In climate ethics, many have worried about the potential injustices arising from large-scale implementation of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). To date, most of this discussion has focused on one particular form of CDR, the bioenergy-based BECCS technique. However, the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report estimates that ‘nature-based’ forms of CDR such as afforestation and reforestation, soil carbon sequestration, and agroforestry have significant removal potentials, as well as potential co-benefits for local communities and biodiversity. Nature-based CDR might be more cost-effective and less technologically speculative than ‘engineered’ forms such as BECCS. Nonetheless, there are emerging concerns that some ‘nature-based’ solutions might actually harm biodiversity and nonhuman nature, even if they helped to achieve climate goals. For instance, a narrow focus on carbon in afforestation and reforestation projects might prioritise fast-growing monocultures over native vegetation, leading to biodiversity and habitat loss. Given the political and social implications of framing CDR as ‘natural’, the very label might be misleading.

In cases where carbon goals and other sustainable development priorities diverge, it is important to clarify what climate justice requires. This becomes more difficult if climate justice ought to be attuned to the moral interests of non-humans, as has recently been argued. Yet because anthropocentric theorising has dominated previous work on climate justice, it remains unclear how non-anthropocentric interests ought to affect debates about CDR.

This paper will examine the implications of ‘nature-based’ forms of CDR from the perspective of climate justice. Firstly, drawing upon the capability approach to justice, it explores whether some ‘nature-based’ forms of CDR are preferable in light of their potential effects upon people, including communities living near potential CDR sites. Secondly, this paper explores the implications of nature-based CDR from a multispecies justice perspective. This builds upon contemporary debates concerning the expansion of the capability approach to non-humans. The resulting account will assess whether certain nature-based forms of CDR ought to be favoured over others, and how potential conflicts between human and non-human entities might be addressed. Finally, it will be argued that this account significantly changes the role of CDR in the context of climate mitigation and sustainable development.