The dangers of framing animals as climate solutions

The concept of using animals as climate solutions has gained momentum in recent years, with rewilding and conservation touted as nature-based ways to mitigate climate change. A recent Nature Climate Change article, titled “Resisting the Carbonization of Animals as Climate Solutions,” challenges this narrative, cautioning against overstating the role of large animals in carbon sequestration. […] July 27, 2024

The concept of using animals as climate solutions has gained momentum in recent years, with rewilding and conservation touted as nature-based ways to mitigate climate change. A recent Nature Climate Change article, titled “Resisting the Carbonization of Animals as Climate Solutions,” challenges this narrative, cautioning against overstating the role of large animals in carbon sequestration. The authors argue that focusing too much on animals as carbon assets risks leading to misguided climate strategies, ethical dilemmas, and ultimately, missed opportunities to address the core drivers of climate change.

The uncertain role of animals in climate mitigation

Animals, particularly large herbivores and apex predators, have been increasingly linked to carbon sequestration. For example, elephants in African forests can enhance above-ground carbon stocks by altering forest structure, while whales are suggested to aid in oceanic carbon cycling through nutrient distribution. However, the authors emphasise that the impact of animals on carbon dynamics is highly uncertain and depends heavily on context—different species, ecosystems, and environmental conditions lead to vastly different outcomes.

While some animals contribute to carbon storage, others, such as savanna elephants, can significantly reduce above-ground carbon stocks through tree destruction and grazing. The variability extends to predators as well, where their indirect impacts on prey populations and the landscape can result in both increased and decreased carbon storage depending on the setting. This complexity makes broad claims about animal-led carbon mitigation unreliable.

Challenges in scaling animal rewilding for carbon benefits

Scaling the impact of animals for global carbon benefits poses enormous challenges. Only 11% of land suitable for rewilding is formally protected, and social issues such as human-wildlife conflict make the broader implementation of rewilding strategies even more complex. Furthermore, the timelines for animals to reach population levels that could meaningfully contribute to carbon sequestration are long—often spanning decades to centuries. For instance, the slow reproduction rates of large mammals mean that even under optimal conditions, their population growth is gradual and subject to setbacks like poaching and climate-induced disasters.

The authors stress that while animal rewilding might have positive impacts over the long term, these are unlikely to contribute meaningfully to climate mitigation within the necessary timeframe. The pressing need to reduce carbon emissions within the next few decades cannot rely on the uncertain and slow benefits of rewilding; it requires immediate action, particularly in reducing fossil fuel emissions.

Ethical dilemmas of commodifying animals for carbon offsets

Another central point raised in the article concerns the ethical issues around monetising animals as carbon offsets. Proposals to assign economic value to the carbon services provided by wildlife, such as estimating that each African forest elephant offers $1.8 million worth of carbon sequestration, are problematic. These valuations, while attractive to the carbon offset market, lack rigorous scientific backing and field verification. Moreover, focusing on the carbon benefits of animals risks overshadowing their ecological and intrinsic values, potentially leading to damaging conservation practices aimed at optimising a single service—carbon storage—over ecosystem health.

There is also the risk of promoting harmful narratives, such as justifying actions like whale hunting in the name of carbon services. Overemphasising animals’ roles in carbon capture might create incentives that ultimately lead to negative consequences for both wildlife and ecosystems, especially if such strategies divert attention from the need to curb fossil fuel consumption and reform land-use practices.

Conservation beyond carbon: A broader perspective

While the potential of animals to contribute to carbon sequestration should not be entirely dismissed, the authors advocate for a broader conservation perspective. Animals play crucial roles in maintaining ecosystem diversity, nutrient cycling, and habitat structure. Conservation efforts that focus solely on carbon risk undermining these other important functions, leading to “bio-perverse” outcomes that could weaken ecosystems rather than strengthen them.

Ultimately, the authors urge that conservation and rewilding be pursued not primarily for their carbon benefits but for their ability to restore and sustain diverse ecosystems. Restoring healthy populations of large animals can help rebuild trophic structures, enhance biodiversity, and increase resilience to environmental changes, thereby supporting ecosystems that are better adapted to a changing climate.

While large animal conservation and rewilding have their place in a holistic environmental strategy, they should not be seen as a substitute for reducing emissions. Misplaced emphasis on carbonising animals could lead to failed mitigation efforts and distract from the urgent and necessary shift away from fossil fuels. Effective climate action requires reducing emissions at the source, while conservation should focus on preserving and restoring the full spectrum of ecosystem services that animals provide.