Recent commentary has raised concerns about the reliability of carbon stored in forests and other ecosystems, particularly when this storage is presented as a climate solution. While carbon can sometimes be lost due to climate-driven events such as fires, disease, or degradation, the evidence is clear: this carbon can remain secure, and losses are frequently offset by natural regrowth over time.

Still, some vocal critics continue to fixate on the risk of future carbon loss—devoting disproportionate energy to designing policy and market “fixes” that risk doing more harm than good. A risk of loss at small scales is not the same as a lack of impact at broad scales. A narrow focus on potential future losses not only distracts from the urgent value of natural climate solutions (NCS) today, but also threatens to undermine the advancement of effective risk management tools. And, most concerning, it ignores the scientific clarity around the escalating cost of inaction.

We must not allow debates over “permanence” to become a binary litmus test that stalls progress. Framing the issue in all-or-nothing terms risks paralysis at precisely the moment we should be acting with urgency. The climate crisis demands action now—not fixation on distant, abstract timelines that constrain our ability to protect people today.

Introducing the Concept of “Durability” 

Historically, climate mitigation mechanisms covering projects outside national accounting systems—such as the Clean Development Mechanism and then the voluntary carbon market—drew a sharp line between permanent and non-permanent carbon storage. This binary distinction made sense in the early days, when data were limited and markets were still emerging. Today, however, science and policy have evolved. We can utilize a more sophisticated approach — one that leverages the concept of durability: a concept that can encompass a range of timeframes related to how long carbon is kept out of the atmosphere, and how risk is addressed when that durability is not guaranteed.

The key questions are not whether carbon might someday be released, but:

• Is carbon likely to remain stored long enough to impact the current crisis?
• At what scale can carbon storage measures be deployed?
• Given risks, how long is that storage likely to last?
• What systems are in place to prevent the losses?
• What systems are in place to manage and compensate for losses?

In nearly every other domain — finance, infrastructure, health — we accept uncertainty and address it through strategy and safeguards. Climate mitigation should be no different.

Nature Is Already Delivering—At Scale

Real-world observation contradicts the narrative that says natural systems are fragile: in fact, ecosystems have proven remarkably resilient and dependable, at scale. For decades, forests, wetlands, and grasslands have quietly responded to climate change by increasing their capacity and efficiency in removing carbon from the atmosphere, now absorbing around a quarter of humanity’s fossil fuel emissions, year after year. Even with fires, pests, and storms, nature has remained a vital additional carbon sink.

When we narrow our view to individual forest stands, it’s easy to see volatility. A small patch of trees can be lost completely in even a small fire, for example. But natural carbon storage operates across landscapes and continents, not small patches. Losses have been – and continue to be – more than balanced by recovering vegetation, and small-scale variability is evened out by large-scale trends. At that scale, climate benefits can and do endure. Carbon in soil and even deadwood—often dismissed—represents an overlooked store – in some ecosystems, deadwood can be durable for centuries.

The notion that we should abandon or delay NCS because of small-scale volatility at the project level – when it clearly can work at broad scales – would be a dangerous overreaction to a manageable challenge. Natural climate solutions are some of the most scalable, inclusive, and immediate tools we have for climate mitigation, and we urgently need to deploy them widely – while employing proven tools for managing risks.

Tools to Manage Reversal Risk Already Exist

Economic markets are no stranger to accommodating risk, and carbon markets are not indifferent to reversal risks either. They’ve long relied on buffer pools: credits set aside from every project to insure against future carbon loss. These operate like insurance—imperfect, yes, but functional and improving.

As the market matures, other risk-management tools from the financial world—reinsurance, guarantees, and pooling mechanisms—can complement and strengthen existing approaches. The science of durability risk assessment is advancing. But its application must be coupled with smart policy and financial design—not used as an excuse for inaction.

We do not deny that carbon losses can and do occur within individual projects or even within some regions. But to ignore or underuse nature’s proven carbon-storing potential would be a massive failure of responsibility—one that places future generations at even greater risk.

Delaying Action Is the Riskiest Option of All

We are concerned by a persistent misconception that if a carbon benefit cannot be guaranteed “forever,” it is not worth pursuing. This is idealistic and counter-productive thinking.

The next decades will determine whether we avoid the worst impacts of climate change. A natural climate solution that only stores carbon for multiple decades—while also providing biodiversity, water, and livelihood benefits—nevertheless delivers real climate value.

Integrity remains essential. Every climate solution must be real, additional, and transparently accounted for. Reversals should be prevented whenever possible, and they should be fully compensated if they occur – as already required by international policies governing carbon markets.

Given the tools in hand and the policies already in place, we can safely reject the false “either-or” choice between nature-based and engineered solutions. Both are necessary. The science is clear: portfolios of climate solutions—with diverse risk profiles and durations—offer the strongest path forward. In fact, the most responsible approach is to deploy all solutions, as widely as possible, with appropriate risk management measures in place for all.

Act Now, Improve Along the Way

We should not let perfect be the enemy of good—and, in a climate emergency, also the enemy of much-needed action now.

We do not need to wait for the perfect solution. Nature has already given us one that is durable, measurable, and scalable. Let’s make decisions that unlock its full potential.

Signed:

Dr. Brian Buma, Environmental Defense Fund
Dr. Susan Cook-Patton, The Nature Conservancy
Peter Ellis, The Nature Conservancy
Dr. Jason Funk, Conservation International
Dr. Bronson Griscom, Conservation International
Dr. Jigme Tenzin, Fauna & Flora
Dr. Sarah M Walker, Wildlife Conservation Society

Any opinions expressed in this commentary reflect the views of the authors and not of Carbon Pulse.