‘Nature-based solutions’ (NbS) are being proposed as a ‘solution’ to climate change.
The most frequent reference to NbS (or sometimes ‘natural climate solutions’, NCS)
includes the disputable claim that NbS could provide around one-third of the global
mitigation effort needed by 2030. Fuzzy definitions and oversimplified and
depoliticised perceptions of NbS as a climate mitigation strategy have facilitated
claims to environmental action by polluting actors, whilst demanding limited
commitment to change. This has a detrimental impact, both at the social and
environmental levels. With reference to the environment, NbS as a concept is
riddled with unrealistic and counterintuitive arguments around ‘off-setting’ and
achieving ‘net-zero’. Such approaches also show little regard for conserving
biodiversity. At the social level, this approach fails to recognise the impact that
strategies such as planting trees for carbon sequestration impacts local communities
and their fundamental human rights. To be more clear about the meaning and
implications of NbS, a more intricate, politicised and human-centred understanding
of carbon emissions, climate change and biodiversity loss is needed. Importantly,
corporate and government actors must be called out for adopting NbS strategies
donned as ‘green’ whilst making limited efforts to cut their emissions. Genuine
acknowledgement of responsibility and a commitment to change is thus needed. A
fundamental part of achieving this task is through a more informed and critical
outlook on NbS.