Know better. Do better.

No rest for weary environmentalists this year, with one COP pretty much rolling into another. The big U.N. biodiversity summit (COP15) kicks off in Montreal next week, tasked with nothing less than landing a Paris Agreement-style pact for nature.

Journalists may well find it harder to get COP15 onto the world's radar than with the COP27 climate conference in Egypt, though, because while global warming is seen as everyone's problem these days, the wanton destruction of plant and animal life still isn't.

Why is that? After all, scientists say you can't solve one problem without tackling the other - given that forests and oceans are vital stores of planet-heating carbon, while rising global temperatures are degrading the Earth's ecosystems and wildlife habitats.

And will the public care if countries fail - after delays due to COVID-19 and slow progress so far - to adopt an ambitious new framework to halt and reverse the loss of nature? Crucially, will it also have an effective system to make sure governments deliver on their promises, unlike in the past?

We will be doing our best to plug the information gap on this essential theme before, during and after COP15, where we'll have our reporter, Jack Graham, on the ground following the action.

Tune into our Twitter Space on Wednesday to hear Jack chat with experts about what to expect from the Montreal gathering - and check out our explainer on why the world needs a new deal to safeguard nature.

Most people are likely to be familiar with 1.5 degrees Celsius and net-zero (emissions) as key climate goals by now - but what's the equivalent when it comes to biodiversity?

The word on the (tree-lined) street is that it's "nature-positive", but you may be wondering what that means in practice.

"The idea (is) that there should be more nature in 2030 than 2020," explains Gavin Edwards, director of the Global Nature Positive Initiative at green group WWF.

He says the "nature-positive" goal could be the equivalent of the 1.5C limit, providing a sense of direction for the movement: where emissions cuts are needed to curb rising temperatures, nature protection is needed to boost biodiversity.

But what’s required for it to happen in practice? Fighting over finance is nothing new in the world of climate diplomacy - and similar rows are likely to erupt over how to pay biodiversity-rich developing countries not to exploit their natural resources unsustainably.

One big idea that has recently gained political currency is to divert subsidies away from incentivising harmful practices like intensive farming, and direct them towards more environmentally friendly activities like agroecology.

That could free up half a trillion dollars a year to expand efforts to heal our hurting planet, Jack reports, with New Zealand showing how it could be done.

Sticking with issues that have flown beneath the radar, one of the few positive outcomes of the climate COP was an agreement to launch a new work programme on a "just transition" to a greener and fairer future, a topic set to rise up the political agenda in the coming years.

As the editor for this strand of our coverage, I was keeping an eye out for developments at COP27, where there were some interesting events on labour rights and climate action, and how to fund the social side of a low-carbon economic transformation that leaves no one behind.

"The approach we took since the beginning is that the 'just transition' is not just a matter of numbers," said Kädi Ristkok, head of the climate department in Estonia's environment ministry, which has a plan to phase out shale oil. "It's also a matter of culture and people."

In Bangladesh, for example, such an approach could mean working out how to attract more women into clean energy jobs, helping drive gender equality and climate benefits.

Enjoy the calm before the next COP storm,

Megan