The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.
For the past few years, I’ve spent a lot of time working at the intersection of nature and technology. That work included helping to build the category often referred to as “nature tech” — an attempt to bridge two worlds that were, even five years ago, struggling to understand each other.
The intent was never to promote either nature or technology as ends to themselves. It was to help different communities understand each other better and work together more effectively in service of climate outcomes.
In some ways, that effort succeeded. A vibrant nature tech ecosystem now exists, with entrepreneurs, investors, platforms and tools focused on monitoring, measurement and delivery at scale. And yet, outside that relatively small community, I’m increasingly struck by an opposite trend: the gap between the nature and tech camps feels wider than ever.
The tone of the debate has hardened. Policy conversations have become more polarised. Media narratives increasingly frame nature-based solutions and technological solutions as competing approaches for removing carbon from the atmosphere. And corporate climate teams are left trying to navigate a landscape of mixed, sometimes contradictory signals.
For companies trying to act responsibly and credibly, this isn’t just frustrating. It’s becoming a real source of delay, risk and confusion in setting strategy, allocating capital and making defensible decisions under scrutiny.
What we’re actually arguing about
At first glance, it looks as though the primary argument between the two communities is about “permanence,” or the degree to which removed CO₂ is kept out of the atmosphere for a specified time period.
Although there are layers of nuance here, generally speaking, tech-based removals are considered “more permanent” than nature-based removals, because carbon can be re-released into the atmosphere when ecosystems are disturbed through fire, pests or human interventions.
Therefore, the debate is about whether nature-based solutions are “durable enough” to sit alongside engineered removals in corporate climate strategies, policy frameworks and emerging standards. (The answer is a resounding yes, as a group of more than 160 scientists recently affirmed).
This debate has become a lightning rod for nature tech. In the context of climate action, permanence versus durability is one of the most visible battlegrounds in the competition for climate resources.
But treating durability as the root cause misses the point. Durability didn’t create the tension between nature and tech. It exposed it. That single word has become a proxy for a much broader set of anxieties — about risk, credibility, timing, control and trust. By concentrating all of that complexity into a binary question, we’ve made the disagreement louder, but not clearer.
How we got here
A big part of the problem is how permanence entered policy, media and corporate conversations in the first place.
Policy frameworks, headlines and public debates rewarded simplified comparisons: Reductions were set against removals. Nature was set against technology. Long-term certainty was set against near-term impact.
Over time, these comparisons hardened into shorthand. Removals became “good” and nature became “questionable”. Or, depending on who’s speaking — and who’s listening — the reverse. The result is an either/or framing that doesn’t reflect how climate action actually works – and that has very real consequences. Companies hesitate, or feel pushed to choose sides unnecessarily. Policymakers make choices that favor one set of viable solutions over another. Near-term finance is delayed while climate risk continues to grow.
One of the most striking things I hear in these conversations is how similar the complaints sound on both sides. From the nature community, I often hear that the tech side must be well-funded, coordinated and moving in lockstep – and that nature is constantly being asked to justify itself against an unfair benchmark.
From the tech community, I hear almost exactly the same thing said in reverse. Each side feels like it’s under attack from a better resourced, better organised and more influential opponent. This may sound crazy, but it’s true.
Read More
