A coalition of scientists warns that excluding natural climate solutions from policy frameworks risks undermining global efforts to cut emissions, emphasising their scalability, co-benefits, and critical role alongside technological innovations.
A coalition of climate scientists is urging global regulators to broaden the role of natural climate solutions (NCS) within climate mitigation frameworks, cautioning that restrictive policies excluding these nature-based interventions could undermine efforts to urgently reduce emissions. In a letter addressed to the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) and the United Nations’ Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, the group warns against the growing preference for engineered carbon removal technologies at the expense of proven natural approaches, which they argue are being unfairly discounted over concerns about permanence and risk of carbon reversals such as forest fires.
According to the scientists, natural climate solutions such as reforestation, peatland restoration, and soil carbon management represent approximately 28% of the world’s high-confidence, cost-effective mitigation potential, based on the 2023 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Yet, many recent policy proposals diminish the importance of NCS citing fears that carbon stored naturally can be released back into the atmosphere. The authors contend this rigidity is counterproductive, noting that managing such risks is feasible and common in other sectors like flood insurance and health policy.
They advocate for recognising the value of temporary carbon removals delivered by NCS, which can help reduce peak warming and provide critical time needed for engineered carbon removal technologies to develop and scale. Unlike many engineered options still constrained by cost and infrastructure gaps, NCS are scalable, cost-effective, and deliver substantial co-benefits, including enhanced biodiversity, improved water quality, and ecosystem resilience.
The letter proposes integrating NCS into emerging standards on residual emissions, particularly within beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM) and Scope 3 reduction targets. This pragmatic portfolio approach acknowledges that natural and technological carbon removals should be complementary rather than seen in competition. The scientists warn that without timely inclusion of nature-based solutions, the global climate strategy risks sidelining a vital, near-term tool for achieving emissions reductions.
Backing this perspective, organisations like the National Wildlife Federation have long championed natural climate solutions as integral to climate mitigation and resilience strategies, emphasising actions such as conserving forests, restoring wetlands, and sustainable land management to boost carbon sequestration while supporting biodiversity. Similarly, the National Audubon Society highlights how conserving and restoring critical habitats — forests, grasslands, and wetlands — not only sequesters carbon but also bolsters wildlife and ecosystem health.
Industry actors like the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) also recognise the potential of NCS, promoting projects especially in biodiverse regions such as Brazil. They focus on harmonising carbon accounting standards and collaborating with international organisations to ensure the integrity and scalability of high-quality NCS carbon credit projects, which complements broader climate goals.
Scientific research further supports these calls. A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences identifies twenty conservation and land management actions that could provide over a third of the cost-effective mitigation needed by 2030 to stabilize warming below 2°C. McKinsey & Company’s analysis estimates that natural climate solutions could remove up to seven gigatons of CO2 annually by the end of the decade, accounting for nearly one-third of the mitigation required under the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C scenario.
To maximise impact while safeguarding environmental and social outcomes, organisations like The Nature Conservancy advocate adhering to five science-based principles for implementing NCS. These ensure that efforts result from responsible ecosystem stewardship, sustain biodiversity and food production, provide durable climate mitigation, are measurable, and respect human rights and Indigenous self-determination.
Overall, the evolving consensus calls for a balanced climate strategy where natural climate solutions play an essential—and not sidelined—role alongside technological removals. Recognising their unique scalability, cost-effectiveness, and multiple co-benefits, policymakers are urged to integrate NCS more fully into climate frameworks to mobilise their full potential in the critical near term, while continuing to develop engineered solutions for longer-term climate security.
📌 Reference Map:
- Paragraph 1 – [1]
- Paragraph 2 – [1]
- Paragraph 3 – [1]
- Paragraph 4 – [1], [6]
- Paragraph 5 – [1], [2], [4]
- Paragraph 6 – [1], [3]
- Paragraph 7 – [7], [6]
- Paragraph 8 – [5]
- Paragraph 9 – [1], [6], [7], [2], [3], [4], [5]
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative appears to be original, with no exact matches found in earlier publications. The earliest known publication date of similar content is from 2024. The report is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. No discrepancies in figures, dates, or quotes were identified. The content has not been republished across low-quality sites or clickbait networks. The update may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.
Quotes check
Score:
9
Notes:
No identical quotes were found in earlier material, indicating potentially original or exclusive content. No variations in quote wording were identified.
Source reliability
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative originates from a reputable organisation, The Nature Conservancy, which is a strength. However, the report is based on a press release, which may raise questions about the objectivity and independence of the information.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative are plausible and align with current scientific understanding. The report advocates for integrating natural climate solutions into climate frameworks, a perspective supported by organisations like the National Wildlife Federation and the National Audubon Society. The tone and language are consistent with typical corporate or official language.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is original and based on a press release from a reputable organisation, The Nature Conservancy. The claims made are plausible and align with current scientific understanding. No discrepancies or issues were identified in the quotes or source reliability.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
