When I say I work with climate technology startups, environmentalists sometimes raise an eyebrow.

"Isn't that greenwashing?" some say. "What about nature-based solutions?" others ask.

The truth is, these comments reflect a limited understanding of what climate tech is and what it can do for us.

So today, I wanted to dig into the biggest misconceptions I hear about climate tech, and unpack why we need both tech-based and nature-based solutions.

Misconception #1: Climate tech replaces nature

Over the past couple of years, climate tech has been painted as rows of shiny metallic machines sucking carbon from the air while oil companies continue to pollute the atmosphere.

If that's your view, I get why you'd feel uneasy!

But this isn't the whole picture.

Study the variety of tech-based carbon dioxide removals, for instance, and you see that many climate technologies are actually inspired by natural processes. Tech-based approaches like biochar and enhanced weathering mimic and accelerate natural processes, locking carbon away for centuries — much longer than nature-based removals do.

We're not replacing nature — we're mimicking it.

Misconception #2: We don't need climate tech

Yes, we need behavior change, emissions reduction, and nature-based solutions at scale.

But we also need technology for virtually every aspect of decarbonization. (Whether we call it "clean tech" or "climate tech" is beside the point.)

For example, we need:

• software to help us track and manage emissions

• renewables, grid modernization, and battery energy storage systems to power and store all the energy we need

• satellites to monitor and help us prevent deforestation and methane leaks

And dozens of other applications.

Reaching net-zero emissions and decarbonizing the entire economy is a massive undertaking. We need tech to reach net zero fast enough.

Misconception #3: Climate tech diverts resources from immediate solutions

Climate tech skeptics like Jonathan Foley of Project Drawdown have argued that many types of climate tech are a distraction — a "fig leaf" for oil and gas companies.

But even Foley acknowledges we need to invest in carbon removal technologies now if they are to reach the scale we need by 2050. And as tech-based projects continue to develop, we're seeing exciting updates emerge, like modular Direct Air Capture, improvements to monitoring and verification systems, and a lot more.

We shouldn't bet the farm on carbon removals — we need the "emergency brake" solutions Project Drawdown outlines, as well as investment in nature and tech-based carbon removals to reach our goals.

Climate tech and nature don't have to be at odds

I understand the skepticism about climate tech — the fears that the Elon Musks and oil tycoons of the world are simply peddling it to make boatloads of cash.

But in our polarized world, we need to make room for nuance.

Not simply yell "greenwashing" whenever tech enters the chat.