When Climate Goals Meet Nature’s Limits: Rethinking “Win-Win” Solutions for the Planet

Wood stork

26-10-2025

First, for birds immersed in all sorts of disputes, over millennia, making too much noise, Zhuang teaches:
“Birds don’t argue about the sky. They fly.”

In Kingfisherish Wandering [1]

© Wix

As governments and organizations pursue ambitious plans to tackle climate change, the protection of biodiversity often appears as a natural ally. The popular idea of “synergies” between climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation—where one effort automatically benefits the other—has become a cornerstone of international policy discussions [2,3]. Yet, as de Silva et al. [4] argue, this narrative hides complex trade-offs that may undermine both goals if not handled with ethical and participatory care.

Historically, climate and biodiversity policies evolved separately, embodied in distinct international conventions and national agencies. In recent years, however, initiatives like the “nature-based solutions” frameworks have sought to integrate both agendas [5,6]. While many studies highlight co-benefits—such as carbon storage through ecosystem restoration—real-world conflicts persist. Expanding renewable-energy infrastructure can destroy fragile habitats; mining rare-earth minerals for green technologies can devastate ecosystems; and even ecotourism meant to fund conservation can increase carbon emissions.

The authors critique cost–benefit analysis (CBA)—a dominant policy tool used to weigh such trade-offs—for its inability to capture the true value of biodiversity. Unlike carbon, which can be measured and traded, biodiversity is context-specific, non-fungible, and ethically charged. No universal metric exists to quantify the worth of a wetland or the extinction of a species. As de Silva et al. note, reducing these values to monetary terms risks oversimplifying moral and ecological complexity [4].

To address this gap, the study proposes the establishment of environmental ethics committees, modeled after bioethics and institutional review boards. These committees would bring together scientists, ethicists, Indigenous leaders, and policymakers to deliberate transparently on the ethical, ecological, and social dimensions of climate-biodiversity decisions. Rather than treating environmental choices as technical optimizations, they would acknowledge moral pluralism and foster trust across communities.

By valuing diversity not as a cost but as an integral form of knowledge, such ethics-driven governance can cultivate wiser relationships with the Earth. Enhancing NQ thus means learning to perceive balance, not domination, in our exchanges with nature—an essential step toward social and ecological peace [7,8].

References

[1] Nguyen MH. (2025). Kingfisherish Wandering. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FVLLLXNW/

[2] Baldwin-Cantello W, et al. (2023). The triple challenge: synergies, trade-offs and integrated responses for climate, biodiversity, and human wellbeing goals. Climate Policy, 23, 782-799. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2175637

[3] Santangeli A, et al. (2016). Global change synergies and trade-offs between renewable energy and biodiversity. GCB Bioenergy, 8, 941-951. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12299

[4] de Silva S, et al. (2025). Navigating synergies vs. trade-offs between climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. npj Biodiversity, 4, 22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-025-00092-8

[5] Key IB, et al. (2022). Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: characterising the evidence base. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 905767. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.905767

[6] Seddon N, et al. (2020). Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375, 20190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120

[7] Vuong QH, Nguyen MH. (2025). On Nature Quotient. Pacific Conservation Biology, 31, PC25028. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC25028

[8] Vuong QH, La VP, Nguyen MH. (2025). Informational entropy-based value formation: A new paradigm for a deeper understanding of value. Evaluation Review. (Forthcoming) https://philpapers.org/rec/VUOIEV