Can technology fix climate crisis? Experts call for urgent mix of tech and nature to remove carbon

An in-depth global analysis warns that high-tech solutions alone can’t remove enough carbon to stop climate change. Experts urge a balanced strategy combining natural ecosystems and engineered methods for rapid and lasting climate action.

Photo for representation purpose

Image Credit: Getty

Carbon pollution is already pushing Earth’s climate into dangerous territory. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions is necessary but no longer enough. Scientists say we also need to remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) already in the air to keep global temperatures within safe limits.

This process is called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). But a new global analysis warns: machines alone can’t do the job.

Why we need carbon removal

“Even if we stop producing new emissions today, we still need to deal with the CO₂ already warming the planet,” said Charlotte Streck of the University of Potsdam. Streck is one of the co-authors of the study published in the journal Climate Policy.

CDR involves removing carbon from the air and storing it in places where it won’t leak back, like underground rocks, ocean sediments, or long-lived products. It can be done using either natural methods (like forests and soil) or engineered technologies (like carbon-capturing machines).

The limits of technology

In recent years, high-tech carbon removal startups have received massive attention and funding. These systems suck CO₂ out of the air using machines and chemicals. They offer long-term carbon storage, if they work at scale.

“But these machines are still under development, very expensive, and need huge amounts of renewable energy,” said Peter Ellis of The Nature Conservancy. “They won’t be ready in time to fix the climate crisis alone.”

Nature’s power to store carbon

Nature, on the other hand, is already doing the job, for free.

Forests, wetlands, and healthy soils naturally absorb CO₂ through photosynthesis. “Nature-based carbon removal is cheap, fast to deploy, and powered by plants that have evolved for billions of years,” Ellis said.

However, these methods come with risks. Forests can be lost to fire, pests, or human development. Carbon stored in trees and soil isn’t as secure as when it’s turned into rock.

Why a mixed approach works best

“There is no single carbon removal method that checks every box, cost, scale, durability, and speed,” said Matthew Brander of the University of Edinburgh. “That’s why combining nature-based and tech-based methods is the best path forward.”

Using forests and soil gives us immediate action while engineered methods are developed. Technology offers long-term durability, while nature offers low cost and added benefits like biodiversity, clean water, and cooling.

This mix also reduces “reversal risk”, the chance that stored carbon could escape again.

Policymakers must act now

Despite the urgency, most investments today go toward high-tech solutions that are years away from being useful at scale.

“Policymakers and investors should fund both nature-based and engineered CDR,” said Streck. “A balanced strategy reduces risk and gives us the best chance of meeting climate goals.”

Time is running out. Every year of delay makes the task harder. But with the right mix of tools, seeds and soil, sensors and software, we can still give future generations a fighting chance.