\n
![\"EarthSnap\"\/](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/earthsnap-banner-news.webp.webp\")
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
Plants, soils, and other ecosystems have a part to play in carbon dioxide removal, and this help is urgently needed.<\/p>\n
Nature, technology, and CO2 removal<\/p>\n
\u201cWe must rapidly reduce the production of new greenhouse gas emissions<\/a> worldwide. At the same time, we must also remove and store excess carbon already polluting the atmosphere,\u201d said Charlotte Streck of the University of Potsdam<\/a>.<\/p>\n Streck noted that in recent years, innovative high-tech CDR companies have introduced promising solutions for capturing carbon. However, these solutions are still in research and development stages, and they are not yet proven at the scale needed, she added. <\/p>\n \u201cAt the same time, it\u2019s well established that forests<\/a> and other ecosystems are effective at storing carbon \u2013 while also providing clean air and water, safeguarding biodiversity and keeping the planet cool. We must embrace both high-tech and natural methods of CDR to succeed,\u201d said Streck.<\/p>\n Nature-based carbon removal is needed<\/p>\n Matthew Brander of the University of Edinburgh Business School explained that nature-based and engineered carbon dioxide removal can be deployed synergistically.<\/p>\n \u201cEngineered novel CDR methods offer higher durability and lower reversal risks. However, conventional nature-based CDR methods that rely on storing carbon in vegetation and soil are the most immediately deployable methods at scale, and costs are comparatively low,\u201d said Brander.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s clear that high-tech and natural CDR methods can complement \u2013 not compete with \u2013 one another.\u201d<\/p>\n Peter Ellis of The Nature Conservancy pointed out that engineered CDR is extremely expensive and will require huge amounts of cheap renewable energy, along with years of investment in research and development, before it\u2019s ready to scale.<\/p>\n \u201cIn contrast, nature-based CDR is cheap and powered by photosynthesis, which has been in research and development in efficient self-replicating prototypes called plants for 3 billion years,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n Defining carbon dioxide removal <\/p>\n The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as any human activity that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it securely \u2013 whether in rocks, soils, oceans, or long-lived products.<\/p>\n These methods differ based on how the CO\u2082 is captured, such as through photosynthesis, chemical processes, or other reactions.<\/p>\n The removal methods also depend on where the carbon is stored and how long it remains stored \u2013 whether in living biomass, mineralized form, or deep ocean sediments.<\/p>\n The best path for CO2 removal<\/p>\n No single CDR option<\/a> checks every box for cost, speed, scale, and long-term storage. The analysis shows that matching methods to specific needs \u2013 and mixing several of them \u2013 is the safest path forward.<\/p>\n High-tech systems can lock carbon away for centuries once they work at scale. Yet they are young, expensive, and energy-hungry. <\/p>\n Natural pathways, such as restoring forests or rebuilding soils, are ready today, cost less, and offer side benefits like habitat and clean water. The downside is that trees can burn, pests can spread, and climate shifts<\/a> can undo the gains.<\/p>\n Why a mixed approach works best<\/p>\n CDR planners often talk about \u201creversal risk\u201d \u2013 the chance that stored carbon could leak back into the atmosphere. For example, injecting CO\u2082 into rock is risky at first, before it hardens into minerals. <\/p>\n Forests, meanwhile, can be lost to fire, pests, or land use changes before they reach full maturity. That\u2019s why success depends on mixing solutions so the weaknesses of one are offset by the strengths of another.<\/p>\n \u201cPolicymakers and investors should encourage a balanced, comprehensive approach to investments in both nature- and tech-based CDR,\u201d said Streck. \u201cA balanced portfolio mitigates against risks of any one strategy and is most likely to make meaningful contributions toward achieving Paris Agreement<\/a> goals.\u201d<\/p>\n Currently, most investment is going toward new technologies that haven\u2019t yet scaled. But by also supporting proven nature-based projects, we can remove carbon right away \u2013 while giving engineers the time to develop more durable, high-tech options for the future.<\/p>\n And there\u2019s no time to waste. Climate math is unforgiving, and every year of delay makes the job harder. By pairing shovels and sensors with seeds and soil, we can cut emissions, store carbon, and offer future generations a better shot at a stable climate.<\/p>\n The full study was published in the journal Climate Policy<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2013<\/p>\n Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter<\/a> for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.\u00a0<\/p>\n Check us out on EarthSnap<\/a>, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls<\/a> and Earth.com.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2013<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Carbon pollution in the atmosphere is already causing dangerous changes to the climate. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":184460,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3843],"tags":[728,70,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-184459","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-environment","9":"tag-science","10":"tag-uk","11":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114683247816274305","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184459","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=184459"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184459\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/184460"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184459"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184459"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184459"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}