Much of the world can agree by now that climate change is at least a problem worth addressing, and that continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the air is a bad idea. Global warming causes ecosystems to collapse, a slew of natural disasters, reduced air quality posing risks to human health, and much more. The United Nations has stressed the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C in order to maintain a stable planet. Many countries, companies, and individuals have discussed the target of net zero emissions by 2050 to avoid irreversible damage. The framework as it currently exists revolves around two strategies: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation centers around reducing emissions in order to lessen the effects of climate change, and adaptation is all about adjusting to the effects of climate change. For example, a mitigation strategy could be switching to clean energy, and an adaptation strategy could be elevating infrastructure in order to withstand sea level rise. However, there is another strategy that doesn’t get discussed nearly enough, but might be a crucial step in saving our planet: restoration.

The simple fact of the matter is that the goal of Net Zero emissions isn’t really enough. For one, it’s not a guarantee that we’ll achieve it. It requires a big shift in policy, economics, and society as a whole. We would need to adjust our systems of infrastructure, of energy, of agriculture, of transportation, and of consumerism as a whole. Are we prepared to make the necessary shift? And if we are, is it even good enough? Catastrophes are already taking place around the world as a result of climate change. There have been wildfires, droughts, floods, extreme heat and cold, declined air quality, and extreme damages to ecosystems. By eliminating all of our emissions, we will be preventing new emissions, but what about the ones that are already in the atmosphere and wreak havoc on our way of life? The goal of restoration seeks to answer this problem. It involves removing carbon from the atmosphere in order to offset the amount of emissions.

How would we go about this? There are many strategies, each with their benefits and drawbacks, but the three that get focused on in this episode are reforestation, enhanced weathering, and direct air capture.

Reforestation is the act of replanting trees in areas where forests have been destroyed. There are many campaigns that seek to do this in mass-amounts, such as the One Trillion Trees Initiative from the World Economic Forum. As discussed in the deforestation article, trees have big advantages to us. Most importantly, they store carbon from the atmosphere. They also provide habitat, prevent soil erosion, and purify water. But while reforestation is a good step to take for climate action, it cannot be the end-all answer. For one, mass tree planting initiatives have a high fail rate. Trees must be nourished and maintained, rather than simply planted. Also, reforestation can take up land needed to cultivate food. Basically, it is doubtful that reforestation efforts can take place on a large enough scale and produce the long term effects needed to prevent global warming.

Then there’s enhanced weathering, which is another strategy of carbon removal. It involves the spread of crushed up rocks onto the land, beaches, and surface of the ocean. This process can speed up chemical reactions between the rocks, air, and water, and ultimately store carbon in the ocean. Not only does it pull carbon out of the atmosphere, but it also reduces the level of ocean acidification, another harmful consequence of climate change. It is fairly cost-effective, and can be deployed on a large scale. However, this method has its drawbacks as well. It is an unnatural process that can end up having very harmful effects on marine ecosystems, including producing ‘dead zones’ in the ocean where there isn’t enough oxygen for organisms to survive. Additionally, there are concerns about the mining required to crush the rocks, as mining is a process we’re trying to steer clear of as we try to make our planet more green.

Lastly, there is the option of Direct Air Capture, which employs machinery to extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide can then either be stored or used. The technology uses sorbent filters that chemically bind to carbon. The filters then get heated and placed under a vacuum, allowing us to capture it. This idea is key and one to look at with interest, however right now it isn’t well-developed enough to exist on a large scale. There are also concerns about cost, material, and energy use to make sure it isn’t doing more harm than good.

Clearly, there is no one straight approach to climate action as a whole. All of these strategies, while intriguing, have their faults, and it is important we look at it with an integrative point of view–one that incorporates mitigation, adaptation, and restoration–in order to bring about safety, wellbeing, and justice.