Background/Question/Methods Solutions to societal challenges that involve nature, or Nature-based Solutions (NbS), are increasingly proposed in international environmental governance settings to address the interlinked crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and growing inequality. NbS has seen a rapid increase in work programmes and funding by governments, conservation agencies, research institutions, and the private sector in the past two years. Thus far, scholarly research on NbS has been largely conceptual, either offering principles and guidelines, or reviews of its origins and use. Despite its linked implications for people and nature, empirical research from the social sciences is widely absent. Less recognized, is that NbS, like other policy approaches before it, are motivated by a complex combination of institutional commitments and values (also known as narratives). These policy narratives matter, for the ways they can serve to communicate problems, define solutions, and restrict the participation of certain actors and the inclusion of diverse knowledges in policy and in practice. Using the 2019 United Nations Climate Action Summit and the 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 25) as a case study, we conduct a narrative analysis to examine narratives of NbS operating in global environmental governance settings. We address the following question: how do different actors view the opportunities, challenges, and risks associated with NbS? Data for this study included a systematic document analysis of public-facing communication pieces and publications, and 10 expert interviews. Results/Conclusions Results reveal two central and opposing narratives. There is the “leveraging the power of nature” narrative, driven by proponents of NbS, often national governments, multinational corporations, and international organizations, who hold the view that nature is critical in addressing climate change. This narrative argues that NbS are cost-effective, multifunctional, and scalable if substantial funding can be made available. In contrast is the “dangerous distraction” narrative, often held by local and Indigenous organizations and grassroots groups, who are critical of NbS and warn that it is being co-opted, largely by corporations, to continue with what is seen as the unsustainable, unjust, status-quo. In this narrative, NbS is something to be wary of, or even rejected outright. Our analysis indicates that the policy narratives of NbS and the broad coalitions behind them, tend to follow existing fault-lines in global environmental governance. If NbS is to avoid reproducing historic power imbalances and effectively contribute to the interlinked global crises we face, these contrasting narratives must be critically examined by its proponents.