The habitat range of more and more species is contracting as a result of global warming. Rising temperatures are forcing birds, butterflies, grasses and trees to higher latitudes and elevations where conditions are more agreeable. However, space and resources are not necessarily adequate for species on the move; human-induced degradation of ecosystems has destroyed many migration avenues, and mountains only stretch so far. Furthermore, a shift in the timing of key events such as flowering, breeding and migration is decoupling the life cycles of a huge number of interacting species. In short, the outlook for biodiversity is bleak.

In response to these challenges, a scientific and practical road map for preserving biodiversity in the face of global change was drawn up at a meeting on biodiversity and climate change at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in London this September. Representatives from the meeting stressed the urgent need to integrate the ecological and climate sciences. Indeed, as James Lovelock pointed out after his talk at the Science Museum in London the following week, the governance of these two disciplines by separate United Nations treaties, the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, is an example of how divided these essentially inseparable disciplines are.

Both the climate and biodiversity communities work hard for the goal of making the planet a better place. But the fastest pathway to a stable climate is not necessarily good for biodiversity preservation. A bare patch of land might look like the ideal location to plant a fast growing forest to mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but it could also represent one of the few remaining residences for a species on the move. Multiple uses of any given patch of land need to be taken into consideration before deciding how best to use that land. And for that, a dialogue is needed between all the stakeholders. There is no guarantee that ecologists and climate activists will envisage the same solution just because they all fall under the broad umbrella of environmentalists.

Of course, the discussion on biodiversity decline cannot be reduced to the impacts of climate change alone. Other factors that influence ecosystem diversity, such as pollution and land-use change, are far too important. As Georgina Mace of Imperial College London pointed out, conserving biodiversity is a far more complex issue than regulating climate change. Greenhouse gases are a truly global problem, calling for global emissions reductions. Biodiversity losses on the other hand occur essentially at the local level, and an in-depth understanding of individual locations is needed to devise solutions.

Nevertheless, we should at least aim at maintaining an agreeable climate and an acceptable level of biodiversity at the same time. These goals are not in disagreement per se. A little extra thought could go a long way in aligning the interests of ecologists and climatologists.