By virtue of their label, natural solutions promise to be particularly attractive to the public and policymakers and have received significant media and scholarly attention. The framing of particular solutions as “natural” or “unnatural” has far-reaching implications for climate policy, but has thus far been overlooked. We undertake a critical review of the ways in which natural solutions to climate change have been framed and examine the normative and practical implications of this framing. We review what counts as a natural solution, and find that those labelled natural are routinely framed under technical and social appraisal criteria as being more beneficial, cost effective, mature, and democratic than ostensibly artificial counterparts. And yet we show that, under greater scrutiny, the natural framing obscures the reality that natural solutions can be just as risky, expensive, immature, and technocratic. Rather, climate solutions must be evaluated in terms of their specific qualities, against a far broader range of framings than just “natural” or “unnatural”.