Soil carbon ignored in Limited carbon sequestration potential from global ecosystem restoration
Tom Goreau
This paper analyzes ecosystem CDR restoration potential and concludes that there is too much CO2 fossil fuel pollution for it to remove more than 17.6% of the CO2 burden. But it ignores the much larger soil carbon pool, which is around 5 times larger, which omission suggests that regeneration of the complete soil-vegetation ecosystem may be capable of doing the job!
- Article
- Open access
- Published: 31 July 2025
Limited carbon sequestration potential from global ecosystem restoration
- Csaba Tölgyesi,
- Nándor Csikós,
- Vicky M. Temperton,
- Elise Buisson,
- Fernando A. O. Silveira,
- Caroline E. R. Lehmann,
- Péter Török,
- Zoltán Bátori &
- Ákos Bede-Fazekas
Nature Geoscience volume 18, pages761–768 (2025)
Abstract
Ecosystem restoration is increasingly recognized as a means of climate change mitigation. Recent global-scale studies have suggested that ecosystem restoration could offset a substantial fraction of human carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution. However, global carbon sequestration potential remains uncertain due to the tree-centric view of some models and difficulties in modelling restoration across different ecosystem types. Here we applied a model-based prediction workflow to estimate the carbon capture potential of restoring forest, shrubland, grassland and wetland ecosystems until 2100. We found that the maximum sequestration potential is 96.9 Gt of carbon, equivalent to 17.6% of the anthropogenic emissions to date, or 3.7–12.0% if taking into account future emissions until 2100. Our results suggest that ecosystem restoration has limited potential for climate change mitigation even if orchestrated with a pervasive shift towards sustainable, low-emissions economies globally. In addition, if we plan restoration targets to match future climatic conditions and consider state transitions of currently natural ecosystems due to climate change, the potential for natural climate solutions related to ecosystem restoration is close to zero. Therefore, we recommend that ecosystem restoration is pursued primarily for restoring biodiversity, supporting livelihoods and resilience of ecosystem services, as the climate mitigation potential will vary depending on the state transitions that occur between vegetation types.
Tom Goreau
Soil carbon has a much longer storage lifetime than vegetation, and much greater capacity.
The techniques of soil regenerative farming to increase soil carbon are very effective and examples of many methods from every inhabited continent, soil, and crop type are given in:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
A 600 page book which you can download free at:
The problem is that for each farmer increasing the soil carbon in their soils, thousands more are just running it down and turning into CO2. Reversing that with rock powders, biochar, and beneficial microbes reverses land degradation and could store much more carbon than is possible with full reforestation.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
Chief Scientist, Biorock Technology Inc., Blue Regeneration SL
Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Phone: (1) 857-523-0807 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
On the Nature of Things: The Scientific Photography of Fritz Goro
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer
“The Earth is not dying, she is being killed” U. Utah Phillips
“It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies” Noam Chomsky
From:
Nando Breiter <na...@carbonzero.ch>
Date: Friday, August 8, 2025 at 12:27 PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Cc: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Soil carbon ignored in Limited carbon sequestration potential from global ecosystem restoration
Tom, interesting statement regarding the soil carbon pool.
I'm wondering what evidence exists for soil sequestration being "capable of doing the job" in the literature?
Practically, soil is close at hand, literally at our feet, we currently farm/manage about 4.8 billion hectares of land, either for crops or grazing, and with the right techniques,
the job could be done very economically with numerous co-benefits, if not profitably.
For argument's sake to get a handle on capacity, imagine increasing soil carbon levels on 4.8 billion hectares from an average of say 2% to 3% one meter deep. That may seem like a gargantuan task to some in the scientific community, which has often held that
building soil organic matter (and thus carbon) was an incredibly slow process, perhaps gaining only 0.01% per year. However, field observations from well-managed regenerative farms have consistently demonstrated that increases of a half-percentage point of
soil organic matter per year are entirely possible, even in challenging, low-moisture environments.
I'm not at all saying this is possible worldwide in a 2 year time frame.
Given the following assumptions:
Average bulk soil density: 1300 kgs/m3
Average organic carbon content: 2%
Soil mass per hectare to 1m depth: 13,000 tonnes (10,000 m3 * 1.3)
Carbon mass per hectare to 1m depth @2%: 260 tonnes
Added carbon per hectare to 1m depth @3%: 130 tonnes
CO2e of 130 t C: 477 tonnes CO2 sequestered per hectare
And finally, 477 * 4.8 billion hectare = 2290 gigatonnes CO2
The 1 meter depth is more of a challenge, but field practice using a keyline plough to cut deep, narrow, widely spaced furrows perpendicular to landscape water flows has been shown to rapidly increase carbon accumulation at depth, particularly in combination
with deep rooting forbes that are commonly found in fertile, native grasslands that feature a deep carbon profile.
I get the feeling that soil sequestration is ignored, or relegated to a second class status, because it isn't "permanent". The value proposition of DACCS, BECCS and EW is that these methods are permanent, but if we cannot scale them, and soon, because of their
high cost and/or need for scarce resources, that value proposition is a mirage, shimmering on an unattainable horizon. The value proposition of soil sequestration is that it is cost-effective. Are we losing an opportunity by not focusing on this approach because
of its perceived second class status?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB4994E6CAA64B2DFF38D814D1DD2FA%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
Benoit Lambert
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toCarbonDioxideRe...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB4994E6CAA64B2DFF38D814D1DD2FA%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.