Carbon offsetting of fossil fuel emissions through afforestation is limited by financial viability and spatial requirements

Abstract Burning the reserves of the 200 largest fossil fuel companies could generate 673 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, far exceeding the remaining 400-gigatonne budget needed to limit warming to 1.5 °C by 2050. Rapid action is needed to reduce, or where necessary, offset emissions from burning fossil fuels but it remains unclear who will bear the cost. Our study aims to show the limits of offsetting using reserve data from the 200 largest fossil fuel companies sourced from Fossil Free Funds and carbon capture rates from peer-reviewed ecological studies. We show that if the cost of offsetting fossil fuel emissions exceeds $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide, fossil fuel companies could have negative market valuations. Using the social cost of carbon, we find the climate-related externalities associated with these reserves exceed their market valuation. Afforestation is often proposed as a carbon sequestration solution, but offsetting emissions from fossil fuel reserves would require covering an area the size of North and Central America solely with trees, displacing communities, farmland and existing habitats. Afforestation, while more economical could disrupt existing ecosystems that provide vital ecosystem services.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Communications Earth & Environment
Published
2025-06-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02394-y
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Forest Management and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.42
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Carbon offsetting of fossil fuel emissions through afforestation is limited by financial viability and spatial requirements

Alain Naef, Nina L. Friggens, Patrick Njeukam
4 citations
Communications Earth & Environment
Forest Management and Policy
4.42
article

Carbon offsetting of fossil fuel emissions through afforestation is limited by financial viability and spatial requirements

Alain Naef, Nina L. Friggens, Patrick Njeukam
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Abstract Burning the reserves of the 200 largest fossil fuel companies could generate 673 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, far exceeding the remaining 400-gigatonne budget needed to limit warming to 1.5 °C by 2050. Rapid action is needed to reduce, or where necessary, offset emissions from burning fossil fuels but it remains unclear who will bear the cost. Our study aims to show the limits of offsetting using reserve data from the 200 largest fossil fuel companies sourced from Fossil Free Funds and carbon capture rates from peer-reviewed ecological studies. We show that if the cost of offsetting fossil fuel emissions exceeds $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide, fossil fuel companies could have negative market valuations. Using the social cost of carbon, we find the climate-related externalities associated with these reserves exceed their market valuation. Afforestation is often proposed as a carbon sequestration solution, but offsetting emissions from fossil fuel reserves would require covering an area the size of North and Central America solely with trees, displacing communities, farmland and existing habitats. Afforestation, while more economical could disrupt existing ecosystems that provide vital ecosystem services.

Communications Earth & EnvironmentVol. 6(1)
École Supérieure des Sciences Économiques et Commerciales (FR), University of Exeter (GB), CY Cergy Paris Université (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Forest Management and Policy
4.42
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.