example, intensive agricultural practices aiming to achieve high crop yields, as is the case for some bioenergy systems, may have significant effects on soil health, including depletion of~~<br />~~
	soil organic matter, resulting in negative impacts on land degradation and desertification. However, with low inputs of fossil fuels and chemicals, limited irrigation, heat/drought tolerant species, using marginal land, biofuel programmes can be beneficial to future adaptation of ecosystems.

	Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6

	IPCC SR15 (IPCC 2018); Chapter 2; Chapter 4; Section 6.4; Chapter 7		IPCC SR15 (IPCC 2018); Chapter 2; Chapter 4; Section 6.4; Chapter 7
Line 1,073:		Line 1,053:
	Baker et al. 2019<sup>[[#fn:r1541\|1541]]</sup>; Calvin et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1542\|1542]]</sup>; Chaturvedi et al. 2013<sup>[[#fn:r1543\|1543]]</sup>; Chum et al. 2011<sup>[[#fn:r1544\|1544]]</sup>; Clarke et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1545\|1545]]</sup>; Correa<br />		Baker et al. 2019<sup>[[#fn:r1541\|1541]]</sup>; Calvin et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1542\|1542]]</sup>; Chaturvedi et al. 2013<sup>[[#fn:r1543\|1543]]</sup>; Chum et al. 2011<sup>[[#fn:r1544\|1544]]</sup>; Clarke et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1545\|1545]]</sup>; Correa<br />
	et al. 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1546\|1546]]</sup>; Creutzig et al. 2015<sup>[[#fn:r1547\|1547]]</sup>; Dasgupta et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1548\|1548]]</sup>; Don et al. 2012<sup>[[#fn:r1549\|1549]]</sup>; Edelenbosch et al. 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1550\|1550]]</sup>; IPCC 2012<sup>[[#fn:r1551\|1551]]</sup>; Favero and Mendelsohn 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1552\|1552]]</sup>; FAO 2011a<sup>[[#fn:r1553\|1553]]</sup>; Fujimori et al. 2019<sup>[[#fn:r1554\|1554]]</sup>; Fuss et al. 2016<sup>[[#fn:r1555\|1555]]</sup>, 2018<sup>[[#fn:r1556\|1556]]</sup>; Hejazi et al. 2015<sup>[[#fn:r1557\|1557]]</sup>; Kemper 2015<sup>[[#fn:r1558\|1558]]</sup>; Kline et al. 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1559\|1559]]</sup>; Lal 2014; Lotze-Campen et al. 2013<sup>[[#fn:r1560\|1560]]</sup>; Mello et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1561\|1561]]</sup>; Muratori et al. 2016<sup>[[#fn:r1562\|1562]]</sup>; Noble et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1563\|1563]]</sup>; Obersteiner et al. 2016<sup>[[#fn:r1564\|1564]]</sup>;		et al. 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1546\|1546]]</sup>; Creutzig et al. 2015<sup>[[#fn:r1547\|1547]]</sup>; Dasgupta et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1548\|1548]]</sup>; Don et al. 2012<sup>[[#fn:r1549\|1549]]</sup>; Edelenbosch et al. 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1550\|1550]]</sup>; IPCC 2012<sup>[[#fn:r1551\|1551]]</sup>; Favero and Mendelsohn 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1552\|1552]]</sup>; FAO 2011a<sup>[[#fn:r1553\|1553]]</sup>; Fujimori et al. 2019<sup>[[#fn:r1554\|1554]]</sup>; Fuss et al. 2016<sup>[[#fn:r1555\|1555]]</sup>, 2018<sup>[[#fn:r1556\|1556]]</sup>; Hejazi et al. 2015<sup>[[#fn:r1557\|1557]]</sup>; Kemper 2015<sup>[[#fn:r1558\|1558]]</sup>; Kline et al. 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1559\|1559]]</sup>; Lal 2014; Lotze-Campen et al. 2013<sup>[[#fn:r1560\|1560]]</sup>; Mello et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1561\|1561]]</sup>; Muratori et al. 2016<sup>[[#fn:r1562\|1562]]</sup>; Noble et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1563\|1563]]</sup>; Obersteiner et al. 2016<sup>[[#fn:r1564\|1564]]</sup>;

	\|-		\|-
			\| Integrated response option
	~~Integrated~~ response option		\| Description
			\| Context and caveats
	~~Description~~		\| Supporting evidence

	Context and caveats

	~~Supporting~~ evidence

	\|-		\|-
			\| Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) continued
	Bioenergy and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) continued

	\|		\|
			\| Planting bioenergy crops, like perennial grasses, on degraded land can increase soil carbon and ecosystem quality (including biodiversity), thereby helping to preserve soil quality, reverse land degradation, prevent desertification processes, and reduce food insecurity. These effects depend on the scale of deployment, the feedstock, the prior land use, and which other response options are included (see Section 6.4.4.2). Large-scale production of bioenergy can require significant amounts of land, increasing potential pressures for land conversion and land degradation. Low levels of bioenergy deployment require less land, leading to smaller effects on forest cover and food prices; however, these land requirements could still be substantial. In terms of feedstocks, in some regions, they may not need irrigation, and thus would not compete for water with food crops. Additionally, the use of residues or microalgae could limit competition for land and biodiversity loss; however, residues could result in land degradation or decreased soil organic carbon. Whether woody bioenergy results in increased competition for land or not is disputed in the literature, with some studies suggesting reduced competition and others suggesting enhanced competition. One study noted that this effect changes over time, with complementarity between woody bioenergy and forest carbon sequestration in the near-term, but increased competition for land with afforestation/reforestation in the long term. Additionally, woody bioenergy could also result in land degradation.
	~~Planting~~ bioenergy crops, like perennial grasses, on degraded land can increase soil carbon and ecosystem quality (including biodiversity), thereby helping to preserve soil quality, reverse land degradation, prevent desertification processes, and reduce food insecurity. These effects depend on the scale of deployment, the feedstock, the prior land use, and which other response options are included (see Section 6.4.4.2). Large-scale production of bioenergy can require significant amounts of land, increasing potential pressures for land conversion and land degradation. Low levels of bioenergy deployment require less land, leading~~<br />~~		\| Popp et al. 2011b<sup>[[#fn:r1565\|1565]]</sup>, 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1566\|1566]]</sup>, 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1567\|1567]]</sup>; Riahi et al. 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1568\|1568]]</sup>; Robertson et al. 2017a<sup>[[#fn:r1569\|1569]]</sup>; Sánchez et al. 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1570\|1570]]</sup>; Searchinger et al. 2018<sup>[[#fn:r1571\|1571]]</sup>; Sims et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1572\|1572]]</sup>; Slade et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1573\|1573]]</sup>; Smith et al. 2016c<sup>[[#fn:r1574\|1574]]</sup>; Tian et al. 2018<sup>[[#fn:r1575\|1575]]</sup>; Torvanger 2018<sup>[[#fn:r1576\|1576]]</sup>; Van Vuuren et al. 2011<sup>[[#fn:r1577\|1577]]</sup>, 2015<sup>[[#fn:r1578\|1578]]</sup>, 2016<sup>[[#fn:r1579\|1579]]</sup>; Wise et al. 2015<sup>[[#fn:r1580\|1580]]</sup>
	to smaller effects on forest cover and food prices; however, these land requirements could still be substantial. In terms of feedstocks, in some regions, they may not need irrigation, and thus would not compete for water with food crops. Additionally, the use of residues or microalgae could limit competition for land and biodiversity loss; however, residues could result in land degradation or decreased soil organic carbon. Whether woody bioenergy results in increased competition for land or not is disputed in the literature,~~<br />~~
	with some studies suggesting reduced competition and others suggesting enhanced competition. One study noted that this effect changes over time, with complementarity between woody bioenergy and forest carbon sequestration in the near-term, but increased competition for land with afforestation/reforestation in the long term. Additionally, woody bioenergy could also result in land degradation.

	Popp et al. 2011b<sup>[[#fn:r1565\|1565]]</sup>, 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1566\|1566]]</sup>, 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1567\|1567]]</sup>; Riahi et al. 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1568\|1568]]</sup>; Robertson~~<br />~~
	et al. 2017a<sup>[[#fn:r1569\|1569]]</sup>; Sánchez et al. 2017<sup>[[#fn:r1570\|1570]]</sup>; Searchinger et al. 2018<sup>[[#fn:r1571\|1571]]</sup>; Sims et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1572\|1572]]</sup>; Slade et al. 2014<sup>[[#fn:r1573\|1573]]</sup>; Smith et al. 2016c<sup>[[#fn:r1574\|1574]]</sup>; Tian et al. 2018<sup>[[#fn:r1575\|1575]]</sup>; Torvanger 2018<sup>[[#fn:r1576\|1576]]</sup>; Van Vuuren et al. 2011<sup>[[#fn:r1577\|1577]]</sup>, 2015<sup>[[#fn:r1578\|1578]]</sup>, 2016<sup>[[#fn:r1579\|1579]]</sup>; Wise et al. 2015<sup>[[#fn:r1580\|1580]]</sup>

	\|}		\|}
	<!-- END TABLE -->		<!-- END TABLE -->

Laura: /* 6.2.1.5 Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) */

2026-05-31T14:28:14Z

6.2.1.5 Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

Show changes

Laura: /* 6.2.1.5 Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) */

2026-05-31T14:21:34Z

6.2.1.5 Integrated response options based on land management specifically for carbon dioxide removal (CDR)

Show changes