As expectations around net zero rise, companies are under growing pressure to decide where to invest: nature-based or tech-based carbon removals. The choice matters. By 2050, 6–10 billion tonnes of CO₂ will need to be removed from the atmosphere every year.
In our webinar, The Carbon Removal Debate: Nature vs. Tech, Climate Impact Partners brought together sustainability leaders from UPS and Kearney to explore how companies are navigating this decision in practice. The discussion moved beyond theory to focus on portfolio design, quality, risk, and the internal business case for investment.
Watch the webinar to hear how UPS and Kearney are approaching the biggest questions in carbon removals: how they balance nature and tech, define quality, build the internal business case, and why they are acting now despite uncertainty.
Watch replay nowUPS and Kearney offered a practical view of how leading organizations are approaching carbon removals today. Four themes stood out:
Much of the market debate focuses on whether nature-based or tech-based removals are “better” or “more efficient.” But one message came through clearly in this discussion: that framing misses the point.
Instead of prescribing a fixed balance between nature-based and technological removals, we believe both are essential and have structured our portfolio to reflect that.
Rather than treating nature-based and tech-based removals as competing choices, both organizations described building blended portfolios that can evolve over time. As Ryan King, Chief Growth Officer at Climate Impact Partners, noted, the challenge is less about picking a side and more about finding the right balance of risk, credibility, and budget while meeting internal needs and external expectations.
Jessica Garcia, Sustainability Manager at UPS, said that carbon removals support UPS’s Carbon Neutral shipping offering for customers and are expected to play a later-stage role in its decarbonization strategy by addressing emissions that cannot yet be reduced, as we progress toward its 2050 carbon neutrality goal.
Cost matters and UPS uses a balanced mix of project types to manage price while maintaining confidence and customer trust.
Our customers can be price sensitive, so we leverage a range of options at different price points, allowing us to maintain a balanced approach with an averaged blended cost.
There was also clear alignment between experts on what makes a removals strategy defensible. Credibility, permanence, third-party verification, and delivery risk management were all treated as essential rather than optional.
Pei Yun and Jessica reinforced this point, stressing the importance of building a strategy that can stand up as standards and expectations continue to evolve.
We want to be recognized as a sustainability leader. For our credibility with clients, employees and partners, it’s important to demonstrate that we’re committed to investing in decarbonization solutions for the long run.
The discussion also touched on external pressures, from economic uncertainty to geopolitical instability and shifting market signals. While these factors may affect short-term dynamics, neither UPS nor Kearney suggested they had changed their long-term climate commitments.
If anything, rising scrutiny and future demand were seen as reasons to move early while preserving flexibility. Securing access to high-quality removals now can help organizations manage future risk even as their portfolios continue to evolve.
The session reinforced a clear takeaway: there is no single right answer in the nature vs. tech debate. The strongest carbon removal strategies are grounded in high-quality projects, business realities, and the flexibility to evolve as the market matures.
Explore our carbon removal projects and learn how we support credibility, governance, and delivery confidence across both nature and tech-based portfolios.
