The durability distraction that’s delaying climate action

These days, it’s not uncommon to find people who believe that natural carbon storage solutions aren’t viable unless they’re 100 percent certain that carbon can be locked away for a long time. They pit the carbon storage ability (durability) of peatlands and forests against that of geological solutions and direct air capture, arguing that only permanent carbon storage guarantees true climate impact. 

This belief stems from concerns that nature-based solutions, being dynamic and exposed to external risks, may not provide reliable long-term sequestration. However, this oversimplified view ignores the role of active management and risk mitigation, ultimately jeopardizing the pace of climate action by diverting attention and investment away from proven, scalable solutions.

Science says otherwise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that natural carbon sinks are, in fact, essential to achieving our global climate goals. Currently, natural ecosystems absorb almost a third of human-caused emissions, while also providing essential services to people and economies. The consequences of failing to protect these systems are far more severe than potential sequestration reversal.

In spite of our disruptive efforts to cut, clear and burn them, forests remove large amounts of humanity’s emissions from the atmosphere. But this service is not guaranteed. Unless we conserve and restore forests, their destruction will emit more carbon than they capture. As global carbon sinks are increasingly threatened, pitting nature-based storage against tech is extremely unhelpful. Not only does it distract decision-makers from taking urgent action, but it also undermines support for reliable, necessary nature-based climate solutions.

Proven removal, despite misinformation

The notion that carbon storage is only valuable if it lasts forever ignores how climate systems function. Even in the face of wildfires, pests, droughts and storms, forests and wetlands have stored carbon reliably for millennia. While individual trees may die, forests recover, absorb and retain carbon over long periods — sometimes for thousands of years. 

This is clearer than ever thanks to recent advances in risk mapping and digital monitoring. It has never been easier to assess the durability of natural carbon storage. Scientists are improving spatial modelling, identifying the best places to protect and restore forests to reduce exposure to wildfires and droughts. Additionally, mechanisms such as appropriately sized buffer pools, insurance and financial instruments can mitigate the impact of any reversals, whether from natural disturbances such as wildfires or human-driven changes such as deforestation.  

Despite these scientific tools, misinformation has complicated matters in recent years. As a result, many businesses are concerned about the durability of natural carbon sinks – some even think these projects should be avoided. That’s why we’re seeing many corporate climate strategies prioritize investing in geological and tech-based carbon removal. There’s also a growing policy interest in tech-based removal projects, including within the EU Green Claims Directive. 

This narrative is both dangerous and wrong. Climate experts know that there’s a risk of reversal with all carbon removal methods. The IPCC has confirmed that no approach — nature-based or technological — is risk-free. While it’s certainly true that the durability of natural storage can be threatened by illegal logging and natural disasters, geological storage and direct air capture also have challenges. For one, geological and tech-based solutions have never been used at scale and, as the IPCC notes, “reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

What’s more, these solutions are so expensive that scaling them in the short to medium term is unrealistic. In 2024, scientists calculated it would cost between $230 and $540 to remove one tonne of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in 2050. If we were to rely solely on these solutions, scientists estimate that to maintain a safe and liveable climate, we’d need to remove around 10 gigatonnes of CO₂ per year by 2050. This level of removal is essential for limiting global temperature rise and avoiding catastrophic climate impacts, yet it remains unattainable with current technological solutions alone. 

The diversified, science-led approach

Carbon credits are one way to fund and incentivize urgently needed emission reduction. Forest conservation projects are issued credits corresponding to the volume of carbon they prevent from entering the atmosphere. To make them worthwhile, forest conservation projects and programs require carbon credits to sell for more than they currently do (less than $10 a tonne). But even if one credit sold for the desired price of about $60, it’s still significantly lower than the price of tech-based removals. 

Businesses need to understand that taking a diversified approach—combining technological removal with nature-based removals and reductions—is the best way to meet net-zero targets. Nature is here now, but tech is still developing.

Investing in natural carbon sinks using voluntary carbon credits is a cost-effective way for businesses to support vital climate mitigation. So rather than debating durability in a vacuum, companies should take a science-led approach to carbon integrity — one that ensures the carbon credits they purchase and the projects they support have been assessed for durability and take an active approach to risk management. 

Practically, this means seeking projects that rely on independent data-driven tools to address wildfires, pests and deforestation and which implement safeguards such as real-time monitoring and buffer pools. 

But it’s also important to understand that even if some carbon storage is limited to a few decades, it still delivers significant benefits by reducing peak warming and delaying irreversible tipping points. This buys crucial time to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors and advance technological carbon removal solutions.

The real risk is inaction

For companies, ignoring nature-based solutions due to durability concerns presents a reputational and financial risk. While businesses might think caution is the right approach, inaction and “greenhushing” slows the pace of global decarbonization by limiting the acceptance of innovative climate strategies.

Paradoxically, “staying safe” is perhaps the most risky strategy a business can take. Those who fail to integrate nature-based strategies into their climate plans may face increased scrutiny from investors, regulators and consumers. And with climate tipping points fast approaching, the cost of delay is far greater than the risks of action. 

The integrity of carbon markets depends on a balanced approach that includes both tech-based removals and nature-based removals and reductions. A foolish investor puts all their money in one pot, while the wise investor spreads their wealth across many, maximizing their opportunities to win. Businesses would be wise to treat climate solutions in the same way.