Every year, a large share of the carbon pollution we pump into the atmosphere – mainly from burning fossil fuels – is pulled back to the earth by natural systems.
Plants absorb carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and turn it into biomass. Oceans also soak up a portion of this pollution. These processes help slow the speed of climate change, but they can’t keep up with how fast we’re emitting.
Making climate solutions more effective
For years, scientists and policymakers have pushed for nature-based approaches to help fill the gap – preserving forests, planting trees, restoring wetlands. The idea is to let nature do what it does best. However, these efforts haven’t delivered the climate punch many hoped for.
A new study led by scientists at the University of Utah’s Wilkes Center for Climate Science & Policy, with support from researchers at nine other universities, lays out a clearer path forward.
The research proposes a way to make nature-based climate solutions more effective, more transparent, and better aligned with science.
Carbon offsets fail to cut emissions
The study looks closely at the current system of carbon “offsets.” Companies and governments often use these programs to balance out their own emissions by funding tree planting or forest conservation.
In theory, this should cancel out a portion of the carbon they emit. But in practice, it often doesn’t work that way.
“Nature-based climate solutions are human actions that leverage natural processes to either take carbon out of the atmosphere or stop the emissions of carbon to the atmosphere,” said study lead author Professor William Anderegg.
“Those are the two main broad categories. There are the avoided emissions, and that’s activities like stopping deforestation. Then there’s the greenhouse gas-removal pathways. That’s things like reforestation where you plant trees, and as those trees grow, they suck up CO2 out of the atmosphere.”
Many offsets fall short
The paper highlights a fundamental flaw in how most current offset programs operate: they let companies claim credit for forest projects without guaranteeing those projects actually result in new carbon savings.
Even worse, many projects aren’t built to last. Trees planted today could be wiped out tomorrow by wildfires, drought, pests, or disease.
“There are widespread problems with accounting for their climate impact,” said study co-author Libby Blanchard, a postdoctoral researcher in Anderegg’s lab.
“For example, despite the potential for albedo to reduce or even negate the climate mitigation benefits of some forest carbon projects, calculating for the effect of albedo is not considered in any carbon-crediting protocols to date.”
Some climate solutions are flawed
The team outlines four critical components that must be in place for nature-based climate solutions to succeed. These aren’t just theoretical – they are essential if forest-based climate actions are going to make a measurable impact.
First, the project must lead to net global cooling. Some tree-planting efforts can unintentionally warm the planet instead. This happens when dark trees are planted in snow-covered regions, reducing the land’s ability to reflect sunlight – a phenomenon known as albedo.
“If you go in an ecosystem that is mostly snow covered and you plant really dark conifer trees, that can actually outweigh the carbon storage benefit and heat up the planet,” Anderegg said.
Interventions must include real benefits
Second, the intervention must result in additional climate benefits. The action has to go beyond what would have happened anyway.
Protecting forests that were never at risk of being cut down doesn’t count. “You have to change behavior or change some sort of outcome,” Anderegg said.
“You can’t just take credit for what was going to happen anyway. One great example here is if you pay money to keep a forest from deforestation, but it was never going to be cut down to begin with, then you haven’t done anything for the climate.”
Locking away carbon
Third, the solution must avoid carbon “leakage.” This happens when carbon-saving actions in one location lead to increased emissions elsewhere – for example, stopping logging in one region only to have it shift to another.
Finally, the solution must store carbon long enough to make a difference. Fossil fuel emissions inject carbon into the atmosphere that lingers for centuries. That means nature-based projects must be designed to lock carbon away for at least that long.
Current programs are too weak
“You have to know how big the risks are, and you have to account for those risks in the policies and programs,” Anderegg said. “Otherwise, basically you’re going to lose a lot of that carbon storage as climate change accelerates the risks.”
Most current programs try to address these risks using “buffer pools,” but the study finds those safeguards are too weak.
The research team is now working on stronger approaches to ensure carbon stays stored for the long haul.
Real action against carbon emissions
Instead of handing out carbon credits that companies use to justify their emissions, the authors propose a simpler model: encourage companies to contribute to climate solutions without tying those contributions to claims of neutrality.
In other words, fund the work, but don’t pretend it cancels out emissions unless the science backs it up.
This contribution model would push for higher standards. It would favor projects that actually reduce atmospheric carbon, last for decades or more, and don’t rely on shaky assumptions.
Taking climate solutions seriously
The stakes are high. The study estimates that about 31% of the carbon we emit through human activity gets absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems, especially forests.
But we’re also losing forests fast – deforestation today releases roughly 1.9 gigatons of carbon annually, nearly equal to Russia’s total emissions.
“Actions to halt and reverse deforestation are a critical part of climate stabilization pathways,” noted the researchers. It’s time to treat nature-based climate solutions with the seriousness they deserve. They can help, but only if we get them right.
The full study was published in the journal Nature.
—–
Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.
Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.
—–
