ArticleNational science review2023
The global mismatch between equitable carbon dioxide removal liability and capacity.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards equitable carbon responsibility: Integrating trade-related emissions and carbon sinks in urban decarbonization.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2025Article
- A principle-based framework to determine countries' fair warming contributions to the Paris Agreement.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Contributions of countries without a carbon neutrality target to limit global warming.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Deployment expectations of multi-gigatonne scale carbon removal could have adverse impacts on Asia's energy-water-land nexus.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Burden sharing for CDR: balancing fair liability with feasibility.National science review · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.