This article examines trade-offs in land-based carbon removal measures under 1.5°C and 2°C climate scenarios. Using the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), it demonstrates that land-based carbon removals, such as afforestation/reforestation (A/R) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), are sensitive to the strength and scope of land-based mitigation policies. While cumulative A/R and BECCS deployment are inversely related, both are typically part of cost-effective mitigation pathways, with A/R deployed earlier. BECCS has higher removal intensity per unit land over long time horizons, but its intensity is sensitive to feedstock and technology choices, whereas A/R intensity is sensitive to land policy choices. The article also finds a generally positive relationship between agricultural prices and the effectiveness of land-based mitigation, suggesting some trade-offs may be difficult to avoid. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the remaining carbon budgets for limiting global warming to 1.5°C and 2°C are 500 and 1150 GtCO₂, respectively. Land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures, especially A/R and BECCS, may be critical to achieving the long-term mitigation goals of the Paris Agreement. In the IPCC AR6 scenario database, the mean cumulative land-based CDR between 2020 and 2100 is 460 GtCO₂, including 100 GtCO₂ from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) and 360 GtCO₂ from BECCS. Both BECCS and land-system mitigation policies that incentivize carbon storage (e.g., A/R) could be land-intensive. BECCS relies on advanced technologies to convert lignocellulosic biomass into modern energy carriers while capturing biogenic carbon and storing it underground. In contrast, A/R entails expanding forests to enhance the carbon sequestered in vegetation and soil. Land-based policies, where they exist, have also focused on related activities, such as preventing deforestation and conserving natural ecosystems. Land-based mitigation encourages regional resource competition and reallocation as land is physically limited and spatially heterogeneous. The nonlinear trajectory of CO₂ uptake from land-based CDR measures can interact with other time-varying factors, such as agricultural productivity, technological progress, and socioeconomic drivers, introducing additional complexities. Recent studies have explored the biophysical and economic mitigation potential of A/R and BECCS. However, when investigated independently, studies examining different CDR measures may overlook the trade-offs that arise from land competition under mitigation targets. The article finds a strong inverse relationship between cumulative BECCS and LULUCF removals when the carbon budget is controlled, suggesting a potential trade-off between BECCS and LULUCF removals as large-scale bioenergy deployments may induce land use change emissionsThis article examines trade-offs in land-based carbon removal measures under 1.5°C and 2°C climate scenarios. Using the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), it demonstrates that land-based carbon removals, such as afforestation/reforestation (A/R) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), are sensitive to the strength and scope of land-based mitigation policies. While cumulative A/R and BECCS deployment are inversely related, both are typically part of cost-effective mitigation pathways, with A/R deployed earlier. BECCS has higher removal intensity per unit land over long time horizons, but its intensity is sensitive to feedstock and technology choices, whereas A/R intensity is sensitive to land policy choices. The article also finds a generally positive relationship between agricultural prices and the effectiveness of land-based mitigation, suggesting some trade-offs may be difficult to avoid. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the remaining carbon budgets for limiting global warming to 1.5°C and 2°C are 500 and 1150 GtCO₂, respectively. Land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures, especially A/R and BECCS, may be critical to achieving the long-term mitigation goals of the Paris Agreement. In the IPCC AR6 scenario database, the mean cumulative land-based CDR between 2020 and 2100 is 460 GtCO₂, including 100 GtCO₂ from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) and 360 GtCO₂ from BECCS. Both BECCS and land-system mitigation policies that incentivize carbon storage (e.g., A/R) could be land-intensive. BECCS relies on advanced technologies to convert lignocellulosic biomass into modern energy carriers while capturing biogenic carbon and storing it underground. In contrast, A/R entails expanding forests to enhance the carbon sequestered in vegetation and soil. Land-based policies, where they exist, have also focused on related activities, such as preventing deforestation and conserving natural ecosystems. Land-based mitigation encourages regional resource competition and reallocation as land is physically limited and spatially heterogeneous. The nonlinear trajectory of CO₂ uptake from land-based CDR measures can interact with other time-varying factors, such as agricultural productivity, technological progress, and socioeconomic drivers, introducing additional complexities. Recent studies have explored the biophysical and economic mitigation potential of A/R and BECCS. However, when investigated independently, studies examining different CDR measures may overlook the trade-offs that arise from land competition under mitigation targets. The article finds a strong inverse relationship between cumulative BECCS and LULUCF removals when the carbon budget is controlled, suggesting a potential trade-off between BECCS and LULUCF removals as large-scale bioenergy deployments may induce land use change emissions