‘Nature positive’ is not a slogan – it’s an inspiring ambition and a measurable goal

Embracing change is necessary as the climate and nature crises move toward irreversible tipping points, and the costs for individuals and the economy rise exponentially. In fact, change is inevitable — whether we choose it or wait until it is forced upon us by nature herself. 

But transitions are filled with uncertainty, and natural evolution has forged in us a short-term, risk-averse attitude. In addition, vested interests and privilege holders who benefit from business as usual are resisting change. We are seeing all this play out today. In our conflicted, polarized and confused world, the old is failing and the new is not yet emerging at the scale and pace necessary.

In this environment it’s critical to frame a clear, concrete and inspiring vision that fundamentally drives change. Generic narratives and vague aspirations won’t drive action and may contribute to deeper cynicism and the feeling that change is not possible. The world has adopted relevant and measurable goals for climate, such as maintaining the average global temperature rise well below 2°C and “halting and reversing biodiversity loss” — or becoming “nature positive,” for short.

Against this backdrop of urgency, the article “14 Sustainability clichés to retire in 2025,” published by Trellis on July 30, suggests that we abandon some key terms that represent goals vital to achieving a sustainable future. I argue that this is not what we need. What we need, instead, is to ensure that companies, organizations and governments use them correctly.

The terms in question include “net-zero emissions,” “nature positive” (initially defined in a 2021 paper then adopted the next year in the language of the Mission of the Global Biodiversity Framework of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity), and “circularity” in the context of circular economies, commonly defined as a strategy to “reduce, reuse and recycle” in order to live within the world’s natural resource limits. 

Confusion and cynicism

Dismissing these well-defined and broadly adopted terms means also dismissing the ambition they signify, and the goals, targets and pathways that drive action — that are, in fact, crucial to mobilizing and merging efforts. Listing them alongside generic adjectives like “green” and “ecofriendly” while calling for them to be “retired” or “ditched” is dangerous. It runs the risk of feeding confusion and cynicism — and worse, undermining action — at a time when representatives of the status quo are already actively seeking to derail the momentum on sustainability.  

The specter of a post-truth world is upon us — one in which emotion and personal belief shape public opinion more than objective facts do. But facts matter. The planet is finite, and we need to come to terms with living within its boundaries. So when we witness attempts to undermine ambition or blatantly misuse important terms, our collective response must be to defend both the terms and their ambition, and call out those who intentionally misuse them.

If we believe that decarbonizing our economy, halting and reversing biodiversity loss and reducing overconsumption and waste are key pillars of a sustainable, safer, more prosperous and equitable future, do we really think that erasing language (and the targets they represent) like net-zero emissions, circular economy and net-positive biodiversity will help advance the climate, nature and waste agendas?

We must resist this temptation, because the only alternative is to begin afresh with new terms and new definitions that will themselves have to follow a long and arduous path to political and societal acceptance — a process that humanity simply does not have time for, given the current runaway climate change and collapse of crucial ecosystems and the benefits that nature provides. The real issue is not with the terms themselves, but rather with the way they are used. Unsubstantiated words and claims should be opposed without hesitation. The clearer the definitions, the easier it is to call out their misuse.

Measurable ambition to drive action

That’s why we were so careful in defining the term “nature positive” from the start, and in expanding upon it in the recently published Becoming Nature Positive. It’s also why we are now finalizing metrics and guidance to credibly and practically measure nature-positive outcomes, with the help of a group of global companies from the most relevant sectors and with oversight from a group of leading technical organizations that will ensure credibility. 

At the Nature Positive Initiative we are strong advocates of measuring concrete action and outcomes. Still, I believe that the use of inspirational language like nature positive — not as a slogan, but as a clear vision and a measurable goal — is essential to draw people in. More important, in defining the aspiration to less expert audiences, such language galvanizes action at the scale required to achieving our collective sustainability goals.