The point about invasive species is an interesting one, I hadn't really thought of it before as resistance to natural ecological drift. It's probably really important that we collectively figure out if, and to what extent we should intervene with changing ecosystems. It's not really fit to assume that there will be a gentle rearrangement of species and habitats as climate changes. With the current rapid change in temperature and CO2, we're aligned more with mass extinction rather than mass adaptation. Intervention is going to be bold though. There was the Iron Hypothesis: "Give me a half a tanker of iron and I'll give you the next ice age". I'd be lying if I said I weren't a little curious to see how a long-term iron seeding would change things. Ultimately, I think we will have to think about some kind of technological way of sequestering carbon.
There's interesting talks about some work taking place in Iceland right now, believe it or not. I don't know enough to know if it's hype or not. Personally, I think the whole "We can fix things with technology!" approach isn't a good one, on the grounds that there's no guarantee we can do it, there's no guarantee that we won't do more harm than good, and it creates a mentality of being able to kick the can down the road and making the solution "science's responsibility to do something eventually" instead of "humanity's responsibility to do something yesterday." But at the same time, we're past a tipping point and I also don't think things like tree planting, ocean cleanup, reducing carbon footprints, etc. is good enough anymore. Like I said. There's a crack in the foundation and it's looking more and more horizontal to me.Ultimately, I think we will have to think about some kind of technological way of sequestering carbon.