Is extensive terrestrial carbon dioxide removal a ‘green’ form of geoengineering? A global modelling study

• We quantify biogeochemical shifts induced by agriculture vs. terrestrial CDR.
• Shifts induced by tCDR are larger than shifts from historical land use change.
• Negative implications for planetary boundaries oppose benefits of CC reduction.
• Thus, tCDR cannot be regarded as a ‘green’ climate engineering option.

Biological carbon sequestration through implementation of biomass plantations is currently being discussed as an option for climate engineering (CE) should mitigation efforts fail to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As it is a plant-based CE option that extracts CO2 from the atmosphere, it might be considered a ‘green’ CE method that moves the biosphere closer to its natural, i.e. pre-Neolithic, state. Here, we test this hypothesis by comparing the biogeochemical (water- and carbon-related) changes induced by biomass plantations compared to those induced by historical human land cover and land use change. Results indicate that large-scale biomass plantations would produce a biogeochemical shift in the terrestrial biosphere which is, in absolute terms, even larger than that already produced by historical land use change. However, the nature of change would differ between a world dominated by biomass plantations and the current world inheriting the effects of historical land use, highlighting that large-scale tCDR would represent an additional distinct and massive human intervention into the biosphere. Contrasting the limited possibilities of tCDR to reduce the pressure on the planetary boundary for climate change with the potential negative implications on the status of other planetary boundaries highlights that tCDR via biomass plantations should not be considered a ‘green’ CE method but a full scale engineering intervention.