Can Our Love of Naturalness Make or Break New Climate Solutions?

A technology can be scientifically powerful, environmentally promising and still fail before it reaches the public. A new study from the University of Colorado Boulder suggests that one deceptively simple judgment may help determine whether people support climate solutions: whether those solutions feel “natural.”

The research, published in Nature Communications, examined public attitudes toward technologies designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The researchers found that perceived naturalness predicted support for a technology even after accounting for factors such as perceived risks, benefits, fears, familiarity and understanding. The effect appeared across political ideologies, offering a rare point of agreement in the deeply polarized debate over climate policy.

“We found that naturalness predicts support over and above a lot of other things you might think matter, like risk and benefit perceptions or how much people understand the technology,” said Sarah Gonzalez-Coffin, the study’s first author and a social psychologist who earned her doctorate from CU Boulder in May. She is now a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Arizona’s Lovejoy Center for Bridging Biodiversity, Conservation Science & Policy.

The team surveyed 1,000 adults in the United States about 10 approaches to addressing climate change. The technologies and strategies ranged from afforestation, which removes carbon through tree growth, to wind and solar power, nuclear energy and direct-air carbon capture. Direct-air capture uses chemical filters to extract carbon dioxide from ambient air. The concentrated gas can then be transported and stored underground in geological formations, preventing at least some of it from returning to the atmosphere.

Participants were asked whether they supported using public tax dollars to deploy each approach on a broad scale. They also rated how risky, beneficial, familiar and frightening they considered the technologies, as well as how natural they seemed. Across the sample, naturalness remained a significant predictor of public support after the researchers considered these other judgments. Technologies associated with forests, plants or familiar natural processes generally received more favorable responses, while engineered or unfamiliar interventions faced greater resistance.

The finding builds on earlier research in health, food and consumer psychology. People often assume that natural products are safer, healthier or better, even when the evidence does not support those conclusions. Studies have shown, for example, that consumers may report that food tastes better when it carries an organic label, despite little measurable difference in flavor. Vaccines have also been judged as safer when described as containing ingredients “found in nature.” In the climate arena, Gonzalez-Coffin’s previous work found that beef grown from animal cells in a bioreactor was often rejected as too unnatural, despite possible environmental advantages.

There is no universally accepted legal definition of naturalness, but the researchers say people commonly associate it with limited human intervention, materials originating in the natural world and cultural familiarity. These intuitions may reflect a broad psychological preference for things perceived as unaltered or biologically evolved. “We ask ourselves all the time: Is this natural?” said senior author Leaf Van Boven, a professor of psychology at CU Boulder. “And we have a deep aversion to things that are artificial.”

The researchers then tested whether changing the language used to describe a technology could alter public reactions. In a second study, some participants read descriptions that emphasized similarities between engineered climate solutions and processes already found in nature. Direct-air carbon capture, for instance, was presented as a system that “mimics natural processes to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,” comparable to the way plants draw carbon from the air through their leaves. This framing increased support for the technologies, suggesting that public communication can influence acceptance without changing the underlying technology itself.

The result does not mean that presenting every climate technology as natural will make it safe, effective or socially acceptable. Naturalness can be misleading: tobacco companies used terms such as “natural,” “organic” and “additive-free” to market cigarettes, while modern greenwashing often relies on images of forests, leaves and pristine landscapes to make products appear environmentally responsible. The researchers therefore caution against disguising environmental costs or technological risks behind nature-themed language.

Instead, they argue that communicators should explain genuine connections between engineered systems and natural processes. Wind turbine blades, for example, have been influenced by the aerodynamic structure of humpback whale fins. Such examples can provide technically accurate context while helping audiences understand how a technology works. The findings may also influence the design and investment of future sustainability technologies, encouraging researchers to consider public perceptions alongside engineering performance. “The gridlock that we’re running into is largely social,” Gonzalez-Coffin said. “Our work brings that missing social component to illuminate the underlying psychology behind this gridlock.”

News Publication Date: 20-Jul-2026

Web References: University of Colorado Boulder study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-026-03829-w; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-026-03829-w

References: Gonzalez-Coffin, S. et al., “Naturalness catalyzes public support for carbon dioxide removal and low-carbon energy technologies,” Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/s43247-026-03829-w