# Effective carbon dioxide removal requires a One-Earth approach

Philip Boyd, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Louis Legendre, Yiannis Moustakis, Julia Pongratz

► To cite this version:

Philip Boyd, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Louis Legendre, Yiannis Moustakis, Julia Pongratz. Effective carbon dioxide removal requires a One-Earth approach. Environmental Research Letters, 2025, 20 (11), pp.111004. 10.1088/1748-9326/ae15a8. hal-05342781

HAL Id: hal-05342781

https://hal.science/hal-05342781v1

Submitted on 4 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

PERSPECTIVE • OPEN ACCESS

Effective carbon dioxide removal requires a One-
Earth approach

To cite this article: Philip W Boyd *et al* 2025 *Environ. Res. Lett.* **20** 111004

View the [article online](#) for updates and enhancements.

You may also like

- [Scaling limits of the fuzzy sphere at one loop](#)

Chong-Sun Chu, John Madore and Harold
Steinacker

- [Carrier transport in THz quantum cascade lasers: Are Green's functions necessary?](#)

A Mátyás, T Kubis, P Lugli et al.

- [On the energy consumption of online and on-site lectures](#)

Alexander Holas, Catherine Y Koch,
Joachim Leibold et al.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
LETTERS

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

PERSPECTIVE

# Effective carbon dioxide removal requires a One-Earth approach

Philip W Boyd<fnref n="1" />,* ID, Jean-Pierre Gattuso<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" /> ID, Louis Legendre<fnref n="2" /> ID, Yiannis Moustakis<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="6" /> ID
and Julia Pongratz<fnref n="4" />,<fnref n="5" /> ID

E-mail: Philip.boyd@utas.edu.au

Keywords: carbon dioxide removal, Earth system feedbacks, One Earth CDR

OPEN ACCESS

RECEIVED

27 November 2024

REVISED

9 October 2025

ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION

21 October 2025

PUBLISHED

31 October 2025

Original content from
this work may be used
under the terms of the
Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 licence.

Any further distribution
of this work must
maintain attribution to
the author(s) and the title
of the work, journal
citation and DOI.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

1. Introduction

The only way to reach net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within decades is to implement rapid, deep and sustained reductions of global CO2 emissions and other GHG. The IPCC explains that, in addition, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will be needed to offset residual CO2 emissions from sectors that are difficult and/or costly to decarbonize fully (Arias et al 2021). CDR also has a role to play in insuring against unexpected outcomes from warming overshoot trajectories (Schleussner et al 2024). Required CDR each year is estimated to range from 4.0 (i.e. reduced global energy demand scenario) to 5.9 Gt CO2 (rapid implementation of renewables scenario) in 2030, increasing to 5.3 (reduced global energy demand) and 10.4 (focus on CDR scenario)<fnref n="7" /> Gt CO2 annually by 2050 (Lamb et al 2024), equivalent to up to 25% of current annual anthropogenic emissions. This Perspective argues for the need to accelerate CDR research, within the new ‘One-Earth’ framework proposed below. It does not address the acceptability or not of deploying CDR as our objective is instead to propose a framework within which to conduct studies that will provide the society and decision-makers with scientific information about the potential positive and negative consequences of proposed CDR techniques. Research should address not only the characteristics of the different proposed CDR methods but also their potential biogeochemical, biophysical and other side effects (table 5.9 and figure 5.36 in Canadell et al 2021). The governance

aspect of future CDR deployments is not examined
below as it is treated in Boyd *et al* (2025).

The Perspective discusses successively the need to incorporate Earth System feedbacks (CDR tax<fnref n="8" />) into CDR studies, the current and projected CDR, the CDR tax in the dynamic Earth System, and CDR efficiency and the CDR tax under Earth system scenarios, to conclude with recent insights on the complexities that emerge when a portfolio of CDR approaches is modeled, including policy aspects. The early recognition of the need to incorporate Earth System feedbacks in CDR studies has its roots in the early concepts of atmosphere and ocean and atmosphere and land being systems exchanging CO₂ in both directions (Keeling 1973), which subsequently found its way into coupled (ocean) models (Maier-Reimer and Hasselmann 1987). Climate and carbon cycle feedbacks have since been routinely assessed for land and ocean (Friedlingstein et al 2006, Canadell et al 2021). It has been known for over a decade (Cao and Caldeira 2010) and also recognized by the IPCC (Ciais et al 2013) that CDR-driven carbon influxes into one reservoir would lead to counterbalancing (feedback) effluxes from all Earth's reservoirs. This negative feedback in the Earth System's carbon cycle, which is recognized by the CDR modeling community (Jones et al 2016, Keller et al 2018), weakens the realized atmospheric CO₂ reduction compared with the expected CDR influx. Because of this tight connection between land, ocean and atmosphere (Zickfeld et al 2023), the combined land- and ocean-based CDR required to reach the annual multi-billion ton target

<footnote n="1">¹ Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Sorbonne University, CNRS, Laboratoire d'Océanographie de Villefranche, Villefranche-sur-Mer, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, Sciences Po, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Department of Geography, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Present Address: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.</footnote>

<footnote>* Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ All CDR estimates are based on 3.0 Gt CO₂ annually of existing CDR for the period 2011–2020 (Lamb et al 2024) plus projections of additional CDR (from 2020 onwards) for 3 scenarios in table 2 (additional total CDR from 2020 columns) of Lamb et al (2024).</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ The CDR tax is a scientific and not an economic or legislative construct. It is the portion of captured CO₂ that does not translate into an equivalent reduction of atmospheric CO₂ due to Earth System feedbacks.</footnote>
must be studied, financed, and managed as a ‘One-Earth CDR<fnref n="9" />’.

However, the dependence of feedback strength on the background emissions scenario is not generally considered in the discussion of CDR deployment, nor is the added complication of singling out feedbacks from CDR fluxes when land- and ocean-based CDR are applied at the same time. A holistic viewpoint is needed as current CDR approaches, whether conventional or novel (Geden *et al* 2024), are mostly discrete and hence unconnected, whereas the Earth System imposes a ‘tax’ on the cumulative effect of all CDR methods that we term ‘CDR tax’ and must be considered in both emerging CDR markets and national carbon accounting. The CDR tax is the fraction of the atmospheric carbon captured by a CDR deployment that is not reflected in the corresponding decrease in atmospheric CO₂. For example, a CDR deployment capturing 1.0 Gt CO₂ year⁻¹—and causing effluxes of 0.2 Gt CO₂ year⁻¹ levies a 20% CDR tax on the Earth System.

Conventional land-based CDR are dominant in current and planned applications (Nemet et al 2024, Pongratz et al 2024), but studying a portfolio that also includes ocean-based CDR is essential for two reasons: first, it shares the heavy lifting imposed by CDR on sustainability limits between the land and the ocean; and second, it is useful to have a portfolio of CDR methods with different dynamics and durations. Indeed, for CDR to have a long-term effect on the climate, the CO₂ storage period should be at least 1000 years (Brunner et al 2024). Deploying such a portfolio requires the One-Earth approach, which takes into account the CDR tax.

## 2. CDR status and near-term prospects

Conventional CDR methods include afforestation, reforestation, forest management, and soil carbon sequestration. Novel methods consist of evolving but often untested land- and ocean-based CDR approaches, which currently contribute <0.1% of total CDR but are growing more rapidly than conventional methods (Nemet et al 2024, Pongratz et al 2024). Currently, ~2 Gt CO₂ per year of CDR is taking place, dominated by conventional methods (Pongratz et al 2024). It is necessary to study all proven and sustainable land- and ocean-based approaches, the combination of which may be needed to attain the annual multi-billion ton target.

It is unknown whether CDR of 5–10 Gt CO₂ year⁻¹ could be achievable using combined deployments of all techniques. The projected growth of existing land-based conventional CDR by 2030 is

~0.5 Gt CO₂ per year (i.e. from 2.1 to 2.6 Gt CO₂ year⁻¹, Smith et al 2024), and is limited by factors ranging from land availability and the increasing threat by climate extremes to the permanence of CO₂ storage in forests. Could the development of novel CDR help meet the ~1.4 Gt CO₂ year⁻¹ shortfall relative to 4.0 Gt CO₂ year⁻¹ based on conventional CDR (Lamb et al 2024) by 2030? Several of the proposed novel techniques are the subject of modeling, laboratory or small- or medium-scale field studies. In the ocean, no CDR approach is ready to be deployed at scale (Doney et al 2025) and model projections are exploring their regional and global potential (Keller et al 2018) while small-scale lab and field trials on a range of methods are underway.

In the flurry of current economic activities into conventional and novel CDR approaches (Presty et al 2024), the central issue of the role of the Earth System is often being overlooked. If CDR is to compensate for residual emissions, it must operate annually at the gigatonne scale. This means that CDR at deployment scale must be embedded within an Earth System framework to take into account global climate and the associated carbon cycle feedbacks (Keller et al 2018), i.e. the One-Earth CDR including the CDR tax. The carbon reservoirs and fluxes of the Earth System are being perturbed by anthropogenic CO₂ emissions (Ciais et al 2013), of which the joint removal of ~50% of cumulative emissions by the land and ocean sinks since 1750 (Friedlingstein et al 2023) is an example of a negative feedback that has ‘rebalanced’ the Earth’s carbon cycle. The role played by carbon cycle CDR feedbacks will depend jointly upon the emissions reduction trajectory and the upscaling of CDR methods (Jones et al 2016, Babiker et al 2022).

## 3. The dynamic earth system

Cao and Caldeira (2010) stated that ‘In response to a reduction in atmospheric CO₂, there is an efflux of CO₂ from both the terrestrial biosphere and ocean to the atmosphere’. In other words, any CDR is accompanied by a CO₂ efflux from natural reservoirs to the atmosphere. Matthews and Weaver (2010) explored this efflux feedback explicitly for CDR, and discussed the interplay between (negative) feedbacks on atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, changes in CO₂ emissions and CDR. Modeling simulations are the only way to explore future Earth System responses to continuing anthropogenic perturbations, including feedbacks within the carbon cycle and biogeophysical responses (figure 1). Current models have limitations in both representing the multi-faceted pathways of the Earth System and the inherent complexity when multiple concurrent perturbations are overlaid on simulations. For example, simulations also reveal that emission reductions would decrease the ‘CO₂ fertilization effect’ on terrestrial plants (Babiker et al 2022), but would also decrease detrimental impacts from

<footnote n="9">⁹ The one-Earth CDR approach is a framework that considers all land- and ocean-based CDR together within the interconnected Earth System, recognizing that interventions in one reservoir trigger feedbacks in others.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
droughts, heatwaves, and fires on forests (Anderegg et al. 2022).

Keller et al. (2018) graphically represented how the carbon reservoirs in the Earth System would respond to different CDR approaches: af(re)forestation (AR), ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE), and enhanced-weathering. Each approach caused a CO₂ efflux from the non-perturbed reservoir (e.g. marine CDR causing land-based efflux), except in the case of weathering which influenced all reservoirs. This conceptual study showed that successful reduction of atmospheric CO₂ concentration by CDR may cause an efflux or a decreased CO₂ influx (natural and CDR-related) from land and ocean reservoirs, i.e. the CDR tax. This has severe implications since, even assuming that the CDR-driven CO₂ influx could be accurately monitored (e.g., additional carbon stored in a newly planted forest), this CO₂ influx would overestimate the reduction in atmospheric CO₂ concentration by the amount of the CDR tax. How high this tax is, however, depends both on the ‘background’ climate evolution and the scale of CDR deployed. Therefore, carbon-climate feedbacks need to be included in their full complexity, which is not the case in many current studies.

## 4. Exploring CDR efficiency and the CDR tax under Earth system scenarios

Jones et al. (2016) considered how the efficiency of land-based CDR approaches could be decreased by altering the magnitude of sinks in the global carbon cycle. Zickfeld et al. (2023) also explored the dependency of (land-based) CDR efficiency on the interplay of CDR magnitude with that of the background climate signature. In a wider context, an Earth System model study simulating global deployment of OAE (Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2024) confirmed that, although this ocean-based CDR resulted in CDR, it was offset in two ways by the Earth System, i.e. by CO₂ land efflux and less CO₂ oceanic influx. The realized atmospheric CO₂ removal was 27% less than the total increase in the ocean carbon sink (CDR tax = 100%—Removal Efficiency, RE, in table S1 of Moustakis et al. 2025). It should be noted that the latter does not equal the isolated OAE CDR flux (i.e. additional CO₂ oceanic influx over the regions of OAE), but incorporates the CDR tax. The isolation of the ‘true’ OAE CDR flux is a challenging task, which requires the development of more accurate and high throughput technologies for detection and attribution because of the diffusion of added alkalinity to adjacent model ocean grid cells (figure 1), OAE mixing to depth and natural variability.

CDR simulations for large-scale terrestrial AR by Moustakis et al. (2024) also reveal negative Earth System feedbacks. Their study differs from that of Jones et al. (2016) in that Moustakis et al. represent land-based methods where the carbon removed

remains within (and can interact with) the Earth System. They report that atmospheric CO₂ removal was ~26% lower than the total increase in the land carbon sink. As above, the land carbon increase does not represent the isolated CDR flux of additional carbon stored in the newly-planted forest, but includes negative feedbacks and effluxes within the terrestrial carbon sink (figure 1).

A comparison of six Earth System models reported a CDR tax range of 9%–25% (Wey et al. 2025) which, together with the values of ~26% (Moustakis et al. 2024) and 27% (Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2024) are within the range of 4%–45% in the summary of published values of Moustakis et al. (2025; table 1, 100%–RE). These CDR tax values stress the importance of conducting studies within the One-Earth CDR framework (figure 1).

Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. (2024) advocate for modeling studies that probe how Earth System feedbacks will respond to CDR both in ocean and on land. Moustakis et al. (2025) explored the carbon cycle responses to combined land-based (AR) and ocean-based (OAE) methods. They found that combined CDR yields a similar decrease in atmospheric CO₂ as would have been expected by summing the outcome of the single-CDR model runs with AR or OAE. The linearity of the global fluxes (but less so locally—i.e. grid-cell level) upon combining the methods suggests that these compensating fluxes likely persist when combining methods, even though to further support this, modeling setups that can isolate the CDR flux of each method excluding feedbacks are needed. This study shows that combining land- and ocean-based CDR methods does not compromise the efficiency of individual applications.

## 5. Discussion and conclusions

From now until 2030, conventional land-based methods will likely dominate CDR (Nemet et al. 2024) leading to a projected annual CDR gap of ~1 Gt CO₂ year⁻¹ in 2030 (Lamb et al. 2024). Furthermore, projections centered on limiting warming to 1.5 °C by 2050 require rapid upscaling of novel CDR (Smith et al. 2024). Superimposed on this dominance of terrestrial CDR are issues that include detrimental side-effects including mega-fires (Byrne et al. 2024), and carbon mis-accounting linked to natural events like mega-fires (Luers et al. 2022). Taken together with the effect of negative Earth System feedbacks in weakening atmospheric CO₂ reduction compared to the CDR flux (Jones et al. 2016, Moustakis et al. 2024), i.e. the CDR tax, conventional land-based CDR is unlikely to be able to compensate globally for hard-to-abate residual emissions.

Based on the current evidence of the limits of conventional CDR, the only way to reach the annual multi-billion ton CDR target might be to extend CDR to novel methods both on land and in oceans.
Extending CDR to novel methods would not be without issues, and the development and upscaling of methods, when proven, is estimated to require decades (Boyd et al 2023).

It is essential to study CDR within the One-Earth framework because deploying CDR without including the 4%-45% CDR tax would generate unrealistically high expected rates of atmospheric CO₂ removal. In addition, the latter leads to the conclusion that CDR methods are mainly bound to the sovereign territory of nation states and do not therefore require transboundary governance (Bellamy and Geden 2019), which is incorrect because it neglects the Earth-System negative feedbacks to all CDR. Hence, effects and feedbacks must be clearly isolated, and their dependency on the climate trajectory and CDR portfolio must be appropriately considered. Otherwise, confidence in the science underpinning CDR deployments would be undermined.

The One-Earth CDR concept provides scientists with an initial framework required for modeling and monitoring the joint implementation of land- and ocean-based CDR. The simple climate models used in Integrated Assessment Models typically represent the terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks and should thus, in principle, include the CDR tax, but they lack the complexity necessary to robustly estimate it. With CMIP7 on the horizon, this framework can help to guide model development and to devise the simulation setups necessary for capturing the Earth System feedbacks to land- and ocean-based CDR, and their interplay. In that regard, emission-driven projections are a necessary tool (Sanderson et al 2024), but could also be complemented by concentration-driven ones, aimed at isolating feedbacks (figure 1). We advocate research within this framework to track the relative influences of concurrent activities (emissions reductions, CDR, feedbacks) to provide accurate and regular updates (Masson-Delmotte and Males 2024) on the status of global carbon cycle.

## Data availability statement

No new data were created or analysed in this study.

## ORCID iDs

Philip W Boyd ID 0000-0001-7850-1911

Jean-Pierre Gattuso ID 0000-0002-4533-4114

Louis Legendre ID 0000-0002-2854-7003

Yiannis Moustakis ID 0000-0002-4448-2967

Julia Pongratz ID 0000-0003-0372-3960

## References

Anderegg W R I, Wu C, Acil N, Carvalhais N, Pugh T A M, Sadler J P and Seidl R 2022 A climate risk analysis of Earth's forests in the 21st century *Science* **377** 1099–103

Arias P A, Bellouin N, Coppola E, Jones R G, Krinner G, Marotzke J, Naik V, Palmer M D, Plattner G-K and Rogelj J 2021 Technical summary *Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* ed V Masson-Delmotte *et al* (Cambridge Open) pp 33–144

Babiker M, Berndes G, Blok K, Cohen B, Cowie A, Geden O, Ginzburg V, Leip A, Smith P and Sugiyama M 2022 Cross-sectoral perspectives *Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* ed P R Shukla *et al* (IPCC) (Cambridge University Press)

Bellamy R and Geden O 2019 Govern CO₂ removal from the ground up *Nat. Geosci.* **12** 874–9

Boyd P W, Bach L, Holden R and Turney C 2023 Carbon offsets aren't helping the planet—four ways to fix them *Nature* **620** 947–9

Boyd P W, Gattuso J-P, Dai M, Legendre L, Satterfield T and Webb R M 2025 *The Need to Explore the Potential of Marine CDR—A Guide for Policy-makers* (Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law School) (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14692650)

Brunner C, Hausfather Z and Knutti R 2024 Durability of carbon dioxide removal is critical for Paris climate goals *Commun. Earth Environ.* **5** 645

Byrne B *et al* 2024 Carbon emissions from the 2023 Canadian wildfires *Nature* **644** 835–9

Canadell J G *et al* 2021 Global carbon and other biogeochemical cycles and feedbacks *In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* ed V Masson-Delmotte *et al* (Cambridge University Press) pp 673–816

Cao L and Caldeira K 2010 Atmospheric carbon dioxide removal: long-term consequences and commitment *Environ. Res. Lett.* **5** 1–6

Ciais P *et al* 2013 Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles *Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* ed T F Stocker *et al* (Cambridge University Press) pp 465–570

Doney S, Wolfe W H, McKee D C and Fuhrman J G 2025 The science, engineering, and validation of marine carbon dioxide removal and storage *Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci.* **17** 55–81

Friedlingstein P *et al* 2006 Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison *J. Clim.* **19** 3337–53

Friedlingstein P 2023 Global carbon budget 2023 *Earth Syst. Sci. Data* **15** 5301–69

Geden O, Smith S M and Cowie A 2024 Introduction *The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2nd edn*, ed S Smith (University of Oxford) pp 18–28

Jeltsch-Thömmes A, Tran G, Lienert S, Keller D P, Oschlies A and Joos F 2024 Earth system responses to carbon dioxide removal as exemplified by ocean alkalinity enhancement: tradeoffs and lags *Environ. Res. Lett.* **19** 054054

Jones C D *et al* 2016 Simulating the Earth system response to negative emissions *Environ. Res. Lett.* **11** 095012

Keeling C D 1973 The carbon dioxide cycle: reservoir models to depict the exchange of atmospheric carbon dioxide with the oceans and land plants *Chemistry of the Lower Atmosphere* ed S I Rasool (Plenum Press) pp 251–328

Keller D P, Lenton A, Littleton E W, Oschlies A, Scott V and Vaughan N E 2018 The effects of carbon dioxide removal on the carbon cycle *Curr. Clim. Change Rep.* **4** 250–65

Lamb W F *et al* 2024 The carbon dioxide removal gap *Nat. Clim. Change* **14** 644–51

Luers A *et al* 2022 Make greenhouse-gas accounting reliable - build interoperable systems *Nature* **607** 653–56 (available at: https://www.nature.com/article/d41586-022-02033-y)
Maier-Reimer E and Hasselmann K 1987 Transport and storage of CO₂ in the ocean—an inorganic ocean-circulation carbon cycle model *Clim. Dyn.* **2** 63–90

Masson-Delmotte V and Males J 2024 The physical science basis of climate change empowering transformations, insights from the IPCC AR6 for a climate research agenda grounded in ethics *PLoS Clim.* **3** e0000451

Matthews H D and Weaver A 2010 Committed climate warming *Nat. Geosci.* **3** 142–3

Moustakis Y, Nützel T, Wey H-W, Bao W and Pongratz J 2024 Temperature overshoot responses to ambitious forestation in an Earth system model *Nat. Commun.* **15** 8235

Moustakis Y, Wey H-W, Nützel T, Oschlies A and Pongratz J 2025 No compromise in efficiency from the co-application of a marine and a terrestrial CDR method *Nat. Commun.* **16** 4709

Nemet G F et al 2024 Demonstration and upscaling *The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2nd edn*, ed S M Smith (University of Oxford) pp 47–65

Pongratz J, Smith S M, Schwingshackl C, Dayathilake L, Gasser T, Grassi G and Pillivi R 2024 Current levels of CDR *The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2nd edn*, ed S M Smith (University of Oxford) pp 123–39

Presty R, Massol O, Jagu E and da Costa P 2024 Mapping the landscape of carbon dioxide removal research: a bibliometric analysis *Environ. Res. Lett.* **19** 103004

Sanderson B M et al 2024 The need for carbon-emissions-driven climate projections in CMIP7 *Geosci. Model Dev.* **17** 8141–72

Schleussner C-F et al 2024 Overconfidence in climate overshoot *Nature* **634** 366–73

Smith S M et al 2024 *The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal 2nd edn* (https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.10/f85qj)

Wey H-W et al 2025 CMIP6 models agree on similar carbon cycle feedbacks between enhancing terrestrial and marine carbon sinks *Environ. Res. Lett.* **20** 054029

Zickfeld K et al 2023 Net-zero approaches must consider Earth system impacts to achieve climate goals *Nat. Clim. Change* **13** 1298–305