As my colleague mentioned, we're not climate scientists per se, so those sorts of questions are best addressed by people who specialize in those areas. As I also said, there are really only two places to affect the levels of carbon in the atmosphere. One is outputs and one is sequestration. I think it is obvious outputs are outstripping the ability of the planet to sequester. It's not sufficient simply to enhance sequestration. It's unlikely to actually reverse the process, so we have to look to outputs.
In terms of the impacts on habitat, those are a little bit slower to come. We're seeing those threats, climate change in particular, appear as specific threats mentioned in assessing species at risk a little more frequently as time goes on. Again, we have to specifically understand what we mean by the impacts of climate change. Is it storm surges, is it temperature per se, is it shifts in the distribution of habitats that will limit the ranges of species, for example in alpine habitats?
Understanding the specific impacts of climate is important for specific cases, as it is with all species at risk. We can't take a habitat equals recovery approach. We have to understand what the specific threats, and specific impacts and limiting factors are.