Nature restoration cited as climate solution with no trade-offs when done right
The Story
A scientific article published in 2019 stated that natural forest restoration was the “best climate change solution” available, based not only on carbon capture but also on improving human livelihoods and wellbeing. The author, a scientist and founder of Restor.eco, argues that when restoration of natural habitats is done correctly, it avoids the trade-offs associated with technological or geoengineering fixes.
Key Facts
- In 2019, the author and their team published a statement in the journal Science that natural forest restoration was the “best climate change solution” available.
- A colleague from the World Wildlife Fund advised that this message could be “career suicide” because reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the most urgent priority, and nature revival might help with 30% of carbon drawdown needs but cannot replace emission cuts.
- The author agreed then and now but explained that “best” meant for improving livelihoods and wellbeing, not just CO2 impact.
- The article describes stratospheric aerosol injection and direct air carbon capture as solutions with trade-offs: the former could disrupt crop growth, the latter has high financial and energy costs.
- Habitat restoration is presented as an exception that “present no trade-off at all when they are done right.”
- The article cites feedback loops as ancient forces that allowed life to spread on Earth 3.8bn to 4.2bn years ago and can be harnessed for recovery.
- Examples given: Argentina’s Iberá national park, where reintroduction of jaguars reduced grazing herbivores, allowing wetland plants to recover, creating a carbon sink and supporting species like caimans, macaws, and giant otters; in Saseri, northern India, soil management and tree restoration improved yields for over 1,200 farmers; in Gujarat, India, Indigenous women restored mangroves to protect 12 coastal villages from erosion while improving fisheries, crops, and livestock.
- The article notes that some nature-based solutions are not successful: companies have created carbon farms via monocultural tree planting that destroy native species, and draining peatlands to reduce methane releases large amounts of CO2.
- Ecotourism in Iberá created a “restoration economy” employing rangers, chefs, hosts, wildlife trackers, and guides.
- The author states that less than 1% of global GDP directed to rural land stewards could support their efforts, resulting in “hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 captured.”
- The author is founder of Restor.eco, a non-profit platform for nature restoration sites, and author of the book “Nature’s Echo.”
Conflicting Reports
No conflicting reports identified in the source article.
Still Unclear
No open questions identified in the source article.
Misconceptions
The article acknowledges the misconception that nature restoration alone can solve climate change, stating that reducing emissions remains the most urgent priority and nature restoration can only help with about 30% of carbon drawdown needs.
Key Figures
- The author, a scientist and founder of Restor.eco (name not provided in article)
- An unnamed colleague from the World Wildlife Fund
Sources: The Guardian
