This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Climate change Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide Chemistry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Geology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment High‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

The content of Carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems was merged into Carbon sequestration on November 13, 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article was nominated for merging with Carbon dioxide removal on 26 May 2024. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Don’t merge.

Section sizes Section size for Carbon sequestration (33 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 5,670 5,670 393 393 Terminology 2,578 2,578 139 139 Roles 13 6,792 0 440 In nature 1,205 1,205 104 104 In climate change mitigation and policies 5,574 5,574 336 336 Biological carbon sequestration on land 3,153 58,831 104 2,518 Forestry 24,535 24,535 1,091 1,091 Wetlands 12,900 16,633 423 590 Peatlands, mires and peat bogs 3,733 3,733 167 167 Agriculture 5,959 11,901 355 553 Carbon farming 61 61 0 0 Prairies 1,821 1,821 63 63 Biochar 4,060 4,060 135 135 Burial of biomass 2,609 2,609 180 180 Geological carbon sequestration 39 18,234 0 923 Underground storage in suitable geologic formations 6,367 6,367 398 398 Mineral sequestration 2,357 11,828 149 525 Mineral carbonation 9,471 9,471 376 376 Sequestration in oceans 407 36,120 9 1,662 Marine carbon pumps 1,766 1,766 142 142 Vegetated coastal ecosystems 81 81 0 0 Seaweed farming and algae 9,922 9,922 368 368 Ocean fertilization 424 424 38 38 Artificial upwelling 5,842 5,842 275 275 Basalt storage 3,858 9,450 197 560 Mineralization and deep sea sediments 5,592 5,592 363 363 Adding bases to neutralize acids 4,444 5,193 105 130 Single-step carbon sequestration and storage 749 749 25 25 Abandoned ideas 25 3,035 0 140 Direct deep-sea carbon dioxide injection 3,010 3,010 140 140 Costs 2,422 2,422 76 76 See also 118 118 0 0 References 385 385 0 0 Total 131,150 131,150 6,151 6,151

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 8.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Carbon capture and storage#Mineral storage / mineral carbonation|mineral sequestration]] The anchor (#Mineral storage / mineral carbonation) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

I'm concerned that the lead section of this article is heavily weighted towards human intervention, and particularly on deep geologic storage of carbon dioxide. The lead says nothing about the carbon-sequestering value of leaving old growth forests, peatlands, and native grasslands alone. Deep geologic storage of carbon dioxide, which is an expensive and thus-far little-used technology, is mentioned three times:

1. "within carbon capture and storage projects"
2. "Artificial processes have been devised to produce similar effects, including large-scale, artificial capture and sequestration of industrially produced CO2 using subsurface saline aquifers or aging oil fields. Other technologies that work with carbon sequestration include bio-energy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, enhanced weathering, direct air carbon capture and sequestration (DACCS)."
3. "Carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere can also be stored in the Earth's crust by injecting it into the subsurface"

By rough estimates, anthropogenic carbon removal sequesters 2 gigatons of CO2 per year, including a tiny amount of deep geologic sequestration. Non-anthropogenic processes sequester around 10 times as much. I will add a POV tag to the article as I think this bias in the lead is severe. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we stand with this now? I noticed that User:Jack4576 removed the tag that Clayoquot had added, in this edit with this edit summary: "there are presently no active NPOV or neutrality discussions on the talk page". Does that mean the issue with the lead has been resolved? EMsmile (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see some of the repetition around DAC has been removed, which is good. However, I don't think the issues with the lead have been resolved. My comment above saying there is nothing about the carbon-sequestering value of leaving old growth forests, peatlands, and native grasslands alone. has not been addressed. The following has also been removed, which makes the lead even less informative about the significance of vegetation:

Forests, kelp beds, and other forms of plant life absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, and bind it into biomass. However, these biological stores are considered volatile carbon sinks as the long-term sequestration cannot be guaranteed. For example, natural events, such as wildfires or disease, economic pressures and changing political priorities can result in the sequestered carbon being released back into the atmosphere.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had moved that paragraph today from the lead to the main text as I felt it wasn't a suitable summary. The content about a carbon sink being "volatile" or not was not described in the main text yet. In the lead, this information about it being a volatile carbon sink was confusing to me. It sounded like volatile means not really a carbon sequestration, at least not a long-term one. Do we understand carbon sequestration as storage regardless if long or short-term? Perhaps we could clarify this with a sentence or two in the definition section and then summarise it in the lead. EMsmile (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also plan to move big chunks of this article from the "geologic sequestration" section to the carbon capture and storage article as I think it fits better there. Unless there are objections. EMsmile (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon sequestration can be either short or long term. Instead of "volatile" you can just say "impermanent". The points in the section that you removed are important for the lead. "Forests, kelp beds, and other forms of plant life absorb carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, and bind it into biomass" is the most important sentence in the article. One of the most important sentences in the encyclopedia, I would venture to say. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to put it back in. Would be good if you could also explain there the issue of permanent versus impermanent. When C sequestration is done as part of CCS then it's meant to be permanent. When C sequestration is done as part of normal photosynthesis then it's not permanent, right? Maybe the issue is that the term "carbon sequestration" is used with different connotations in the biology context (natural carbon cycle) versus the climate change mitigation context (locking away carbon). But I am just guessing.

I don't follow you though when you say "One of the most important sentences in the encyclopedia, I would venture to say". How so? Isn't it just a sentence that describes the basics of photosynthesis? "plant life absorbs carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, and bind it into biomass". How is this so special?

What about my other suggestions about moving stuff out and trimming the article down (and the edits that I did yesterday). I see it as a high level article that should not go into too much detail for all the different processes, natural or engineered ones. - Pinging User:InformationToKnowledge as I always find it interesting when they critique an article. EMsmile (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back in. I don't have the energy for further discussion on this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change#How to clean up the mess around trees and mitigation? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I have moved the forestry info (except albedo) from carbon sink to here and then excerpted all the forestry info here back there. I am now trying to condense the forestry info which is here. Help and suggestions welcome. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also ideas welcome at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albedo#What_should_we_add_from_this_article? as that is excerpted Chidgk1 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following me moving some text from carbon sink to here there is now some deforestation info here. Should all the info about deforestation affect on sequestration be in Deforestation and climate change rather than here? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and have done a bit of work to condense the "forestry" section (this needs further work; I am struggling to establish a logical flow here). But I wouldn't move content to Deforestation and climate change, rather to deforestation or reforestation. See also my concern about that article (Deforestation and climate change) on its talk page. EMsmile (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this quote from the IPCC AR6 report as I felt it was too cryptic for our average readers and also digressing into other areas. Could we rather take just the essence of it and say it in our own words? "IPCC AR6 concluded that “Where carefully and appropriately implemented, AFOLU mitigation measures are uniquely positioned to deliver substantial co-benefits and help address many of the wider challenges associated with land management. If AFOLU measures are deployed badly then, when taken together with the increasing need to produce sufficient food, feed, fuel and wood, they may exacerbate trade-offs with the conservation of habitats, adaptation, biodiversity and other services.”^[1]" EMsmile (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have not got time at the moment but you are right AFOLU is jargon and food mention is confusing and it needs rewriting - feel free to ping me if I have not done it in a week or two. Chidgk1 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have made an attempt Chidgk1 (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the hatnote mention is enough as otherwise the reader might be confused.

Also should Carbon dioxide removal be mentioned in the lead and if so how? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this textblock about concrete from the "mineral carbonisation" section (a section that I felt was overly long and detailed, and difficult to understand for the layperson reader). In case, this should go back in, or should go into a different Wikipedia article, please advise:

++++++++

Concrete is a promising destination for captured carbon dioxide. Several advantages that concrete offers include, but not limited to: a source of plenty of calcium due to its substantial production all over the world; a thermodynamically stable condition for carbon dioxide to be stored as calcium carbonates; and its long-term capability of storing carbon dioxide as a material widely used in infrastructure.^[2][3] Demolished concrete waste or recycled concrete could be also used aside from newly produced concrete.^[4] Studies at HeidelbergCement show that carbon sequestration can turn demolished and recycled concrete into a supplementary cementitious material, which can act as a secondary binder in tandem with Portland cement, in new concrete production.^[5][6] EMsmile (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMsmile (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current image in the lead (see on the right) is not very suitable. I am looking at it and can't figure out what I am looking at. Is this some kind of carbon cycle, where is the CO2 coming in or going. What are those strange yellow bundles at the right. They look like French fries but are meant to symbolise crops, I guess. There are some other schematics in Wikimedia Commons that come up when searching for carbon sequestration, although nothing that immediately convinced me. EMsmile (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMsmile (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 3 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thomas0verton.ncsu (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Access to Clean Water, Urban Infrastructure group.

— Assignment last updated by Urban Infrastructure group (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claims that carbon farming can offset anthropogenic carbon emissions are common among regenerative agriculture advocates, and numerous articles on Wikipedia indicate that this claim is widespread and untrue:

• Holistic management (agriculture) § Carbon sequestration claims
• Allan Savory § Praise and criticism
• Common Ground (2023 film) § Criticisms

This article is an appropriate place for someone to look who is interested in the relative potential of carbon farming vs. other methods of carbon sequestration and the validity of this claim. Unfortunately, the article currently provides no information on this topic. Carbon sequestration § Carbon farming is an excerpt from Carbon farming, which is fine, and perhaps it is really that article which most needs improvement. In any case, content on this topic should be added to this article. Daask (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]