Nature restoration is no substitute for steep emission reductions

The most recent IPCC report has made it clear that we no longer have time to waste if we want to secure a livable future. In a warming world, a whole toolbox of solutions is needed but one that is often touted is nature restoration.

It’s time we unpack the age-old question:

Can planting trees actually save the Earth? 

While nature restoration activities such as tree planting or reforestation are crucial to planetary health, these are no substitute for the phaseout of fossil fuels.

As one of nature’s most effective carbon storages, trees have the ability to lower atmospheric carbon levels. Unfortunately, there is still the issue of efficiency, scalability, and speed. Restoring degraded ecosystems takes time, and is often limited by existing uses of land. It also cannot be expanded quickly enough to bring down the peak global temperature targets set during the Paris Agreement.

At a realistic rate, nature restoration alone will not bring us close enough to reach the 1.5°C global temperature goal within the century. Paying for a tree offset today is essentially purchasing credit for a solution that will not be effective until around 2040.

Simply put, there is not enough time to offset carbon against the current rate of emissions.

The scope of activities that fall under nature restoration has also come into question. Some popular methods such as monoculture tree plantations, are misguided and do more harm than good. In fact, this practice is damaging to biodiversity because it destroys natural ecosystems in exchange for artificial ‘green deserts’.

The popularity of nature restoration as a remedy to global warming has also overshadowed more sustainable solutions—such as ending deforestation of existing intact ecosystems, and, more importantly:

the elimination of global fossil fuel emissions. 

Fossil fuels contribute to 86% of all CO₂ emissions in the past decade. Hence, any potential benefits of nature restoration cower in comparison to the scale of ongoing fossil fuel emissions. "Your left hand is emitting carbon dioxide, your right hand is making sure that projects that are sustainable are funded around the world," says climate specialist Jeff Berardelli. With the current carbon offsetting model of greenwashing oil giants such as Shell, however, your left hand is working at groundbreaking speed to ensure that your right hand’s actions are all but obsolete.

That is not to say that efforts to offset carbon, whether through tree planting or preservation, must be disregarded completely. Even UN Secretary-General António Guterres believes: “We need everything, everywhere, all at once,” because in the race against global warming, every fraction of a degree matters. However, “what our research makes clear,” Dooley stresses, “is that it’s dangerous to rely on restoring nature to meet our climate targets, rather than effectively and drastically phasing out fossil fuels.”

It’s time we put our most urgent and concerted efforts toward addressing the real root cause of the climate crisis — coal, oil, and gas. While investing in ways to cure the world of existing carbon is important, our main priority should be towards building global systemic solutions that prevent it from polluting our future in the first place — solutions like the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This blog and policy briefing is based on the following paper: Dooley, K., Nicholls, Z., & Meinshausen, M. (2022). Carbon removals from nature restoration are no substitute for steep emission reductions. One Earth, 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.06.002