The urgent need to address climate change has propelled carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to the forefront of global mitigation strategies. However, recent research has illuminated critical concerns regarding the biodiversity impacts of land-intensive CDR methods, such as forestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). A comprehensive analysis published in Nature Climate Change in 2026 sheds light on how these land-based strategies could intersect with sensitive ecological regions, potentially threatening biodiversity hotspots and climate refugia reserved for species survival amid warming.
At the center of this investigation is the spatial overlap between projected CDR deployment and areas critical for biodiversity conservation. The study aggregates data from twelve distinct sources, including global maps of climate refugia where species could potentially persist through rising temperatures. Using these maps, which are derived from models of approximately 135,000 terrestrial species, the authors demonstrate that deploying forestation or BECCS on a massive scale risks appropriating land within regions that maintain high species richness under warming scenarios.
The researchers meticulously combined land-use projections from five state-of-the-art integrated assessment model frameworks, including AIM, GLOBIOM, and IMAGE, to quantify where CDR-related land is likely to expand this century. These models project land allocation dynamics for both forest expansion and dedicated bioenergy cropland, essential for BECCS, under various socioeconomic and climate pathway scenarios. By overlaying these projections with spatial data on biodiversity hotspots—ecosystems characterized by exceptionally high levels of endemism and species richness—the study reveals the extent to which CDR initiatives may encroach upon ecologically sensitive environments.
A key methodological advance of this work lies in the granular spatial analysis at a ten-arcminute resolution, which aligns ecological and land-use datasets to uncover detailed patterns of land competition. This high-resolution approach permitted the researchers to distinguish between areas where deploying forestation or BECCS may be beneficial—for example, on land naturally suitable for tree cover without compromising primary habitats—and areas where such interventions could cause irreversible damage to endemic species and ecosystems.
The authors’ findings indicate that a significant proportion of the land earmarked for carbon removal overlaps with remaining climate refugia, places where at least 75% of the original species assemblages are projected to persist despite anticipated temperature increases. This overlap implies a direct trade-off between climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation, raising concerns about the net ecological benefits of certain CDR deployment strategies.
Further complicating the picture, the study evaluates the warming avoidance potential of CDR and the consequent preservation of climate refugia but juxtaposes this benefit against the land-use footprint required. By integrating climate model outputs with land-use maps, the authors quantify the “net” biodiversity effect—highlighting that the gain in habitat preservation due to reduced warming might be partially offset by habitat loss linked to land conversion for CDR purposes. This nuanced perspective underscores the importance of carefully considering land-use decisions within climate policy.
The biodiversity hotspots, derived from the World Wildlife Fund’s Global 200 ecoregions and recognized conservation priority areas, serve as a critical frame of reference in this analysis. These hotspots are characterized by unique evolutionary histories and high concentrations of endemic vascular plant species, yet they have already experienced significant habitat loss. Land-intensive CDR expansion into these regions exacerbates existing conservation challenges and could undermine progress towards global biodiversity targets.
Importantly, the study employs conservative, biodiversity-sensitive definitions for assessing suitable areas for CDR activities. For forestation, the constrained reforestation potential excludes regions where natural forest cover is historically absent or where conversion could detrimentally alter albedo or carbon stocks, such as peatlands and wetlands. Similarly, bioenergy cropland is evaluated against strict planetary boundary criteria to avoid compromising biosphere integrity or agricultural productivity. These constraints provide an ethically oriented spatial framework that prioritizes ecological health alongside carbon removal goals.
To enhance policy relevance, the authors differentiate analyses by country groups classified under the UNFCCC Annex categories. This allows for insights into how CDR deployment and its biodiversity implications might vary between highly industrialized Annex I nations and developing non-Annex I countries. Such differentiation is vital considering geopolitical equity and the localized environmental impacts of global mitigation strategies.
The temporal dimension of the study extends through the twenty-first century, unraveling the complex dynamics of land demand as CDR ambitions increase under diverse SSP–RCP scenarios. Employing decadal time steps, the research captures changing patterns in CO2 removal capacity, land-use allocations, and corresponding biodiversity risks. These temporal trajectories highlight critical windows for intervention and emphasize that early, carefully guided CDR deployment could mitigate potential biodiversity conflicts.
Through model agreement assessments, the study uncovers regions where multiple models consistently predict CDR deployment either aligned with biodiversity conservation goals or in direct conflict with ecological priorities. Such spatial consensus is invaluable for directing monitoring and intervention efforts, as it reduces uncertainty regarding high-risk or high-potential zones for environmentally sensitive CDR.
The impact of enforcing biodiversity conservation in CDR planning emerges starkly from scenario analyses, revealing substantial reductions in viable land available for forestation and BECCS. Excluding priority biodiversity areas and climate refugia from potential CDR deployment would require reconsidering current carbon removal ambitions or innovating less land-intensive strategies, underlining the hard trade-offs inherent in sustainable climate action.
This comprehensive study also highlights gaps and limitations in current datasets, emphasizing the complex interaction of climate, land-use changes, and biodiversity responses. The need for finer-scale, species-specific studies and improved data integration is asserted as a path forward to reconcile the goals of carbon removal and biodiversity preservation effectively.
While forestation and BECCS surface as critical tools in global decarbonization portfolios, this analysis underscores the imperative for biodiversity-sensitive planning. Integrating ecological constraints into CDR deployment models, accounting for regional biodiversity values, and respecting planetary boundaries emerges as non-negotiable to ensure that climate mitigation does not become a driver of biodiversity loss.
Ultimately, the research advocates for an interdisciplinary approach that applies climate science, ecology, and socio-economic modeling in tandem. This holistic vision is essential for designing carbon removal strategies that are not only effective in lowering atmospheric greenhouse gases but also aligned with global biodiversity conservation commitments, providing a balanced pathway to a resilient and sustainable future.
Subject of Research: Biodiversity implications and land-use trade-offs of large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies, focusing on forestation and BECCS deployment.
Article Title: Biodiversity implications of land-intensive carbon dioxide removal
Article References:
Prütz, R., Rogelj, J., Ganti, G. et al. Biodiversity implications of land-intensive carbon dioxide removal. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02557-5
