Why We Prefer Trees to Technology in Fighting Climate Change
Imagine if we could turn back time on climate change by literally sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. What if we could design technologies that work like artificial forests—giant machines that could clean our air more efficiently than any natural system? As climate change accelerates, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies have emerged as potential game-changers in our fight against global warming. Yet, not all climate solutions are created equal in the public eye.
Why do we feel more comfortable with planting trees than with building massive carbon-sucking machines, even when both aim to achieve the same goal? The answer lies in a powerful psychological phenomenon: our aversion to tampering with nature.
Recent groundbreaking research across multiple continents reveals that our perceptions of what is "natural" may significantly influence which climate solutions we're willing to accept—potentially determining which technologies get funded, developed, and deployed on the scale necessary to combat climate change. This article explores the fascinating science behind public perception of CDR technologies and what it means for our climate future.
Carbon dioxide removal represents a paradigm shift in climate action. While traditional approaches focus on reducing future emissions, CDR aims to address the carbon dioxide that already exists in our atmosphere. Think of it as cleaning up after a party rather than just promising to throw fewer parties in the future.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has made it clear that many pathways to limit global warming to 1.5°C require deploying these CDR strategies at massive scale. But will publics around the world accept them?
Deep in the human psyche lies a preference for things perceived as natural—a phenomenon psychologists call the "naturalness bias." We tend to view natural things as safer, more morally acceptable, and inherently better than their artificial counterparts, even when evidence suggests otherwise.
This bias explains why people often prefer natural remedies to pharmaceuticals, natural foods to processed alternatives, and—crucially for climate policy—nature-based climate solutions to technological ones. This aversion to tampering with nature (ATN) varies among individuals but represents a significant barrier to acceptance of emerging technologies 6 .
The belief that humans shouldn't "play God" with natural systems
The assumption that natural systems are more predictable and safer
The association of natural with pure and technological with contaminated
In 2024, a landmark study published in Nature Communications provided the first truly global baseline of public perceptions on climate intervention technologies 3 . The research team surveyed an astonishing 30,284 participants across 30 countries in 19 languages, representing both Global North and Global South perspectives.
The study confirmed that most people remain largely unfamiliar with CDR technologies. A staggering 63% of voters in the U.S. reported having heard "nothing at all" about carbon removal, while only 7% had heard "a lot" 2 . This familiarity gap presents a critical challenge for policymakers and scientists hoping to engage the public in informed decision-making about climate solutions.
The research uncovered a fascinating geographical divide: Global South publics expressed significantly more favorable views about potential benefits and greater support for most climate intervention technologies compared to those in the Global North 3 .
This difference may stem from the fact that Global South countries are often more immediately vulnerable to climate impacts, potentially making them more open to technological solutions. Younger people and those living in poverty also showed greater support for CDR approaches across both regions 5 .
| Technology Type | Global North Support | Global South Support | Key Concerns |
|---|---|---|---|
| Afforestation/Reforestation | High | High | Land use conflicts |
| Soil Carbon Sequestration | High | High | Implementation costs |
| Direct Air Capture | Moderate | High | Energy requirements |
| Enhanced Weathering | Low | Moderate | Environmental contamination |
| BECCS | Low | Moderate | Food security impacts |
A crucial 2019 study published in Climatic Change laid important groundwork for understanding how perceptions of tampering with nature influence support for CDR strategies 6 7 . The research team conducted an online survey experiment with 980 U.S. adults, employing carefully designed methodological approaches to unpack the psychological mechanisms behind technology acceptance.
The researchers used a vignette-based experiment where participants received information about three CDR strategies:
Afforestation and reforestation (AR)
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
Direct air capture (DAC)
For each approach, participants received either a simple description of the technology or a description that included both benefits and risks. The researchers then measured perceptions of tampering, general ATN orientation, and support for deployment.
The findings revealed a clear hierarchy of preference based on perceived naturalness 6 7 :
This support ranking directly corresponded to how much each technology was perceived to tamper with nature. The mediation analysis showed that perceptions of tampering explained why people supported some technologies more than others.
| Technology Type | Support with Simple Description | Support with Risk/Benefit Description | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Afforestation/Reforestation | 4.2 (on 5-point scale) | 3.9 | -0.3 |
| BECCS | 3.5 | 3.2 | -0.3 |
| Direct Air Capture | 3.3 | 3.0 | -0.3 |
Crucially, the effect was particularly strong among individuals who were generally opposed to the idea of humans interfering with natural processes. For these individuals, describing the risks and benefits of CDR strategies actually decreased support—suggesting that providing balanced information may backfire when it reinforces perceptions of tampering.
The research on tampering perceptions creates a communication dilemma for scientists and policymakers. On one hand, transparency about risks and benefits is ethically important. On the other hand, providing balanced information about technological solutions may inadvertently decrease public support by highlighting how these approaches tamper with natural systems 6 .
The research suggests that successful CDR deployment will require:
Combining multiple CDR strategies
Engaging communities in decisions
Ensuring equitable distribution
Prioritizing emissions reductions first
"Successful climate action will require systemic coordination across sectors, levels, and borders while prioritizing underlying causes of climate change and interrelated governance issues" 1 .
The question of how we remove carbon from the atmosphere transcends technical specifications and cost curves—it forces us to confront fundamental questions about humanity's relationship with nature. Are we gardeners tending carefully to Earth's systems, or engineers building better versions of them? Perhaps we must learn to be both.
The research on public perceptions of carbon removal reveals a profound tension in our technological moment: we recognize the need for dramatic interventions to address climate change, yet we feel deep unease about solutions that feel too artificial or disruptive to natural systems.
What remains clear is that our climate future will depend not just on developing technological capabilities, but on navigating human values, perceptions, and fears. The challenge ahead is as much about understanding ourselves as it is about understanding the carbon cycle.