Framing “nature‐based” solutions to climate change

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a growth in scholarship on “nature‐based solutions” and “natural climate solutions” to climate change. A variety of actors have argued that these natural solutions—variously involving the protection, conservation, restoration, management, enhancement, or imitation of natural ecosystems—can play a crucial role in both mitigating and adapting to climate change. What is more, by virtue of their label, natural solutions promise to be particularly attractive to the public and policymakers and have received significant media and scholarly attention. But what is natural is also social: people, acting in various social groups, can selectively emphasize or deemphasize certain characteristics of climate solutions to make them seem more or less natural. The framing of particular solutions as “natural” or “unnatural” has far‐reaching implications for climate policy, but has thus far been overlooked. Here, we undertake a critical review of the ways in which natural solutions to climate change have been framed and examine the normative and practical implications of this framing. We review what counts (and what does not count) as a natural solution, and find that those labeled natural are routinely framed under technical and social appraisal criteria as being more beneficial, cost effective, mature, and democratic than ostensibly artificial counterparts. And yet we show that, under greater scrutiny, the natural framing obscures the reality that natural solutions can be just as risky, expensive, immature, and technocratic. We conclude by reflecting on the dangers of narrowing the range of solutions considered natural and indeed, of selecting solutions through recourse to “nature” at all. Rather, climate solutions must be evaluated in terms of their specific qualities, against a far broader range of framings. This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

Carbon Removal Using Coastal Blue Carbon Ecosystems Is Uncertain and Unreliable, With Questionable Climatic Cost-Effectiveness

“…Nature based solutions involving marine processes, such as CBCE restoration, are attractive not only for climate mitigation but also in the context of their other benefits, that include improved food security, reduced coastal erosion, and rebuilding marine biodiversity. They also enjoy stronger public support than ocean-based technological measures regarded as geoengineering (Bertram and Merk, 2020), although the natural/artificial distinction is arguably over-simplistic (Osaka et al, 2021). Table 1 gives estimates by different studies of the potential climatic effectiveness of CBCE restoration, considered as the additional CO 2 that might be removed and stored per year with a ramp-up time of a few years.…”

A Review of Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty Applications Using Green Infrastructure for Flood Management

“…This is particularly prominent when considering riverine/inland and coastal applications using green infrastructure strategies. Other reviews of the green infrastructure literature have found that the overlapping terminology and conceptualizations can hinder communication, collaboration, and research discovery (Kotze et al., 2020; Matsler et al., 2021; Osaka et al., 2021; Prudencio & Null, 2018). The range of terms and strategies outlined in this review highlight the fact that researchers need to clearly convey the strategies used as well as the methodologies and assumptions made to facilitate future research around green infrastructure applications.…”

Informing Nature‐based Climate Solutions for the United States with the best‐available science

“…Even in the best‐case scenarios, NbCS will contribute only a fraction of the emissions reductions necessary to limit warming to <2°C. Nonetheless, removing CO 2 from the atmosphere is part of nearly all net‐zero pathways (Rogelj et al, 2018), and NbCS may offer low‐cost mitigation along with co‐benefits such as improved air and water quality, better soil health, biodiversity maintenance (Fargione et al, 2018), and local climate adaptation (Osaka et al, 2021).…”