Scientists warn against prioritising tech-driven carbon removals over nature solutions

A group of 40 scientists are urging the SBTi and policymakers not to exclude nature-based carbon removals in their efforts to ensure durability, as a separate report by nonprofit Ceres estimates that nature loss could cost businesses up to US$430 billion a year.

In an open letter to the SBTi Expert Working Group and Article 6.4 Supervisory Body – both of which are currently working on the definition of ‘permanence’ for carbon credits – climate scientists working at universities, research centres and NGOs across the globe argue that nature climate solutions “must be an integral component to achieving international climate goals”.

Because of the increased risk of wildfires and nature loss caused by extreme weather events, standard-setters and policymakers are debating whether nature is a reliable climate solution: forest carbon credits, for example, could be ‘reversed’ in the case of wildfires.

With the rise of technology-driven carbon removals such as direct air capture and biochar removals, for which permanence – ie, how long the carbon storage lasts – is much more within the control of developers, there is an argument that nature-based removals should potentially be removed, or at least bumped down, from the list of impactful climate solutions.

Moving beyond the binary of ‘permanent vs. non-permanent’

But this, the scientists argue, would be a mistake. First, they note that reversal risks can be managed through financial instruments, infrastructure design and public health systems – the same mechanisms society routinely uses to manage “uncertain but inevitable risks” such as drought, fire and flooding.

In the letter, they warn policymakers against prioritising “theoretical permanence” from nascent climate solutions over the systems-wide carbon removals nature already provides. They also present evidence showing that even temporary carbon removals provide measurable near-term climate value by reducing peak warming, “buying crucial time for longer-duration solutions to scale”.

More importantly, the scientists issue a stark warning about the consequences of excluding nature from climate solutions: “If even a fraction of global forest and soil carbon stocks were lost, atmospheric CO2 levels would spike, negating decades of fossil fuel emission reductions and creating the need for even more removals.”

Cost of nature loss for businesses

With this argument, they suggest that removing nature from carbon market mechanisms would disincentivise its protection and restoration – leading to significant costs. 

These costs are quantified in a separate Ceres study also published this week: the nonprofit calculates that the five key drivers of nature loss have the potential to cost eight sectors up to US$430 billion per year, globally.

With its Nature’s Price Tag report, the organisation highlights the economic imperative of nature action by companies and investors: if left unchecked, nature loss could cost businesses up to US$2.15 trillion over the next five years – with the food sector facing the steepest price tag.

Climate change is by far the largest driver of nature loss, costing nature-dependent sectors more than US$302 billion a year – this highlights the interconnectedness of the fights against global warming and biodiversity loss and strengthens the climate scientists’ argument that nature must remain part of the climate solution.

“By calculating the costs of inaction, our report shows for the first time the staggering financial risks of escalating nature loss to major sectors of the global economy,” said Meryl Richards, programme director, food and forests at Ceres. “Ceres’ findings deliver companies and their investors a clear and compelling business case for addressing nature risk and building resilience now to prevent paying more for operational and supply chain disruptions, legal fees, and regulatory compliance later on.”