Transforming US agriculture for carbon removal with enhanced weathering

David J. Beerling (), Euripides P. Kantzas, Mark R. Lomas, Lyla L. Taylor, Shuang Zhang, Yoshiki Kanzaki, Rafael M. Eufrasio, Phil Renforth, Jean-Francois Mecure, Hector Pollitt, Philip B. Holden, Neil R. Edwards, Lenny Koh, Dimitar Z. Epihov, Adam Wolf, James E. Hansen, Steven A. Banwart, Nick F. Pidgeon, Christopher T. Reinhard, Noah J. Planavsky and Maria Val Martin
Additional contact information
David J. Beerling: University of Sheffield
Euripides P. Kantzas: University of Sheffield
Mark R. Lomas: University of Sheffield
Lyla L. Taylor: University of Sheffield
Shuang Zhang: Texas A&M University
Yoshiki Kanzaki: Georgia Institute of Technology
Rafael M. Eufrasio: University of Sheffield
Phil Renforth: Edinburgh Campus
Jean-Francois Mecure: University of Exeter
Hector Pollitt: University of Cambridge
Philip B. Holden: The Open University
Neil R. Edwards: University of Cambridge
Lenny Koh: University of Sheffield
Dimitar Z. Epihov: University of Sheffield
Adam Wolf: Princeton University
James E. Hansen: Columbia University
Steven A. Banwart: University of Leeds
Nick F. Pidgeon: Cardiff University
Christopher T. Reinhard: Georgia Institute of Technology
Noah J. Planavsky: Yale University
Maria Val Martin: University of Sheffield

Nature, 2025, vol. 638, issue 8050, 425-434

Abstract: Abstract Enhanced weathering (EW) with agriculture uses crushed silicate rocks to drive carbon dioxide removal (CDR)1,2. If widely adopted on farmlands, it could help achieve net-zero emissions by 20502–4. Here we show, with a detailed US state-specific carbon cycle analysis constrained by resource provision, that EW deployed on agricultural land could sequester 0.16–0.30 GtCO2 yr−1 by 2050, rising to 0.25–0.49 GtCO2 yr−1 by 2070. Geochemical assessment of rivers and oceans suggests effective transport of dissolved products from EW from soils, offering CDR on intergenerational timescales. Our analysis further indicates that EW may temporarily help lower ground-level ozone and concentrations of secondary aerosols in agricultural regions. Geospatially mapped CDR costs show heterogeneity across the USA, reflecting a combination of cropland distance from basalt source regions, timing of EW deployment and evolving CDR rates. CDR costs are highest in the first two decades before declining to about US$100–150 tCO2−1 by 2050, including for states that contribute most to total national CDR. Although EW cannot be a substitute for emission reductions, our assessment strengthens the case for EW as an overlooked practical innovation for helping the USA meet net-zero 2050 goals5,6. Public awareness of EW and equity impacts of EW deployment across the USA require further exploration7,8 and we note that mobilizing an EW industry at the necessary scale could take decades.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08429-2 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nat:nature:v:638:y:2025:i:8050:d:10.1038_s41586-024-08429-2

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/

DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-08429-2

Access Statistics for this article

Nature is currently edited by Magdalena Skipper

More articles in Nature from Nature
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().