When Fighting Climate Change, Are Our Efforts Worth It?

What actions are we implementing, and how effective are they?

I open the News app on my phone like I do every morning. What happened overnight? Whenever I see the words ‘Climate Change’ on a headline, I take a second to look in another direction. I take a deep breath. And then I proceed to read…

This time, let it be good news; please tell me we are progressing in the right direction.

Unfortunately, some of these stories bring up the news I’ve feared. Changes in oceanic currents taking us closer to climatic collapse, record high temperatures, record low ice caps, or yet another species going extinct after failing to adapt to changing climatic conditions.

But sometimes, I get the positive news that an adaptation measure applied in a certain area is working, which gives me hope. Most often, the solutions that work well for us involve Nature-based climate solutions (NbCS), which are relatively easier to implement than those imposing restrictions on human societies.

However, are all NbCSs created equal? Do they all work as anticipated? And if not, which ones are making a tangible impact?

Drs. Buma and Gordon from the Environmental Defense Fund published a paper in the prestigious journal Nature Climate Change, providing an “expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions.” But first, let’s review what we know about NbCSs.

NbCSs are different strategies or pathways, including conservation, restoration, and improved management, that aim to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Maximizing nature’s already built-in ecological system to fight climate change is the idea.

However, NbCS may involve “moving systems beyond their original function, for example, by cultivating macroalgae in water deeper than their natural habitat.” Many countries, including Indonesia, China, and Colombia, have pioneered effective NbCS projects. A few years back, I had the opportunity to work for an organization developing some of these projects myself.

Given the urgency of the climate problem, these solutions require a robust, comprehensive, and transparent scientific evaluation. Thus, the study’s authors focused on identifying the NbCS pathways shown to be most effective for climate change and GHG emission mitigation. Additionally, they provided priority research areas for the most uncertain pathways. The authors’ purpose was to evaluate “the current state of scientific understanding necessary to provide confidence in any NbCS.”

Their research focused on ecosystems with the biggest potential to fight climate change — including forests, wetlands, oceans, and even farms — to see how they can capture carbon dioxide. They identified 43 ways to manage these areas, from protecting existing forests to farming seaweed. Most of these methods are already being used and many qualify for carbon credits, which means they’re financially supported. Scientists dedicated great efforts to reviewing all this information to ensure it was reliable and up-to-date.

The authors reviewed a vast amount of research on NbCS and categorized them into three readiness levels based on our perception of their effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gases. Category 1 solutions have the strongest scientific backing, while Category 3 has the least. For category 2 solutions with some promise, scientists identified areas needing further research to improve their measurement and effectiveness. This research might involve understanding how long these solutions store carbon or how well they work in different areas.

Based on current scientific evidence and market activity, the study results showed that protecting existing forests and planting new trees (reforestation) is the most reliable NbCS for reducing GHG. In contrast, some other solutions, particularly in forestry and involving things like modifying soil microbes, are much more uncertain and need further research. Some show promise but require more data to be confident in their effectiveness.

While some nature-based climate solutions like forest protection are clear winners, scientists are cautiously optimistic about a middle group (26 solutions) with moderate uncertainty. These solutions could become more reliable with focused research on specific areas of doubt, like how long they store carbon (durability) or how well they work in different places. However, the authors highlighted the need for more data before being fully confident in the effectiveness of some of these solutions.

Additionally, the authors identified key areas for improvement in different nature-based climate solutions. Forest solutions are most uncertain about how long they’ll store carbon (durability). While some coastal solutions, like mangroves, are promising, others, like seagrass restoration, need more research on their long-term effectiveness.

The potential impact of these solutions varies widely. Stopping deforestation and adding biochar to soil could have the biggest impact, but biochar has other challenges. Restoring forests and grasslands also shows promise. As our scientific understanding of each of these solutions improves, scientists become more confident about its potential impact.

The study also looked at some NbCS with a lower ranking (those with somewhat uncertain benefits), which could still have a big impact on reducing greenhouse gases. These include protecting boreal forests from threats like fire and pests and managing fisheries in deep ocean layers.

While some research suggests these lower-ranking solutions could be very effective, more needs to be done. Scientists need a better understanding of how these solutions work on a large scale and where they would be most effective in the long run. Verifying the potential of these solutions through more research is crucial before they can be widely relied upon in climate change plans.

While the study focuses on the climate change benefits of nature-based solutions (NbS, without the climate component of NbCS), it acknowledges that these solutions offer a wider range of advantages. Even if some NbS have uncertain climate impacts, they can improve biodiversity, water quality, and other environmental factors. Additionally, the authors suggest looking for alternative funding sources besides carbon credits for these solutions with unclear climate benefits but clear environmental benefits.

In addition, the authors offered some words of caution. Good planning and implementation are crucial for any NbCS project to succeed. Even well-researched solutions can only succeed if implemented correctly. On the other hand, careful planning can make even less-studied solutions beneficial in specific situations. So, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for climate change mitigation.

Studies like this can inform both market-based mechanisms and non-market approaches to NbCS pathway management. Ultimately, they offer an invaluable tool for informed decision-making when it comes to finding solutions to fight climate change.

Some days, it is hard to read climate news. But reading this article on my phone that morning left me feeling hopeful. On the one hand, some of the solutions we are implementing are working and helping us advance. On the other, we now have a clear roadmap to take us closer to a more sustainable world where human societies live in harmony with nature.