Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The writer, a former US Treasury secretary, chairs the Paulson Institute

Five years ago, I warned that we were sleepwalking towards a crisis by undervaluing nature, and in the process undermining the ecological stability of the planet. I was hopeful then that a new sense of urgency could take hold. Instead, while understanding of the consequences of destroying nature has increased, the pace of loss outstrips that of progress. We find ourselves still in pyjamas and half asleep, but now wandering towards the edge of a cliff.  

Greenhouse gas emissions, one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, are increasing. Tens of millions of acres of tropical forests have been destroyed, 48 per cent of species have declined, vertebrate populations have fallen 73 per cent and over half of North American grasslands have been lost. Nature loss threatens supply chains, food systems, public health and environmental stability. It can accelerate the risk of famine, resulting in massive increases in migration and social unrest.

As the extinction of plants and animals accelerates, our dependence on nature is deepening. A PwC analysis found that over half of global GDP — an estimated $58tn — is moderately or highly reliant on nature, up more than 30 per cent since the World Economic Forum’s 2020 estimate.

The biodiversity and climate crises continue the dual cycle of destruction, each exacerbating the other. Worse, our efforts to mitigate climate change too often increase biodiversity loss. In November, leaders will meet in the Amazon, perhaps the world’s greatest reservoir of biodiversity, for the annual UN conference on climate change (COP30). Ironically, given the location, biodiversity is a stepchild on the agenda. Plans and recommendations need to fully integrate the dual threats of climate change and biodiversity loss.

Considering climate solutions in a vacuum is short-sighted and dangerous. Too many of them imperil nature. Solar farms are sited on virgin land. Wind farms continue to be built without simple changes that could prevent millions of bird collisions. And governments persist with incentives and subsidies that advance biodiversity destruction.  

Every climate change policy and clean energy solution should be examined through the lens of biodiversity. For example, we need clean energy, but clean infrastructure requires up to 12 times more land than fossil fuel infrastructure, heightening biodiversity risk and increasing the need to site and mitigate these projects differently. 

Meanwhile, global biodiversity finance flows are a tenth of global climate funding. Recent analysis shows the financing gap has surged 30 per cent since 2020 to more than $940bn in 2024. Some $208bn was spent last year on biodiversity protections but, to keep pace with mounting losses, that must quintuple to $1.15tn by 2030.

Leaders at COP must take decisive action to tackle climate and biodiversity together. They should pass a recommendation that all climate mitigation projects include biodiversity impact assessments, and require mitigations and protections as a condition of public and private investment. The UK provides an example with a new national climate policy paper that recommends integrating the two strategies.

COP leaders should also use their platforms in multilateral banks and development finance institutions to similarly require biodiversity impact studies along with avoidance and mitigation plans. They should also have a dedicated biodiversity financing facility.

The good news is that NGOs and the private sector have innovated to improve biodiversity financing tools, but these won’t be effective unless backed by regulations and incentives. National governments must take concrete steps. For example, ranking climate projects on both climate benefits and biodiversity ones, giving lowest priority to those that harm the latter.  

Over the next decade trillions of dollars of infrastructure will be built. To mitigate needless harm to biodiversity, planners should avoid flawed placement and design. Policies should also reflect that the protection of biodiversity-rich places, particularly in the tropics and other low-income countries, can only be done sustainably by creating jobs and income for local, often indigenous, communities.

We still don’t know enough about the impact of massive extinction to quantify the risks of throwing Mother Nature out of balance or to assess how close we are to the tipping point. But we do know we are already at a critical crossroads. We know that the majesty of nature is priceless and irreplaceable. We know that climate and biodiversity are twin crises. And we know that we can’t tackle one without the other.