Status quo in climate change solutions

What’s holding back natural climate solutions? Natural climate solutions (NCS)—from reforestation and agroforestry to wetland restoration—have long been championed as low-cost, high-benefit pathways for reducing greenhouse gases. In theory, they could provide over a third of the climate mitigation needed by 2030 to stay under 2°C of warming. But in practice, progress is stalling. A sweeping new PNAS Nexus study reveals why. Drawing on 352 peer-reviewed papers across 135 countries, researchers led by Hilary Brumberg cataloged 2,480 documented barriers to implementing NCS. The obstacles are not ecological. Rather, they are human: insufficient funding, patchy information, ineffective policies, and public skepticism. The result is a vast “implementation gap” between what is technically possible and what is politically, economically, or socially feasible. The analysis found that “lack of funding” was the most commonly cited constraint globally—identified in nearly half of all countries surveyed. Yet it rarely stood alone. Most regions face a tangle of interconnected hurdles. Constraints from different categories often co-occur, compounding difficulties: poor governance erodes trust; disinterest stems from unclear benefits; technical know-how is stymied by bureaucratic confusion. These patterns vary by region and type of intervention. Reforestation projects, for instance, face particularly high scrutiny over equity concerns—especially in the Global South, where land tenure insecurity and historical injustices run deep. Agroforestry and wetland restoration often struggle with the complexity of design and monitoring. Meanwhile, grassland and peatland pathways remain understudied, despite their importance. The study’s most striking insight may be spatial. Countries within the same UN subregion tend to share a similar profile of constraints—more so than across broader development regions. This geographic clustering suggests an opportunity: Supranational collaboration, if properly resourced and attuned to local context, could address shared challenges more efficiently than isolated national efforts. Crucially, the authors argue that piecemeal fixes will not suffice. Because most countries face an average of seven distinct constraints, many from different domains, effective solutions must be integrated and cross-sectoral. Adaptive management—a flexible, feedback-based approach—could help. By identifying which barriers arise at each stage of an NCS project’s lifecycle, it may be possible to design interventions that are not just technically sound, but socially and politically viable. Natural climate solutions still hold vast potential. But unlocking it will require less focus on where trees grow best—and more on where people can make them thrive. 🔬 Brumberg et al 2025. Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus. https://lnkd.in/gDmYJEph

This chart shows something counterintuitive: many of the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions actually save money rather than cost it. The left side shows solutions with negative costs - meaning they pay for themselves through savings. Switching office lights to LEDs, improving building insulation, and making industrial processes more efficient all reduce emissions while cutting energy bills. Let's put this in perspective with some real numbers: The savings are massive. Looking at just the top money-saving solutions on this chart, we could reduce about 8 billion tons of CO2 annually by 2030 while saving approximately €400 billion per year globally. That's roughly €50 saved for every ton of CO2 eliminated. For a typical large corporation, this might translate to millions in annual savings. A company reducing 100,000 tons of CO2 through efficiency measures could save €5 million yearly while hitting sustainability targets. The middle section shows low-cost solutions like solar power and wind energy, which have become remarkably affordable in recent years - often under €25 per ton of CO2 avoided. Only the most expensive solutions on the right - like retrofitting coal plants with carbon capture technology - require significant upfront investment, costing €40-60 per ton. This data comes from comprehensive climate research (see link in comments) showing we have about 38 billion tons of CO2 reduction potential by 2030. The key insight? We don't need to choose between environmental progress and economic sense - many climate solutions deliver both. This suggests that sustainability initiatives often improve the bottom line while reducing environmental impact. The question isn't whether we can afford to act on climate change, but whether we can afford not to pursue these win-win opportunities. #climatechange #sustainability #businessstrategy #energyefficiency #carboncapture

🌍 We cannot solve the climate crisis without demand-side solutions. The IPCC is crystal clear: changing what we demand and how we live could reduce global emissions by 40–70% by 2050. This is not a marginal add-on. It must be at the heart of climate policy. Demand-side solutions include: ✅ Shifting to more plant-based diets ✅ Reducing energy use in buildings through efficiency and behavior change ✅ Avoiding high-carbon mobility, such as frequent flying, while expanding public and active transport ✅ Designing infrastructures and cities that make low-carbon choices easy, attractive, and fair Demand-side change is not only about asking people to consume less. It is about creating the social, political, and institutional conditions that make low-carbon living possible and attractive. Here, social science is crucial. Lasting change depends on reshaping the cultural norms, social dynamics, and infrastructures that currently lock people into high-carbon behaviors. And when done well, these shifts can substantially reduce emissions while enhancing health, wellbeing, and fairness. That means: - Developing policies that account for feasibility, equity, and social norms - Recognizing the disproportionate responsibility and opportunity of high-income groups - Linking personal choices to the systemic changes needed in politics, markets, and infrastructure 📄 IPCC WGIII Chapter 5 remains the most comprehensive resource on the social science of climate change mitigation. I cannot recommend it enough! Felix Creutzig Joyashree Roy Leila Niamir Patrick Devine-Wright Elke Weber Julia Steinberger #ClimateAction #climate #socialscience #sustainability #climatejustice https://lnkd.in/dd93kjZg

There is a problem with #carbon tunnel vision when it comes to impact investment in the food and agriculture sector. The situation is exacerbated when it comes to livestock sector. Most tech solutions focus on reducing the #GHG emissions from the intensive livestock sector - feed additives to reduce #methane emissions, cell-based protein, plant based proteins, but in doing so they enable status quo in an industry that should change at its core. These solutions also overlook broader environmental factors such as #soil health, #biodiversity and #water cycles that grazing animals contribute to. Agroforestry systems, mixing livestock with perennial trees systems also reduce or eliminate entirely the need for emission-heavy and biodiversity destroying synthetic farm inputs. Earlier this year FAIRR Initiative published a detailed report on the climate change mitigation potential of nature-based interventions in the livestock sector. The report used #planetaryboundaries to assess the impact of nature-based solutions vs purely tech solutions and found that nature-based interventions positively impact an average of around five planetary boundaries, compared to just three for tech-based interventions. They also have the potential to deliver 37% of the mitigation needed to meet 2030 climate targets, along with significant nature co-benefits. It also showed that investments in nature based solutions are still lagging behind those in purely tech solutions. Currently, most of the nature based solutions are primarily liked to carbon credits which is not the main or only outcome. This single-issue approach is not helping to make the industrial livestock sector more sustainable. Perhaps that is why more US-style mega farms have opened in Europe. Currently there are 24,000 of intensive mega livestock farms here as reported in a recent article by The Guardian. All these farms will source most of the corn and soybean from intensive mono-culture farms in Brazil and the US for feed. How is this sustainable? Regulations have to change to prevent mega farms from operating. But in parallel more investment in a true nature-based regenerative approach is needed. And technology will very much be needed as a tool to implement this at scale (would love to have virtual fencing technology for sheep right now!).

Today's progress report from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) makes clear that Nature-based Solutions to climate change (such as peatland restoration and native woodland creation) are vital to keeping the UK on track to meeting our climate targets. Nature-based Solutions offer affordable and effective ways to build our climate resilience, while also contributing significantly to our emissions reduction goals. However, despite recent progress in this area, the CCC warn that the rates of peatland restoration and tree-planting remain off track. That’s why they recommend that the UK Government urgently puts in place policies and incentives to ramp up peatland restoration and tree-planting this decade.  And it isn’t just the CCC grappling with these issues. We have a limited amount of land in the UK, and this land needs to deliver on many different objectives. From food production to housing, renewable energy to nature restoration.   Here at the RSPB, our scientists have been working to understand how changes in the way we use our land could affect our ability to achieve our goals of tackling climate change, restoring nature and producing food. In our latest study, led by Joshua Copping & Tom Finch and published this week in Scientific Reports, we simulate thousands of possible land use pathways and explore their impacts.  Our findings show that there are many possible routes we can take to achieving net zero, and some trade-offs are inevitable. However, some pathways are clearly better than others, and with proper planning and strategic thinking we can maximise the co-benefits whilst minimising any trade-offs.    Like the CCC progress report, our study also points once again to the importance of Nature-based Solutions, such as native woodland creation and peatland restoration, in helping to achieve multiple objectives from our land.  Taken together, the messages coming out of these two reports are clear: it is vital that we tackle the nature and climate crisis effectively. With more joined-up and strategic land use policies, both at the UK-level and across the devolved nations, we can ensure that we mitigate any trade-offs and ensure just transitions for all involved. But the clock is ticking, and we need to act fast. The links to the RSPB's latest study and the CCC’s progress report are in the comments.    

I just watched a talk on Design for Climate Disaster and completely questioned my assumption about designing in climate. Most designers design for perfect conditions. We assume fast WiFi. Sunny days. Users who aren't panicking. But designing for climate resilience is the opposite of that. In her talk at Figma Config, Megan Metzger talks about her design work for Forerunner's disaster response platform. The features aren't flashy. They're functional: • Mobile-first design with high-contrast screens • Offline functionality that syncs when connectivity returns • Real-time FEMA calculations for immediate decisions The results: Damage assessment time dropped from 3-4 hours to 45 minutes. Over 15,000 assessments completed faster. This unlocked $2.4 billion in recovery funds sooner. Megan's approach: design for effectiveness over elegance. Her three crisis design principles: 1. Trust comes from reliability under pressure Your system must work with low battery. Weak internet. When everything else fails. 2. The right tools make impossible tasks possible Enable people to do hard things under difficult conditions. 3. Clarity enables action Clear design removes hesitation. Give users confidence to act decisively. Climate disasters aren't rare anymore. They're Tuesday. Every month brings new records. Heat domes. Atmospheric rivers. Category 6 hurricanes. The biggest climate companies are finally getting this: • Rivian designs trucks that maintain navigation during wildfire smoke. Not just daily commutes. • Sunrun designs solar systems that work during blackouts. Not just sunny days. • Climavision builds weather radar for extreme events. Not just forecasting. As more companies enter climate adaptation and disaster response, Megan's principles become survival requirements. The same principle applies to climate technology: • Solar panels that work during storms • EV charging that functions in extreme weather • Carbon tracking that doesn't glitch during peak usage As climate designers, we obsess over features. We should obsess over reliability. Your climate solution isn't just competing with other green tech. It's competing with the status quo when everything goes wrong. The fossil fuel system works reliably. That's why people stick with it. If your sustainable alternative fails during stress, you've lost more than a customer. You've lost trust in the entire climate movement. My takeaway: design for the worst day, not just the best day. Test your climate tech during power outages. During heatwaves. During floods. Because that's exactly when we need it to work. But this also begs the question - How do we balance reliability with efficiency?