We contend that Sean Maxwell and colleagues' analysis of risk factors for biodiversity loss should have included a more nuanced view of climate change (Nature 536, 143–145; 2016) .

For example, the authors seem to rely too much on extreme climate hazards in assessing climate threats to biodiversity. They also overlook the fact that the extinction-risk criteria for species on the IUCN Red List often fail to capture risks from climate (see, for example, W. B. Foden et al. PLoS ONE 8, e65427; 2013). They do not consider slow-onset changes, such as habitat-range shifts and ocean acidification, or indirect threats to wildlife, such as human responses to climate-change effects on food security — particularly in poor populations and tropical regions.

Maxwell et al. imply that efforts directed against new (climate) and old (historical) threats are mutually exclusive. We find this simplistic and counterproductive: solutions need to be integrative and additive. They should also have accounted for system interactions — threats don't occur in isolation.

In our view, tackling the complexity and uncertainties of climate change calls for new ideas that focus on emerging threats to species. Without these, dedicated conservation interventions will fail over the long term.