Why the dramatic title? It could be the dozens of headlines each day in the news and scientific journals on climate change–driven disasters. Finally, it appears that reticent deniers are becoming fewer and fewer as ever-growing portions of the world are burning, drowning, or dying of thirst and starvation. These increasingly widespread emergencies will continue to dominate headlines, so much so that people may become apathetic, that is, until it strikes their neighborhood. More and more, these “natural” emergencies will increasingly demonstrate the interwoven linkages to virtually every aspect of physical, chemical, and biological systems (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014; Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service 2019; World Economic Forum 2019). Then, as our compartmentalized, media-specific environmental regulations are violated, agencies will continue to respond in piecemeal fashion, separately addressing flooding, wildfires, water and air quality, wastewater discharge violations, fishery declines, and the many other environmental and human health concerns. Much of the climate change research funding has focused on pristine areas, such as the Arctic, Antarctica, and Greenland, along with climate modeling showing increased extreme events, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and potential links to biodiversity. Little funding has gone to ecosystems within human-dominated areas, severely stressed because of habitat degradation, altered flows, elevated nutrients, erosion, and pesticides and other contaminants, to name a few (US Environmental Protection Agency 2017). Over half of US rivers and streams are impaired. An expert workshop almost a decade ago described common-sense conceptual models of how climate change and “regulated” stressors (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls) will likely interact and modify ecosystem responses (Gouin et al. 2013; Landis et al. 2013; Stahl et al. 2013). Because climate–stressor interactions are clearly occurring, management of the environment should cross the critical disciplines, including the most common stressors impairing ecosystems. Given these stressed ecosystems and their associated environmental services, climate change interactions should be part of the research focus. Relevant government agencies are operating within their own mission silos. For example, in the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is studying coastal systems, the US Geological Survey is studying inland systems, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is more focused on human health and atmospheric concerns, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service is focused on threatened and endangered species. These US-centric agencies can be replaced with their counterparts from any developed country. Most ecosystem funding in the United States is via the National Science Foundation, yet it does not consider chemical contamination—saying it is the responsibility of the USEPA. But the USEPA's ecosystem research budget has long been inadequate, despite dramatic increases in chemical production and ecosystem exposures. The USEPA-mandated remediations of site contamination rarely consider climate change. Billions are being spent on sediment contamination remediation which will be affected by extreme events, with questionable outcomes for improving ecosystem quality (National Research Council 2007). Government agencies worldwide need collaborative research initiatives to better understand the growing direct and indirect linkages, both known and unknown, between “regulated” environmental stressors and the increasing frequency and magnitude of extreme climate events. Palmer et al. ( 2009) said protecting rivers from climate change “will require collaborations among multiple partners … and wise land use planning.” How can ecosystem and human health be protected otherwise? How can optimal adaptive management strategies be developed? Can the dramatic losses in biodiversity and species abundances, along with food and water security for wildlife and humans, be averted without understanding these interrelationships? Or will government just blindly trudge forward operating in silos—business as usual? Given the economic straits of governments due to wars, famines, extreme events, the pandemic, and so on, it is unlikely crucial research funding is soon to come. So, a call for action: Create or modify an existing database clearinghouse for environmental scientists from all sectors to accelerate opportunities for interdisciplinary collaborations. It is not apparent that the appropriate clearinghouse now exists. This site would be the focal point for scientists to share recent studies, plan new studies, and “piggyback” ongoing studies to combine critically important expertise to best address climate change. Even without new research funding, scientists should be eager to better understand complex stressor–response relationships that continue to grow in magnitude and frequency because of climate change. As an example, a recent assessment of the fisheries in a river could provide hydrologists, environmental chemists, aquatic ecologists, and ecotoxicologists a study site where they benefit from data provided by the fisheries project. Another example could be a new stormwater study that would benefit from additional expertise by “piggybacking” their study with other scientists who have separate funding. Joint collaborations where funding is from multiple sources or agencies are rare but are needed to fill knowledge gaps until broader climate–stressor interaction research programs are established by institutions. Multistressor research occurs occasionally, such as with coral reefs, but is often under the purview of one agency. Where agency collaborations are possible, they should address multimedia, multistressor interactions and their impact on system responses. New research programs will require agency collaborations to co-sponsor funding that crosses agency mandates. Can we start an initiative with champions from key research program and funding entities quickly coming together? They could establish database submission guidelines, such as brief summary descriptions of study sites and experimental design parameters along with key contacts. A global call for engagement could be made. This would facilitate new and sorely needed interdisciplinary partnerships for increasing our understanding of climate interactions with other anthropogenic stressors. This knowledge, in turn, will allow for more effective and efficient adaptive management strategies in human-dominated ecosystems, which should then save species, save lives, and reduce hardship. Data, associated metadata, and calculation tools are available from the corresponding author (burtonal@umich.edu).