ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2026
The Value of Reversible Carbon Storage in a Zero-Emissions World.
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is required to stabilize global temperature. CDR can be achieved via ecosystem-based approaches that are cost-effective but reversible (e.g., soil and forest management) or by more durable but expensive approaches (e.g., direct air capture coupled with geologic storage). Here, we examine trade-offs between these approaches, focusing on timing, climate impacts, and cost. We simulated reversible carbon accrual for a range of CDR contract structures using a general minimalist model of ecosystem carbon cycling, and parameterized it to simulate US agricultural soil management─specifically cover cropping─as a case study. We then quantified the resulting impact on atmospheric carbon and global temperature using a climate model emulator. We find that maintaining a patchwork of reversible CDR projects by replacing lapsed projects with new projects can reduce warming by 22-195 μ°C in 2100 and that the magnitude of this cooling effect depends on how effectively the patchwork is maintained. Long-term maintenance of reversible CDR projects requires institutional stability that cannot be guaranteed over multiple decades. Consequently, effective CDR ultimately requires replacing reversible projects with durable projects. To address this problem, we modeled the cost of replacing reversible agricultural soil CDR with geologic CDR. We found that using reversible CDR as a bridge to durable CDR is potentially more cost-effective as a global cooling strategy (0.20-0.81 billion USD per μ°C avoided) than perpetual maintenance of reversible CDR (0.32-1.31 billion USD per μ°C avoided) or an immediate transition to durable CDR (1.37-2.19 billion USD per μ°C avoided). However, we emphasize that institutional commitments to maintain reversible CDR projects cannot be guaranteed. Reliance on reversible CDR as a bridge to durable CDR therefore carries an unknown amount of risk and will only function if efforts to maintain reversible CDR are robust.
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.