One can no longer doubt that extreme weather patterns are happening at an alarming rate across the globe, devastating homes, causing the loss of human lives, and billions in reparation costs. But how much recycling, and turning off lights do we need to do more of in order to halt climate disasters?
Solving both climate change and achieving net zero targets will require both carbon reduction and carbon removal strategies.
To put it simply, reducing emissions by banning single-use plastics, and eating less meat are habit changes that need to occur on an individual and corporate level - immediately. But reducing emissions is not enough to get us to net zero. Gigatonnes of cumulative greenhouse gases still linger in the atmosphere and are required to be removed in order to slow down global warming. And for this reason, we cannot underestimate nature's ecosystems as the most powerful carbon removal "technology" - if only we humans learn to co-exist respectfully with nature and to responsibly manage what nature has provided for us for millennia.
This month we resumed our steadfast journey to engage and influence the corporate sector on the urgent need to execute on climate action via carbon removal. Our team presented to the Sustainable Finance Initiative (SFI) community hosted at Banyan Workspace, as well as at the Sedgwick Richardson office, where we engaged with participants on how the food sector can drive investments towards nature-based solutions, primarily towards land sink restoration.
Currently, only 14% of all funding going into nature-based solutions derive from the private sector. In fact, the private sector spends more on i) carbon offsets and on
ii) investments in the alternative protein sector than it does for nature conservation. But with only 1% of global GDP needed to prevent catastrophic climate disasters, why aren't businesses doing more?