By Oliver Luker*

In 2022, we discovered a degraded fen on our property in McHenry County, Illinois. Originally transformed in the 1960s into a fishing and camping site, disturbances to the water table have led to multiple water channeling issues. The fen, once vibrant, is now overrun by invasive species, with nettles as its only defining feature.

Oliver Luker, third from left, at Wonderland Community Project

Spanning about six acres, half of which is on an adjoining property, the fen has suffered from the encroachment of black walnut trees for the past 30 years. Their roots absorb water and their crowns block sunlight, threatening this vital ecosystem. We began restoration by cutting down these trees in a one-acre section and stacking the logs for future use.

We expect the restoration of the fen to be a lengthy, if not lifelong project. The explosion of reed canary grass that heralded our repeated scything of the nettles has brought us to sheet mulch some areas with the hope of containing this invasive. Ground staples will barely hold in the soil, which has so much organic matter that it shakes as we walk on it. So how to hold down the sheets of cardboard? With none other than the same logs we had stacked 18 months ago.

This situation exemplifies how problems can become part of the solution—a common theme in climate action. We are living today with the highest concentration of atmospheric CO₂ for approximately 14 million years. Despite the allure of technological solutions, a naive argument in favor of this material abundance is transparently an argument in favor of more ecosystem degradation. Igoe (2017, in Paladino & Fiske) traces the core argument here and identifies the cornerstone – economic growth as driven by payments for ecosystem services presupposes the inevitability of capitalist expansion, itself far from a foregone conclusion. Put another way, we know that the concentrated manure from Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) is problematic – but the same effluent is essential in managed grazing; that the sun’s heat can damage as well as sustain; that adding trees to urban heat islands not only provides adaptation, but also mitigation.

Nettles are often all that will grow on a heavily degraded fen.

Yes we can: climate and circularity

At the start of my climate journey, I was amazed and encouraged to see the ingenuity and enterprise in play. The growth of EVs seemed like an unalloyed good, the German economy had enjoyed several months of 100% solar energy, and Air Protein was making steaks out of air.

In reality of course, things aren’t that simple – some problems are problems no matter how much marketing spin we throw at them, and some “solutions”, well, aren’t. EV makers aren’t here to save the planet – they’re here to save the automobile industry. With that said, there are numerous examples of nature–based solutions which are measurably making this better.

Using industrial or agricultural waste as feedstock is a major lever for many “circular economy” startups – and clearly an example where “the problem is the solution”. For example, Charm builds on–site gasifiers for agricultural waste in order to generate liquid CO2 which can subsequently be further processed into syngas. They leave 50% of the biomass in the field, with at–scale plans to “solve” the biochar problem at a local level.

By adding crushed limestone to rivers impacted by pollution, which then dissolves rapidly into bicarbonate and other minerals, CarbonRun absorbs CO2 from both soil and atmosphere. Similar to ERW, this process is circular to the extent that its feedstock is currently being produced naturally, and can produce results at speeds far exceeding the natural “slow carbon cycle”. Similarly, Ikigai Carbon’s current project (Omiti Biochar) transforms invasive species into biochar, turning waste into a resource while simultaneously restoring ecosystems. This Namibia–based project tackles both carbon sequestration and land degradation.

In cases of riverbed degradation from damming or industrial use, proper dam removal and remeandering can restore natural water flow and fish migration routes while enhancing wetlands as carbon sinks. Similarly, addressing coastal erosion can improve ecosystems and carbon capture through mangrove planting: the problem becomes the solution.

These examples illustrate how waste and pollution can generate solutions with tangible benefits. Charm, for example, reports that they have removed 7,288 tonnes of CO2e [carbon dioxide equivalent] from the atmosphere – a great example of the carbon economics that can be generated by well–considered “problems as solutions”. A review of HolonIQ’s Climate Tech Landscape provides other examples that are worth reviewing.

But can we really?

Without falling prey to the infinite allure of whataboutism, for every good solution we can find many where the bloom is well off the rose. Many solutions have hidden complexities – how is that liquid syngas being used? (often, fracking). Is that crushed limestone actually waste? Do international investors need to be working on invasive species in Namibia?

Future Climate Land Leader Ilich Oniboni manually seeding

“Problem as solution” may seem like a convenient way into systems thinking, or into circularity, and all this feel–good content is a wonderful smokescreen for what’s really going on – a continuation of extractivist economics by another name. We’ve seen it in tropical forest credits, where “value” is created at the cost of local independence, abuses and fraud are committed, and then the credits themselves evaporate. Just last month, a CEO of a carbon organization (and ex Verra board member) was indicted for fraud.

The complexities of capitalist–driven conservation efforts, carbon markets and the uneven distribution of benefits must be carefully examined. The history of environmental offsets, where ecosystem metrics are manipulated for profit, raises ethical questions about sustainability. These initiatives must be grounded in transparency, and care must be taken to avoid perpetuating harmful systems in the name of environmentalism.

In addition, the “problem as solution” framework is not without its limitations. Many regulatory schemes, particularly in carbon markets, tend to comply with the letter of the law rather than its spirit. Extractivist economics often rebrand their harmful practices under the guise of sustainability. For example, many carbon offset programs allow continued degradation elsewhere, while focusing on superficial “solutions.” This perpetuates the very systems of exploitation we seek to avoid.

At the heart of the conservationist program is capitalist expansion (Brockington et al, 2009). Sullivan (2013b) captures the “premises and principles of offsetting mechanisms” thus:

1. Residual environmental harm, which assumes that capitalist development is unavoidable and necessarily causes some environmental harm
2. off–site mitigation, which allows the … harm to be offset somewhere other than where it occurred
3. ecosystem metrics, which quantify ecosystem qualities to permit exchangeability
4. additionality, which affirms that conservation would not have occurred without the offsetting mechanism

In the face of this reality, and the moral bind at its heart, can we really address the problems that we have created without a full–scale revolution? Is addressing climate change an Either / Or proposition, in which we must choose the ethical way of life above the aesthetic?

Ethics (or bread) and roses

“World is suddener than we fancy it. / World is crazier and more of it than we think, / Incorrigibly plural” Louis MacNeice, Snow.

Peter Singer’s book The Most Good You Can Do (2015) is a fairly provocative read by the otherwise unsentimental ethicist. He proposes what he calls “effective altruism”: a philosophical and social movement that seeks to identify the most effective ways to help others by using evidence and reason. It emphasizes prioritizing causes based on their scale, tractability and neglectedness, aiming to maximize positive impact through informed decision–making.

The study of ethics brings us face to face with the inherent plurality of things, and with the abrupt messiness of the world. Utilitarianism focuses on doing “the greatest good to the greatest number (of people)” – the consequences of acts, above their inherent nature. Kantian ethics emphasize moral duties and universal principals. AJ Ayer’s “hurrah–boo” theory posits moral statements as reflections of emotional states, descriptive in nature.

Things get no easier when we abandon this Eurocentric lens and consider (for example) Daoist or Islamic, Confucian or Hindu ethics. In the words of Elvis Presley – if you’re looking for trouble, you came to the right place. Beyond purely rule–governed systems, ethical frameworks tend to function as strategy, not tactics: if taking an action results in an improvement, to whom? And if ought does not imply can – then what?

All this goes to say one thing – that the vital plurality of the world, the same plurality that we seek to preserve and to expand, is at odds with simple answers. Adapting to circumstance, whether through establishing an exchange–value for old–growth ecosystems in order to prevent their spoil, or through establishing carbon cascades to use and reuse biochar, can produce scaling effects: tipping points towards good, as suggested in this article from The Guardian.

Not all of those inflection points produce unimpeachable results. Nature–based solutions often produce challenges with regard to land availability and access, imperiling community involvement and landowner participation through extensive contractual demands or exclusionary protocols.

The plurality of nature–based solutions – whether in wetlands, forests, or agriculture – underscores the need for a flexible approach. The urgency of restoring degraded ecosystems demands that we look beyond simple technological fixes and embrace the inherent complexity of natural processes. By focusing on sustainable, ethical practices, we can develop solutions that adapt to changing climates while providing long–term ecological benefits.

Conclusion

Embracing a “problem is the solution” mindset for nature–based solutions offers a way forward in tackling climate change. Solutions like biochar, river restoration and ecosystem management demonstrate that nature, when harnessed thoughtfully, can be one of our strongest allies in carbon removal and environmental restoration. However, the inherent plurality and complexity of nature means that we need to couple adaptive management techniques with the solution-set: we fully expect to take steps both forward and back and must operate with the necessary humility – building risk management structures that reflect this.

This adaptive approach, coupled with careful ethical consideration, has the potential to mitigate future environmental impacts and actually deliver the change we so sorely need.

*Climate Land Leader Oliver Luker is Co-Founder and CEO at Seq Solutions and also co-founder and member of Wonderland Community Project in McHenry County, Illinois.