Framing nature-based solutions to climate change

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

Automated summary

Research has shown that natural climate solutions play an important role in mitigating and adapting to climate change, but the framing of these solutions as natural can lead to overlooking their risks and drawbacks. The labeling of solutions as natural tends to result in them being perceived as more beneficial, cost-effective, mature, and democratic than artificial counterparts, despite the fact that they may also have negative aspects. The dangers of narrowing the consideration of natural solutions and selecting solutions based on nature are reflected upon, emphasizing the need for a broader evaluation of climate solutions.