Cited by 55Carbon Dioxide Capture TechnologiesClimate Change Policy and EconomicsSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics

Preliminary assessment of the potential for, and limitations to, terrestrial negative emission technologies in the UK

Open access
Smith, Pete, Haszeldine, R. Stuart, Smith, Stephen M.·2016·Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts

Abstract

The aggregate technical potential for land-based negative emissions technologies (NETs) in the UK is estimated to be 12–49 Mt C eq. per year, representing around 8–32% of current emissions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c6em00386a

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Amendment of acidic organic-rich soils with silicate minerals, and resultant pH increase, had no effect on respiratory CO2 fluxes.

    “Compatibility of ERW and SOC sequestration may be realistic given that amendment of acidic organic-rich soils with silicate minerals, and resultant pH increase, had no effect on respiratory CO2 fluxes 28,29 , contrary to concerns that increased soil pH may accelerate organic matter decomposition 30 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. S. Fuss, J.G. Canadell, G.P. Peters et al., Nature Climate Change 2014, 4, 850-853.
  2. V. Krey, G. Luderer, L. Clarke and E. Kriegler, Climatic Change, 2014, 123, 369-382.
  3. J. Edmonds, P. Luckow, K. Calvin et al., Climatic Change, 2013, 118, 29-43.
  4. D.P. van Vuuren, S. Deetman, J. van Vliet, M. van den Berg, B.J. van Ruijven and B. Koelbl, Climatic Change, 2013, 118, 15-27.
  5. J. Rogelj, D.L. McCollum, A. Reisinger, M. Meinshausen and K. Riahi, Nature, 2013, 493, 79-83.
  6. Edenhofer, O. et al.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2014.
  7. K. Riahi, E. Kriegler, N. Johnson et al.. Technological Forecasting and Social Change Part A, 2015, 90, 8-23.
  8. J. Rogelj, G. Luderer, R.C. Pietzcker, E. Kriegler, M. Schaeffer, V. Krey and K. Riahi, Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5, 519- 528.
  9. P. Smith, S.J. Davis, F. Creutzig et al.. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6, 42-50.
  10. F. Creutzig, N.H. Ravindranath, G. Berndes et al., Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2015, 7, 916-944.
  11. M. Obersteiner, C. Azar, P.E. Kauppi et al., Science, 2001, 294, 786-787.
  12. D. Keith, Science, 2009, 325, 1654-1655.
  13. R.D. Schuiling and P. Krijgsman, Climatic Change, 2006, 74, 349-354.
  14. P.B. Kelemen and J.M. Matter, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 2008, 105, 17295-17300.
  15. L.L. Taylor, J. Quirk, R.M.S. Thorley et al., Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6, 402-406.
  16. V.K. Arora and A. Montenegro, Nature Geoscience, 2011, 4, 514-518.
  17. J.G. Canadell and M.R. Raupach, Science, 2008, 320, 1456- 1457.
  18. R.B. Jackson, J.T. Randerson, J.G. Canadell et al., Environmental Research Letters, 2008, 3, 044006.
  19. P. Smith, Global Change Biology, 2016, 22, 1315-1324.
  20. P. Smith, D Martino, Z Cai et al., Philosophiocal Transactions of the Royal Society B., 2008, 363, 789-813.
  21. P. Smith. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2012, 4, 539-544.
  22. C. Azar, K. Lindgren, M. Obersteiner et al., Climatic Change, 2010, 100, 195-202.
  23. B.J. Strengers, J.G.V. Minnen, B. Eickhout, Climatic Change, 2008, 88, 343-366.
  24. M. Wise, K. Calvin, A. Thomson et al., Science, 2009, 324, 1183-1186.
  25. F. Humpenöder, A. Popp, J.P. Dietrich et al., Environmental Research Letters, 2014, 9, 064029 (13pp).
  26. J.L. Sarmiento, N. Gruber, M.A. Brzezinski and J.P. Dunne, Nature, 2004, 427, 56-60.
  27. F. Joos, J.L. Sarmiento, U. Siegenthaler, Nature, 1991, 349, 772-775.
  28. H.S. Kheshgi. Energy, 1995, 20, 915-922.
  29. G. Lomax, M. Workman, T. Lenton and N. Shah, Energy Policy, 2015, 78, 125-136.
  30. P. Renforth, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con. 2012, 10, 229-243.
  31. A. Lovett, G.M. Sünnenberg and T.L. Dockerty, Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2014, 6, 99-107.
  32. J.D. Ovington and H.A.I. Madgwick, Plant and Soil, 1959, 10, 271-283.
  33. N. Roncucci, N.N.O.D. Nasso, C. Tozzini, E. Bonar and G. Ragaglini, Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2014, 7, 1009- 1018.
  34. M. Bentham, T. Mallows, J. Lowndes, A. Green, Energy Procedia, 2014, 63, 5103 -5113.
  35. J.U. Smith, P. Gottschalk, J. Bellarby et al., Climate Research, 2010, 45, 179-192.
  36. Committee on Climate Change, Bioenergy Review. Committee on Climate Change, London, UK, 89pp., 2011.
  37. R.A. Betts, Nature, 2007, 408, 187-190.
  38. J.M. Matter, M. Stute, S.Ó. Snæbjörnsdottir et al., Science 2016, 352, 1312-1315.
  39. IPCC, Revised 1996 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories workbook, vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
  40. IPCC, Revised 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, vol. 3. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, P., Haszeldine, R. S., & Smith, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Committee on Climate Change (GB)
Corresponding author
Smith, Pete
Venue
Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts
Published
2016
Volume
18
Issue
11
Pages
1400-1405
ISSN
  • 2050-7887 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-7895
OpenAlex
W2529484689
Cited by
55
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9
FWCI
4.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Environmental Science Processes & Impacts (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (NE/H013474/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Keywords
negative emissions technologies, terrestrial carbon sequestration, technical potential, carbon dioxide removal, cost constraints, energy constraints, environmental constraints, climate change mitigation
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, United Kingdom, Climate Change, Carbon Sequestration, Carbon Footprint, Environmental Policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review