ArticleNature communications2025
Separating CO
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Separating CONature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Net-zero commitments have become the focal point for countries to communicate long-term climate targets. However, to this point it is not clear to what extent conventional emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will contribute to net-zero. An integrated market for emissions and removals with a uniform carbon price delivers the economically efficient contribution of CDR to net-zero. Yet it might not fully internalise sustainability risks of CDR and hence could lead to its overuse. In this study, we explore the implications of separating targets for emissions and for removals delivered by novel CDR in global net-zero emissions pathways with the Integrated Assessment Model REMIND. We find that overall efficiency losses induced by such separation are moderate. Furthermore, limiting the CDR target comes with increasing emission prices but also significant benefits: lower cumulative emissions, a lower financial burden for public finance of CDR and limited reliance on geologic CO
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.