Author: admin

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).

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).

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

Google Scholar 

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

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

Google Scholar 

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

Google Scholar 

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

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

Google Scholar 

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

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

Google Scholar 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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

Google Scholar 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

Bello, S., Galán-Martín, Á, 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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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

Google Scholar 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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

Google Scholar 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

Cobo, S., Galán-Martín, Á, 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 

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 

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

Google Scholar 

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 

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 

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

Google Scholar 

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 

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

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

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 

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 

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

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 

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 

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

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 

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

Google Scholar 

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).

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 

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.

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).

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

Google Scholar 

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

Google Scholar 

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

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).

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).

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

Google Scholar 

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

Google Scholar 

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

Google Scholar 

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

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 

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 

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 

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

Google Scholar 

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).

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

Google Scholar 

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 

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 

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

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

Google Scholar 

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 

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

Google Scholar 

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 

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

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).

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

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

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).

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

Google Scholar 

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

Google Scholar 

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

Google Scholar 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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

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 

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).

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 

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 

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).

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

Google Scholar