Aug 4, 2025
The Economist's recent editorial on the political challenges of climate policy struck a familiar chord: the growing disconnect between ambitious net-zero targets and public acceptance. Yet whilst the piece rightly diagnosed the symptoms of our climate policy malaise, it overlooked a critical dimension of the solution. One that could transform the entire political thinking around climate action.
The Missing Piece in Climate Strategy
The editorial's central premise, "curbing climate change was never going to be easy", rests on the assumption that reducing emissions is our primary tool for addressing climate change. This narrow focus has indeed created the political impasse we now face, where citizens are asked to bear costs and accept restrictions whilst watching global emissions continue to rise.
However, this framing misses a fundamental opportunity. Our biosphere has lost approximately half of its living carbon biomass over recent centuries, representing an enormous untapped potential for atmospheric carbon removal. Rather than viewing climate action solely through the lens of emission reduction, with its inevitable trade-offs and political friction, we can embrace biosphere restoration as a complementary strategy that creates value rather than demanding sacrifice.
The Economics of Restoration
Unlike the punitive measures that have dominated climate policy discourse, biosphere restoration projects can be commercially viable from the outset. When we restore degraded forests, regenerate marine ecosystems, or revitalise agricultural soils, we're not merely sequestering carbon. We're creating economic value through improved agricultural yields, enhanced fisheries, better water management, and increased biodiversity.
This represents a paradigm shift from the subsidy-dependent model that The Economist rightly critiques. Instead of asking taxpayers to fund costly interventions or accept higher energy prices, restoration projects can generate revenue streams that make them attractive to private investors whilst delivering substantial climate benefits.
Consider the transformation of degraded agricultural land through regenerative practices. Farmers adopting these methods often see improved soil health, reduced input costs, and higher yields over time, whilst simultaneously storing significant amounts of carbon in their soils. This creates a win-win scenario that aligns economic incentives with climate objectives. Precisely the kind of approach that could overcome the political resistance identified in the editorial.
Addressing Public Cynicism
The Economist astutely noted that many people feel they're "being taken for chumps, paying good money to meet bad targets whilst businesses and people elsewhere are belching out carbon." This cynicism stems partly from the zero-sum nature of much current climate policy, where action requires sacrifice without clear, tangible benefits.
Biosphere restoration offers a different narrative. When communities see degraded landscapes transformed into thriving ecosystems that provide jobs, cleaner water, and improved local environments, the benefits become immediately apparent. This creates positive feedback loops that build public support rather than eroding it.
Moreover, restoration projects can be implemented locally, reducing the sense that climate action is something imposed from distant capitals or international bodies. Communities can see direct benefits in their own backyards, making the abstract concept of climate action concrete and personally meaningful.
The Scale of Opportunity
The potential for biosphere restoration to contribute to climate mitigation is substantial. Our oceans, terrestrial ecosystems, and even atmospheric microbiomes all offer opportunities for large-scale carbon sequestration. Marine restoration through kelp forests and seagrass beds, as well as reforestation and afforestation, and agricultural soil carbon enhancement, could collectively remove billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere annually.
This doesn't diminish the importance of emission reductions; rather, it provides a complementary pathway that could significantly ease the political and economic pressure on decarbonisation efforts. When restoration is removing substantial amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, the timeline for achieving net-zero emissions becomes more manageable, reducing the "quick, deep, and painful" cuts that make current targets politically untenable.
Learning from Political Realities
The editorial's call for pragmatism resonates strongly here. Just as politicians like Canada's prime minister have recognised that carbon taxes face public resistance, we must acknowledge that purely punitive approaches to climate policy have reached their political limits in many contexts.
Biosphere restoration offers a way forward that works with human nature rather than against it. People instinctively understand the value of healthy ecosystems and are more likely to support policies that enhance rather than restrict their options. This psychological dimension is crucial for building the sustained public support that effective climate action requires.
The Accountability Challenge
However, realising this potential requires addressing a critical gap identified in the response to The Economist's editorial: the need for robust accounting systems. The spectre of greenwashing has undermined confidence in many environmental initiatives, and restoration projects are not immune to these concerns.
Without credible measurement and verification systems, we risk repeating the mistakes that have plagued other climate initiatives. The development of comprehensive accounting frameworks, such as those being pursued by organisations like the International Centre for Earth Simulation in Geneva, will be essential for ensuring that restoration projects deliver genuine climate benefits rather than merely providing the appearance of action.
This need for accountability extends beyond simple carbon accounting to encompass biodiversity metrics, ecosystem health indicators, and social impact assessments. Only by demonstrating measurable, verifiable benefits can restoration projects avoid the cynicism that has corroded public trust in climate initiatives.
A Politics of Abundance
Perhaps most importantly, biosphere restoration offers the possibility of shifting climate policy from a politics of scarcity to a politics of abundance. Instead of asking people to accept less: less energy, less mobility, less economic growth. Restoration projects can deliver more: more jobs, more natural beauty, more resilient communities, and more economic opportunity.
This reframing could transform the entire climate debate. Rather than being seen as a burden that society must bear, climate action becomes an investment in a more prosperous and resilient future. This aligns with The Economist's observation that "voters everywhere prefer cleanliness to pollution and a future in which they can thrive to one that looks dangerous."
The Path Forward
The editorial concluded by calling for "a politics of new possibilities" that could put climate policy on a more sustainable footing. Biosphere restoration embodies precisely such a possibility. One that acknowledges both the urgency of climate action and the political realities that constrain it.
By complementing emission reduction efforts with large-scale ecosystem restoration, we can create a climate strategy that builds public support rather than erodes it, generates economic value rather than imposing costs, and offers hope rather than demanding sacrifice. This doesn't mean abandoning the push for decarbonisation, but rather recognising that our toolkit for addressing climate change is far richer than current policy debates suggest.
The question is not whether we can afford to pursue biosphere restoration alongside emission reductions, but whether we can afford not to. In a world where political consent for climate action is increasingly fragile, restoration offers a path that works with the grain of human nature and economic incentives rather than against them. That may well prove to be the pragmatic breakthrough that climate policy desperately needs.
