Cited by 3,481Climate Change Policy and EconomicsLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesForest Management and Policy

Natural climate solutions

Open access
Griscom, Bronson W., Adams, Justin, Ellis, Peter W., Houghton, Richard A., Lomax, Guy, Miteva, Daniela A., Schlesinger, William H., Shoch, David +24 more·2017·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: Most nations recently agreed to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2 °C. We examine how much climate mitigation nature can contribute to this goal with a comprehensive analysis of “natural climate solutions” (NCS): 20 conservation, restoration, and/or improved land management actions that increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. We show that NCS can provide over one-third of the cost-effective climate mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2 °C. Alongside aggressive fossil fuel emissions reductions, NCS offer a powerful set of options for nations to deliver on the Paris Climate Agreement while improving soil productivity, cleaning our air and water, and maintaining biodiversity.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1710465114

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • Tree plantations have limited and at times negative effects on native biodiversity.

    “by having limited (14) and at times negative (9) effects on native biodiversity”

    From The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches (2022) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Methods section (page unavailable) says establishing forests where they are not the native cover type can negatively affect biodiversity; the Results section identifies commercial plantations as one form of reforestation. This supports a possible negative effect in that specific setting, but the paper does not say tree plantations generally have limited effects on native biodiversity. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Evidence is growing that large-scale use of wood for energy is a threat for the environment.

    “However, evidence is growing that large-scale use of wood for energy is a threat for the environment (Schulze et al., 2012;Griscom et al., 2017).”

    From The hidden potential of saprotrophic fungi in arable soil: Patterns of short-term stimulation by organic amendments (2020) · cites this paper as Griscom et al., 2017

    In Results and Discussion, “Cost-Effective and Low-Cost NCS” (page unavailable), the paper says large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is untested and likely to have significant impacts on water use, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services. That supports concern about one form of large-scale bioenergy, but the passage does not identify wood as its fuel or establish a growing body of evidence about large-scale wood use for energy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Soil carbon sequestration is a critical ecosystem service of grasslands that can be maximized using best management practices for livestock grazing.

    “Soil C sequestration is a critical ecosystem service of grasslands, which can be maximized using best management practices for livestock grazing”

    From Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems (2018) · cites this paper as Griscom et al., 2017

    In Results and Discussion, under “Specific Pathway Contributions” (page unavailable), the paper says two improved livestock-grazing pathways—Optimal Intensity and Legumes—increase soil carbon. It supports the value of grazing management for carbon sequestration, but does not establish that best management practices maximize sequestration in grasslands. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Griscom et al. (2017) identified adaptive multi-paddock grazing as a potentially important climate change mitigation strategy but were unable to include it in their analysis due to lack of robust data.

    “This need for on-farm SOC data was discussed by Griscom et al. (2017), who identified AMP grazing as a potentially important climate change mitigation strategy, but were unable to include it in their analysis due to lack of robust data.”
  • The greenhouse gas mitigation potential of commercial and protection afforestation and reforestation has been highlighted in the literature, but their greenhouse gas mitigation efficacy has been debated.

    “The GHG mitigation potential of commercial and protection AR has been highlighted in the literature (3, 18–25), but their GHG mitigation efficacy has been debated (18, 26, 27).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., Herrero, M., Kiesecker, J., Landis, E., Laestadius, L., Leavitt, S. M., Minnemeyer, S., Polasky, S., Potapov, P., Putz, F. E., Sanderman, J., Silvius, M., Wollenberg, E., & Fargione, J.
Affiliations
  • James Madison University (US)
  • The Nature Conservancy (US)
  • Woodwell Climate Research Center (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Resources for the Future, Washington, DC 20036;
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Resources For The Future (US)
  • Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Brazil, Brasilia 70000, Brazil;
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • World Resources Institute (US)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Wetlands International (NL)
  • University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
  • Griscom, Bronson W.
  • Schlesinger, William H.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2017-10-16
Volume
114
Issue
44
Pages
11645-11650
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2766136866
Cited by
3,481
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 454 · 2025: 521 · 2024: 491 · 2023: 494 · 2022: 513 · 2021: 424 · 2020: 306 · 2019: 160 · 2018: 113 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
285.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (Global Lands)
  • USDA | National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2011-67003-30205)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
Keywords
natural climate solutions, climate change mitigation, carbon storage, forest conservation, wetland restoration, grassland restoration, 2°C target, Paris Agreement, soil productivity, biodiversity, cost-effectiveness

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