The North American Greenhouse Gas Budget: Emissions, Removals, and Integration for CO<sub>2</sub>, CH<sub>4</sub>, and N<sub>2</sub>O (2010–2019): Results From the Second REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes Study (RECCAP2)

Abstract Accurate accounting of greenhouse‐gas (GHG) emissions and removals is central to tracking progress toward climate mitigation and for monitoring potential climate‐change feedbacks. GHG budgeting and reporting can follow either the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodologies for National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGHGI) reporting or use atmospheric‐based “top‐down” (TD) inversions or process‐based “bottom‐up” (BU) approaches. To help understand and reconcile these approaches, the Second REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes study (RECCAP2) was established to quantify GHG emissions and removals for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O), for ten‐land and five‐ocean regions for 2010–2019. Here, we present the results for the North American land region (Canada, the United States, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean). For 2010–2019, the NGHGI reported total net‐GHG emissions of 7,270 TgCO 2 ‐eq yr −1 compared to TD estimates of 6,132 ± 1,846 TgCO 2 ‐eq yr −1 and BU estimates of 9,060 ± 898 TgCO 2 ‐eq yr −1 . Reconciling differences between the NGHGI, TD and BU approaches depended on (a) accounting for lateral fluxes of CO 2 along the land‐ocean‐aquatic continuum (LOAC) and trade, (b) correcting land‐use CO 2 emissions for the loss‐of‐additional‐sink capacity (LASC), (c) avoiding double counting of inland water CH 4 emissions, and (d) adjusting area estimates to match the NGHGI definition of the managed‐land proxy. Uncertainties remain from inland‐water CO 2 evasion, the conversion of nitrogen fertilizers to N 2 O, and from less‐frequent NGHGI reporting from non‐Annex‐1 countries. The RECCAP2 framework plays a key role in reconciling independent GHG‐reporting methodologies to support policy commitments while providing insights into biogeochemical processes and responses to climate change.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024gb008310
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.84

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The North American Greenhouse Gas Budget: Emissions, Removals, and Integration for CO2, CH4, and N2O (2010–2019): Results From the Second REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes Study (RECCAP2)

P. Régnier, Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Gerard Rocher‐Ros, Grant M. Domke et al.
8 citations
Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
8.84
article

The North American Greenhouse Gas Budget: Emissions, Removals, and Integration for CO2, CH4, and N2O (2010–2019): Results From the Second REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes Study (RECCAP2)

P. Régnier, Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Gerard Rocher‐Ros, Grant M. Domke, Brendan Keith Aidan Byrne, Julio César Salazar‐Neira, John Bharat Miller, C. A. Williams, Jonathan Wang, Qing Ying, Naiqing Pan, Judith Andrea Rosentreter, Xinyuan Wei, Kimberly P. Wickland, Lisamarie Windham‐Myers, Kelsey Foster, Werner A. Kurz, Daniel J. Hayes, Suzanne E. Tank, Мaodian Liu, Christopher W. Woodall, David Butman, Laure Resplandy, Guillermo N. Murray‐Tortarolo, Robbie M. Andrew, Rodrigo Vargas, Ana Bastos, Josep G. Canadell, James T. Randerson, Arnaud Mialon, Peter A. Raymond, Yohanna Villalobos, Benjamin Poulter, Abhishek Chatterjee, Andrew F. Feldman, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Nemesio Rodríguez-Fernández, Anna M. Michalak, Neha Hunka, Zhen Zhang, Hanqin Tian, Ayia Lindquist
article en
8 citations

Abstract

Abstract Accurate accounting of greenhouse‐gas (GHG) emissions and removals is central to tracking progress toward climate mitigation and for monitoring potential climate‐change feedbacks. GHG budgeting and reporting can follow either the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodologies for National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGHGI) reporting or use atmospheric‐based “top‐down” (TD) inversions or process‐based “bottom‐up” (BU) approaches. To help understand and reconcile these approaches, the Second REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes study (RECCAP2) was established to quantify GHG emissions and removals for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O), for ten‐land and five‐ocean regions for 2010–2019. Here, we present the results for the North American land region (Canada, the United States, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean). For 2010–2019, the NGHGI reported total net‐GHG emissions of 7,270 TgCO 2 ‐eq yr −1 compared to TD estimates of 6,132 ± 1,846 TgCO 2 ‐eq yr −1 and BU estimates of 9,060 ± 898 TgCO 2 ‐eq yr −1 . Reconciling differences between the NGHGI, TD and BU approaches depended on (a) accounting for lateral fluxes of CO 2 along the land‐ocean‐aquatic continuum (LOAC) and trade, (b) correcting land‐use CO 2 emissions for the loss‐of‐additional‐sink capacity (LASC), (c) avoiding double counting of inland water CH 4 emissions, and (d) adjusting area estimates to match the NGHGI definition of the managed‐land proxy. Uncertainties remain from inland‐water CO 2 evasion, the conversion of nitrogen fertilizers to N 2 O, and from less‐frequent NGHGI reporting from non‐Annex‐1 countries. The RECCAP2 framework plays a key role in reconciling independent GHG‐reporting methodologies to support policy commitments while providing insights into biogeochemical processes and responses to climate change.

Global Biogeochemical CyclesVol. 39(4)
Boston College (US), Canadian Forest Service (CA), Natural Resources Canada (CA), United States Geological Survey (US), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Goddard Space Flight Center (US), Clark University (US), US Forest Service (US), Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (US), University of Alberta (CA), Lund University (SE), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (FR), Carnegie Institution for Science (US), Princeton University (US), University of Washington (US), Peking University (CN), University of California, Irvine (US), University of Utah (US), Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique et aux Énergies Alternatives (FR), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE), Yale University (US), Centre d'Études Spatiales de la Biosphère (FR), Northern Research Station (US), CICERO Center for International Climate Research (NO), Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (FR), CEA Paris-Saclay (FR), Irvine University (US), Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center (US), Science Systems and Applications (United States) (US), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (FR), NASA Earth Science, Southern Cross University (AU), University of Maryland, College Park (US), University of Maine (US), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE), University of Delaware (US), Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (MX), Wageningen University & Research (NL), Stanford University (US)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, California Institute of Technology, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
8.84
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.