Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38021166›Full record

ArticleNational science review2023

The global mismatch between equitable carbon dioxide removal liability and capacity.

Pu Yang, Zhifu Mi, Yi-Ming Wei, Steef V Hanssen, Lan-Cui Liu, D'Maris Coffman, Xinlu Sun, Hua Liao, Yun-Fei Yao, Jia-Ning Kang and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in National science review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Pu YangThe Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Zhifu MiThe Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8106-0694
Yi-Ming WeiCenter for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China.
Steef V HanssenDepartment of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen 6500 GL, The Netherlands.
Lan-Cui LiuBusiness School, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China.
D'Maris CoffmanThe Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Xinlu SunThe Bartlett School of Sustainable Construction, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Hua LiaoCenter for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China.
Yun-Fei YaoStrategy Plan Department, Sinopec Research Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Beijing 100101, China.
Jia-Ning KangCenter for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China.
Peng-Tao WangCenter for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China.
Steven J DavisDepartment of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limiting climate change to 1.5°C and achieving net-zero emissions would entail substantial carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere by the mid-century, but how much CDR is needed at country level over time is unclear. The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed description of when and how much CDR is required at country level in order to achieve 1.5°C and how much CDR countries can carry out domestically. We allocate global CDR pathways among 170 countries according to 6 equity principles and assess these allocations with respect to countries' biophysical and geophysical capacity to deploy CDR. Allocating global CDR to countries based on these principles suggests that CDR will, on average, represent ∼4% of nations' total emissions in 2030, rising to ∼17% in 2040. Moreover, equitable allocations of CDR, in many cases, exceed implied land and carbon storage capacities. We estimate ∼15% of countries (25) would have insufficient land to contribute an equitable share of global CDR, and ∼40% of countries (71) would have insufficient geological storage capacity. Unless more diverse CDR technologies are developed, the mismatch between CDR liabilities and land-based CDR capacities will lead to global demand for six GtCO

Indexed as

carbon dioxide removalinternational equityland-based solutions

Identifiers

PMID38021166
PMCPMC10659237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.