Science, while ultimately grounded on the concept of knowledge, has always been a rich and often controversial stage for debate. While many scientific debates have been effectively ‘solved’ by further acquisition of knowledge (for example, heliocentrism versus geocentrism), others remain ripe for discussion. Examples include big questions about the origins of life on Earth, the potential for life outside this planet, or the ultimate impacts of artificial intelligence.


In the climate change field, the big questions have historically been those related to the recognition and acceptance of anthropogenic climate change. While the intensity of climate change debates has been partly fuelled by personal and political desires, the field remains wide open for debate even within more purely scientific realms due to its strong focus on future events. Past debates have now evolved into discussions on the details of what will happen when (and where), as well as weighing up the potential and pitfalls of different modes of action or inaction.

For example, in this issue of Nature Climate Change, we feature several pieces related to the complicated debate of how to best prioritize the conservation of species and their ecosystem functions in the context of rapid change, including discussion on the role of active human intervention. Among these, three independently written pieces on the conservation of corals highlight different, and sometimes opposing, priorities for future action.

In a Comment, Timothy McClanahan stresses that a focus on broad narratives of global coral loss, rather than acknowledging heterogeneities, caveats and uncertainty, will hinder management and muddy public communication. In their Comment, Robert Streit and colleagues argue for a minimal intervention approach in managing corals, questioning whether a human desire to ‘act heroically’ might hinder decision-making and be counterproductive. By contrast, Michael Webster and Daniel Schindler suggest in another Comment that ecological replacement — whereby corals lost to global change are replaced with species providing similar ecosystem functions — should be considered, urging that the potential risks of such actions are weighed against the risks of not intervening.

In a separate research Article, Silvio Schueler and colleagues focus on just one part of this ‘risk of inaction’ in a forest context, to demonstrate that while assisted migration (moving species and populations in response to climate change) can maintain or improve carbon stocks, failing to do so could result in large future carbon sink losses. Discussions related to active manipulation and movement of species have been historically more open when plants rather than animals (even relatively sessile animals, such as coral) are involved, particularly in artificial contexts such as crop or forestry plantations. Nonetheless, the wider debate remains in its infancy. In highlighting the potential, Schueler and colleagues call for more research to quantify the trade-offs between the opportunities and risks of implementation.

The topics here represent just a fraction of the ongoing debates in climate change circles. Recent examples range from questions related to the feasibility of large-scale carbon dioxide removal deployment (Nat. Clim. Change 14, 549; 2024), different opinions on geoengineering research and implementation, or altering the chemistry of the atmosphere to degrade methane (Q. Li et al. Nat. Commun. 14, 4045; 2023). Beyond that, many climate change debates have a common theme at their core — that regardless of the findings, any future possibilities should not be considered as an alternative for active mitigation.

Many of these are likely to be debated for some time to come as both science and time progress. We look forward to these debates, and hope that active discussion can help push science forward.