Opinion · Nature-based solutions
Originally published on LinkedIn, 20 January 2022
Nature-based solutions are interventions that use living systems, such as forests, soils, wetlands, crops and landscapes, to store carbon, strengthen biodiversity and improve resilience. “Do not compensate, create” means that carbon compensation should not be treated as permission to continue harmful activity. The better sequence is reduce first, then use compensation only as a temporary bridge, and invest in solutions that create lasting ecological and social value. In the context of CO2, that means moving from cheap offsetting towards carbon sequestration, ecosystem restoration and regenerative business models.
Why is cheap compensation not enough?
Low-cost compensation can make climate impact appear smaller than it is. The original article contrasts several prices per tonne of CO2-equivalent: a minimum compensation price around €6, a Paris-aligned price around €55, eco-costs around €135 and a possible real price around €700. The point is not the exact number in isolation, but the scale difference. A few euros for compensation cannot represent the full ecological and social cost of continued damage.
| Price indication | Role in the article | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| €6 per tonne | Minimum compensation price | A low entry price that can make compensation look easy |
| €55 per tonne | Paris-aligned reference | A higher climate-policy reference point |
| €135 per tonne | Eco-cost reference | A broader environmental-cost lens |
| €700 per tonne | Possible real price | A signal that full damage costs can be far higher than standard offset prices |
Why do ecosystem services matter for business models?
Almost every production process depends on ecosystem services. Agriculture depends on soil fertility, natural water purification and pollination by wild bees. Information technology depends on raw materials for computers and energy for operating systems. Ecosystems can keep providing these services when biodiversity is high and the climate is stable. The problem is that many products in the current economy damage the same natural systems on which their own value chains depend.
What is the financial risk of damaging ecosystems?
Dutch financial institutions have €510 billion invested in companies with high dependence on ecosystem services that are deteriorating. Many of those investments damage the same ecosystems on which the companies depend. Short-term financial return can therefore coincide with long-term value loss when soils, water systems, biodiversity and climate stability are weakened.
Financial systems are often treated as the engine of the economy, but ecosystems are the underlying engine.
How does the ecological design trajectory help?
The trajectory of ecological design shows the movement from degenerating systems to regenerating systems. Conventional models extract resources and create damage. Green and sustainable models reduce that damage, but can still remain within a logic of extraction. Restorative and regenerative models aim to rebuild ecological capacity, strengthen biodiversity, store carbon and create value that remains available for future generations.
Why does creating value beat compensating damage?
Compensation starts after damage has already been caused. A regenerative investment starts earlier. Money spent on ecosystem services can improve soil, store CO2, retain water, support insects and strengthen local production. Biobased building materials are used in the article as an example: crops such as flax and grass can be grown and processed locally, support biodiversity and store carbon in buildings.
What practical steps follow from this argument?
| Step | Action | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Measure the starting point with a baseline for CO2, biodiversity, water use and material impact | Make hidden impact visible |
| 2 | Reduce material and energy impact before using compensation | Avoid locking money into a temporary offset logic |
| 3 | Develop circular business models that keep products and materials in use | Extend value and reduce new resource extraction |
| 4 | Research substitutes for high-impact materials | Shift towards lower-impact and biobased alternatives where suitable |
| 5 | Assess Total Cost of Ownership and Total Cost of Use, not only financial return | Include long-term value retention and ecosystem costs |
| 6 | Invest in nature-based solutions connected to value chains and places | Create carbon, biodiversity, water and soil benefits together |
| 7 | Use compensation only transparently and temporarily for residual impact | Keep the reduce-first principle intact |
Frequently asked questions
Nature-based solutions use living systems, such as forests, soils, wetlands and landscapes, to address climate, water, biodiversity and resilience challenges while creating ecological and social value.
Compensation often happens after damage has already occurred and can be priced too cheaply. A reduce-first approach avoids damage first and uses compensation only as a temporary bridge for residual impact.
It means shifting from paying for damage after the fact towards investing in systems that store carbon, strengthen biodiversity, improve soil and water and create long-term value.
Production depends on ecosystem services such as soil fertility, pollination, water purification, raw materials and climate stability. Damage to those services can become financial risk and long-term value loss.
Related: carbon sequestration, CCS, CCU, BECCS and CDR and five steps to invest in biodiversity.