The study examines the trade-offs and sensitivities of land-based carbon removal measures, such as afforestation/reforestation (A/R) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), under 1.5°C and 2°C climate futures. Using the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), the authors find that these measures are sensitive to the strength and scope of land-based mitigation policies. Key findings include: 1. **Trade-offs Between BECCS and A/R**: There is an inverse relationship between cumulative BECCS and A/R deployment, driven by resource competition. While BECCS has a higher long-term removal intensity, it is sensitive to feedstock and technology choices, whereas A/R is sensitive to land policy choices. 2. **Agricultural Prices and Removal Effectiveness**: A generally positive relationship exists between agricultural prices and the removal effectiveness of land-based mitigation measures, suggesting that some trade-offs may be unavoidable. 3. **Policy Strength and Scope**: Stronger land carbon pricing policies lead to higher land removal intensities and reduce carbon budget overshooting. However, the marginal effectiveness of these policies decreases as the strength of land carbon pricing increases. 4. **Sensitivity to Policy Scenarios**: The impact of land carbon pricing strength on land use patterns and primary bioenergy supply is consistent across different policy scenarios. Stronger land carbon policies encourage more balanced land use between energy crops and forest, leading to higher aggregate removal intensities. 5. **Agricultural Price Implications**: Land-based CDR measures can lead to higher agricultural prices, with the magnitude of the impact varying based on the strength and scope of the policy. Differentiating carbon prices by sector can enhance the explanation of their price transmission to agricultural markets. 6. **Discussion and Implications**: The study highlights the need for careful design of land-based mitigation policies to balance carbon removal effectiveness with broader implications for food security, the environment, and sustainability. It also suggests that harmonizing land-based mitigation policies and assumptions among integrated assessment models could enhance agreement in projections. Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the complex dynamics of land-based carbon removal measures and their implications for climate mitigation strategies.The study examines the trade-offs and sensitivities of land-based carbon removal measures, such as afforestation/reforestation (A/R) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), under 1.5°C and 2°C climate futures. Using the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM), the authors find that these measures are sensitive to the strength and scope of land-based mitigation policies. Key findings include: 1. **Trade-offs Between BECCS and A/R**: There is an inverse relationship between cumulative BECCS and A/R deployment, driven by resource competition. While BECCS has a higher long-term removal intensity, it is sensitive to feedstock and technology choices, whereas A/R is sensitive to land policy choices. 2. **Agricultural Prices and Removal Effectiveness**: A generally positive relationship exists between agricultural prices and the removal effectiveness of land-based mitigation measures, suggesting that some trade-offs may be unavoidable. 3. **Policy Strength and Scope**: Stronger land carbon pricing policies lead to higher land removal intensities and reduce carbon budget overshooting. However, the marginal effectiveness of these policies decreases as the strength of land carbon pricing increases. 4. **Sensitivity to Policy Scenarios**: The impact of land carbon pricing strength on land use patterns and primary bioenergy supply is consistent across different policy scenarios. Stronger land carbon policies encourage more balanced land use between energy crops and forest, leading to higher aggregate removal intensities. 5. **Agricultural Price Implications**: Land-based CDR measures can lead to higher agricultural prices, with the magnitude of the impact varying based on the strength and scope of the policy. Differentiating carbon prices by sector can enhance the explanation of their price transmission to agricultural markets. 6. **Discussion and Implications**: The study highlights the need for careful design of land-based mitigation policies to balance carbon removal effectiveness with broader implications for food security, the environment, and sustainability. It also suggests that harmonizing land-based mitigation policies and assumptions among integrated assessment models could enhance agreement in projections. Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the complex dynamics of land-based carbon removal measures and their implications for climate mitigation strategies.