A detente is needed between the nature and tech communities. Here’s why

The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.​

For the past few years, I’ve spent a lot of time working at the intersection of nature and technology. That work included helping to build the category often referred to as “nature tech” — an attempt to bridge two worlds that were, even five years ago, struggling to understand each other.

The intent was never to promote either nature or technology as ends to themselves. It was to help different communities understand each other better and work together more effectively in service of climate outcomes.

In some ways, that effort succeeded. A vibrant nature tech ecosystem now exists, with entrepreneurs, investors, platforms and tools focused on monitoring, measurement and delivery at scale. And yet, outside that relatively small community, I’m increasingly struck by an  opposite trend: the gap between the nature and tech camps feels wider than ever.

The tone of the debate has hardened. Policy conversations have become more polarised. Media narratives increasingly frame nature-based solutions and technological solutions as competing approaches for removing carbon from the atmosphere. And corporate climate teams are left trying to navigate a landscape of mixed, sometimes contradictory signals.

For companies trying to act responsibly and credibly, this isn’t just frustrating. It’s becoming a real source of delay, risk and confusion in setting strategy, allocating capital and making defensible decisions under scrutiny.

What we’re actually arguing about

At first glance, it looks as though the primary argument between the two communities is about “permanence,” or the degree to which removed CO₂ is kept out of the atmosphere for a specified time period. 

Although there are layers of nuance here, generally speaking, tech-based removals are considered “more permanent” than nature-based removals, because carbon can be re-released into the atmosphere when ecosystems are disturbed through fire, pests or human interventions. 

Therefore, the debate is about whether nature-based solutions are “durable enough” to sit alongside engineered removals in corporate climate strategies, policy frameworks and emerging standards. (The answer is a resounding yes, as a group of more than 160 scientists recently affirmed). 

This debate has become a lightning rod for nature tech. In the context of climate action, permanence versus durability is one of the most visible battlegrounds in the competition for climate resources.

But treating durability as the root cause misses the point. Durability didn’t create the tension between nature and tech. It exposed it. That single word has become a proxy for a much broader set of anxieties — about risk, credibility, timing, control and trust. By concentrating all of that complexity into a binary question, we’ve made the disagreement louder, but not clearer.

How we got here

A big part of the problem is how permanence entered policy, media and corporate conversations in the first place.

Policy frameworks, headlines and public debates rewarded simplified comparisons: Reductions were set against removals. Nature was set against technology. Long-term certainty was set against near-term impact.

Over time, these comparisons hardened into shorthand. Removals became “good” and nature became “questionable”. Or, depending on who’s speaking — and who’s listening — the reverse. The result is an either/or framing that doesn’t reflect how climate action actually works – and that has very real consequences. Companies hesitate, or feel pushed to choose sides unnecessarily. Policymakers make choices that favor one set of viable solutions over another. Near-term finance is delayed while climate risk continues to grow.

One of the most striking things I hear in these conversations is how similar the complaints sound on both sides. From the nature community, I often hear that the tech side must be well-funded, coordinated and moving in lockstep – and that nature is constantly being asked to justify itself against an unfair benchmark.

From the tech community, I hear almost exactly the same thing said in reverse. Each side feels like it’s under attack from a better resourced, better organised and more influential opponent. This may sound crazy, but it’s true. 

The deeper divides underneath

To move forward, it helps to be honest about what’s really driving the tension. The divide between nature and tech isn’t just technical. It is cultural, institutional and deeply rooted in how different communities approach time, risk and proof.

• Different relationships to time: Nature-based solutions deliver impact now. They’re available today and they’re critical in the coming decades — a period that will largely determine whether the worst climate outcomes can still be avoided. Technology-led removals, by contrast, offer a critical solution for climate stability over the long term. Their appeal lies in what they might deliver at scale later, once costs fall and deployment expands. These timelines are often framed as competing, when in reality they are complementary. 
• Different risk cultures: Technology communities tend to approach climate risk by trying to eliminate it — through control, precision and engineered certainty. Nature-based approaches manage risk through governance, buffers, incentives, monitoring and stewardship over time. Neither approach is inherently superior. But corporate risk teams are rarely given a framework to compare them on their own terms, which makes nature-based approaches easier to dismiss.
• Different expectations of proof: Engineered carbon removal solutions are often assessed against deterministic, lab-like standards designed to prove that carbon removal has occurred and will continue to hold over time. Nature operates in complex, living systems. Its outcomes are probabilistic, adaptive and shaped by social as well as ecological factors. CSOs are frequently left translating between these different standards – internally, to boards and finance teams, and externally, to investors and stakeholders.
• Different cultures and ecosystems: Finally, these approaches come from very different worlds. Technology is shaped by fast-moving, venture-driven cultures associated with places like Silicon Valley. Nature-based work is shaped by long-term stewardship in places like tropical forests, rangelands and coastal ecosystems. The incentives, values and lived realities of these communities can sometimes feel worlds apart — and when those differences are ignored, mistrust fills the gap. It’s no surprise it can feel like we’re speaking different languages, because we are. Diversity is a strength, but only if it’s matched with listening, understanding and a deliberate effort to build a shared vocabulary.

Closing the nature-tech gap

If we take a step back, the path forward isn’t especially radical. We need to scale nature now and invest in tech now for it to work later on. 

We need to collectively adopt a portfolio approach. For businesses, that means deliberately building climate strategies that draw across nature and technology, reductions and removals and multiple solution types within each category — as Salesforce has done, for example, by combining long-term commitments to nature-based solutions with deep investment in engineered carbon removal.

Different tools do different jobs. Timing, durability, scale and co-benefits all matter. Climate action requires sequencing and balance, not ranking solutions against each other or waiting for a single perfect option. The question facing corporate leaders is no longer whether nature or technology has a role to play. It’s how quickly they can be brought together into a portfolio that’s credible, defensible and fit for purpose.

We built the bridge a half a decade ago for a reason. It’s time to start using it.