Guillermo Murray-Tortarolo Daniel J. Hayes Philippe Ciais Robbie M. Andrew Ana Bastos Brendan Byrne David Butman Josep G. Canadell Abhishek Chatterjee Grant Domke Andrew F. Feldman Kelsey Foster Neha Hunka Robert B. Jackson Werner A. kurz Ayia Lindquist Maodian Liu Ingrid Luijkx Arnaud Mialon Anna M. Michalak John Miller Wolfgang A. Obermeier Naiqin Pan James T. Randerson Peter A. Raymond Pierre Regnier Laure Resplandy Gerard Rocher-Ros Nemesio Rodriquez-Fernandez Judith A. Rosentreter Julio Cesar Salazar-Neira Suzanne E. Tank Hanqin Tan Rodrigo Vargas Yohanna Villalobos Jonathan A. Wang Xinyuan Wei Kimberly Wickland Christopher J. Williams Lisamarie Windham-Myers Christopher W. Woodall Qing Ying Zhen Zhang Benjamin Poulter 2025 <p><span>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</span>₂<span>), methane (CH</span>₄<span>) and nitrous oxide (N</span>₂<span>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</span>₂<span>-eq yr</span>⁻¹<span>&nbsp;compared to TD estimates of 6,132&nbsp;±&nbsp;1,846 TgCO</span>₂<span>-eq yr</span>⁻¹<span>&nbsp;and BU estimates of 9,060&nbsp;±&nbsp;898 TgCO</span>₂<span>-eq yr</span>⁻¹<span>. Reconciling differences between the NGHGI, TD and BU approaches depended on (a) accounting for lateral fluxes of CO</span>₂<span>&nbsp;along the land-ocean-aquatic continuum (LOAC) and trade, (b) correcting land-use CO</span>₂<span>&nbsp;emissions for the loss-of-additional-sink capacity (LASC), (c) avoiding double counting of inland water CH</span>₄<span>&nbsp;emissions, and (d) adjusting area estimates to match the NGHGI definition of the managed-land proxy. Uncertainties remain from inland-water CO</span>₂<span>&nbsp;evasion, the conversion of nitrogen fertilizers to N</span>₂<span>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.</span></p> application/pdf 10.1029/2024GB008310 en Wiley 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) article