Nature-Based Solutions vs Technological Carbon Capture: A Comparative Analysis

As the world races to meet net-zero goals, finding effective carbon removal methods has become a top priority. Cutting emissions is essential, but it is no longer enough on its own. To balance the carbon already in the atmosphere, society must also scale up solutions that actively remove CO₂.

Tree seedling with direct air capture (DAC) in the background. AI generated picture.

Two approaches dominate the conversation: nature-based solutions (NBS) and direct air capture (DAC). On one side, nature offers time-tested systems such as forests, wetlands, and soils that act as powerful carbon sinks while delivering a range of ecological and societal benefits. On the other hand, engineered systems like DAC represent a cutting-edge form of technological carbon capture, designed to extract CO₂ directly from the air and lock it away permanently.

This blog explores the similarities and differences between these two strategies. The goal is a balanced analysis of nature-based vs technological carbon capture, weighing their potential, costs, co-benefits, and risks. While both approaches have a role in future net zero pathways, we must pay attention to the broader environmental and societal benefits of carbon offsetting avenues.

What Are Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)?

Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) are actions that harness the power of ecosystems to absorb and store carbon. Rather than relying on engineered technologies, they enhance natural processes that have regulated Earth’s carbon balance for millennia. Common examples include reforestation and afforestation, restoring wetlands and mangroves (often referred to as blue carbon), and improving soil carbon sequestration through sustainable agriculture.

Bulindi chimpanzee in its natural habitat. Bulindi Agroforestry and Chimpanzee Conservation Project, Green Earth. Source: https://www.green.earth/projects/bulindi-chimpanzee-habitat-restoration-project-uganda 

The principle is simple: by protecting, restoring, and managing ecosystems, we increase their ability to act as natural carbon sinks. A forest, for instance, doesn’t just store carbon in trees and soil—it also supports biodiversity, regulates the water cycle, and provides shade and cooling that benefit local communities. Similarly, mangrove forests absorb large amounts of CO₂ while shielding coastlines from erosion and extreme weather.

Beyond their role in carbon dioxide removal (CDR), NBS provide what the market calls co-benefits. These include enhanced biodiversity, improved soil fertility, cleaner water systems, and societal benefits such as job creation and cultural value. They strengthen ecosystem resilience, making landscapes and communities better prepared for environmental change.

A local community member working on the beehives. Kenya Beehive Project, Green Earth.

Because NBS integrate ecological, social, and economic dimensions, they are often considered a cornerstone of natural climate solutions. They are relatively low-cost, can be deployed immediately, and scale naturally across regions—offering environmental impact today while building healthier environments for tomorrow.

What Is Direct Air Capture (DAC)?

Direct Air Capture (DAC) is a form of technological carbon capture designed to pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere using engineered systems. Unlike nature-based approaches that rely on forests or soils, DAC uses fans, filters, and chemical processes to capture CO₂ molecules from ambient air. Once captured, the CO₂ can be compressed and either injected into geological formations for long-term storage or repurposed in industrial applications such as synthetic fuels, building materials, or carbonated beverages.

DAC technology. Source: https://carbonengineering.com/our-technology/ 

In theory, DAC provides one of the most permanent solutions to carbon dioxide removal (CDR). When paired with secure storage, it locks away carbon for thousands of years, minimising risks of re-release. This permanence makes DAC an attractive option for net-zero pathways, especially for balancing out residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors like aviation or cement production.

However, the technology comes with significant challenges. DAC requires vast amounts of energy to operate, and its environmental benefits depend heavily on using renewable power rather than fossil energy. Current DAC facilities remain small-scale, capturing only a fraction of global emissions. Costs are also a major barrier: estimates range between $600–1000 per tonne of CO₂ removed, making DAC one of the most expensive forms of carbon capture today.

Despite these hurdles, investment in DAC is growing, driven by governments and companies seeking long-term engineered carbon removal methods. As renewable energy expands and costs decline, DAC may become more scalable. 

Comparative Analysis

Carbon Removal Potential

NBS can be deployed at scale almost immediately. Forests, wetlands, and soils already remove vast amounts of CO₂ each year, and enhancing these systems could provide significant near-term reductions. However, their effectiveness depends on permanence: fires, pests, or land-use changes can reverse gains.

DAC, by contrast, offers theoretically permanent storage when paired with geological sequestration. Its limitations are scale, costs, and benefits. Current DAC facilities capture only a tiny fraction of annual emissions, and rapid expansion would require massive investment and energy infrastructure.

Costs & Accessibility

NBS stand out for their affordability. Projects such as reforestation, mangrove restoration, or soil carbon sequestration can deliver carbon removal at costs much lower than DAC, often while generating local economic opportunities.

DAC is one of the most expensive carbon removal methods, with costs ranging from $600–1,000 per tonne today. Accessibility is also limited—DAC requires advanced technology, high-quality storage sites, and abundant renewable energy, making it feasible only in select regions.

Co-Benefits Beyond Carbon

NBS provide a wealth of co-benefits: enhanced biodiversity, restored water cycles, improved soil fertility, protection from floods, and societal benefits such as jobs, food security, and cultural value. These gains extend well beyond carbon removal, making NBS attractive as holistic natural climate solutions.

DAC’s co-benefits are narrower. Its main advantage lies in developing new industrial capacity, stimulating technological innovation, and potentially creating high-tech jobs. While important, these benefits don’t match the ecological and community resilience that NBS deliver.

Risks & Challenges

NBS face risks tied to permanence. A restored forest can sequester carbon for decades, but droughts, wildfires, or illegal logging could undo the progress. Monitoring, reporting, and verification remain ongoing challenges in ensuring high-quality carbon units.

DAC’s risks are different: high energy requirements, large land and infrastructure needs, and reliance on a rapidly scaling renewable sector. Without clean power, DAC risks emitting more than it removes, undermining its purpose.

The Role of Each in Net-Zero Pathways

Achieving net zero requires a mix of emission reductions and CDR. No single solution can solve the problem alone, which is why most environmental models recommend a portfolio approach that combines different strategies.

NBS are considered the foundation of this portfolio. They are relatively low-cost, can be implemented immediately, and bring wide-ranging benefits beyond carbon removal. Afforestation, mangrove restoration, and soil carbon projects not only sequester CO₂ but also build ecosystem resilience, protect biodiversity, and support livelihoods. For many countries, especially in the Global South, NBS represent the most practical entry point into large-scale carbon removal.

DAC is positioned as a complementary technology. Its strength lies in offering near-permanent storage of CO₂, making it particularly suited for tackling residual emissions from industries that are difficult to decarbonise, such as aviation, shipping, and heavy industry. DAC is unlikely to be deployed at scale in the near term due to cost and energy challenges, but it may become more prominent later in the century as clean energy expands and costs decline.

Together, NBS and DAC highlight the dual-track strategy needed for net zero: immediate, scalable natural climate solutions to address today’s emissions, paired with long-term engineered carbon removal methods to handle what cannot be mitigated otherwise.

Why Nature-Based Solutions Tip the Scale

Both NBS and technological carbon capture, like DAC, have roles to play in removing carbon, but when viewed holistically, the advantages of NBS extend far beyond carbon metrics.

First, NBS deliver biodiversity co-benefits that no machine can replicate. A restored forest is not just a carbon sink—it is a habitat for wildlife, a regulator of local water cycles, and a buffer against soil erosion. Wetlands and mangroves protect coastlines, nurture fisheries, and store vast amounts of blue carbon. These ecological gains create ripple effects that strengthen ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.

Green Earth member and a local community woman working at a tree nursery in Kenya. Hongera Reforestation Project, Green Earth.

Second, NBS provide tangible societal benefits. They generate jobs in rural areas, support sustainable agriculture, and enhance food and water security. For many communities, these projects bring cultural value and a sense of stewardship over the land. By aligning with local development needs, NBS help integrate climate action into daily life in ways that engineered carbon removal methods cannot.

Third, affordability and accessibility make NBS indispensable. While DAC may one day offer large-scale, permanent carbon storage, its high costs and energy demands place it out of reach for most regions. NBS, on the other hand, can be deployed now and scaled across diverse geographies.

Taken together, these factors illustrate why NBS often tip the scale in the debate of nature-based vs technological carbon capture. They offer a multidimensional approach: reducing atmospheric CO₂ while restoring ecosystems, improving resilience, and delivering social value. DAC remains promising for the long term, but for the foreseeable future, nature offers solutions that are both practical and profound.

The Path Forward in Carbon Removal

The challenge of balancing global emissions calls for a diverse toolkit of carbon removal methods. Both NBS and DAC represent important pathways, but their strengths and limitations differ.

A landscape photo of a forest stretching to the horizon. AI generated picture.

NBS stand out for their immediate scalability, affordability, and rich co-benefits that extend well beyond carbon removal. They restore ecosystems, strengthen biodiversity, and create direct societal benefits such as jobs, food security, and cultural value. These qualities make them not only an environmental solution, but also a driver of healthier, more resilient communities and landscapes.

DAC, meanwhile, offers the promise of near-permanent carbon storage and may play a crucial role in addressing residual emissions from industries where reductions are hardest to achieve. Yet its current limitations—high costs, heavy energy requirements, and limited scale—mean it is not ready to stand alone as a primary solution.

Ultimately, achieving net zero will require both approaches, working in tandem. But for now, the evidence suggests that NBS remain the most effective, accessible, and holistic option available. They tip the scale by delivering climate action today, while building the ecological and social foundations necessary for a sustainable tomorrow.