Decision-makers are in a hurry to find morally justified responses to climate change. Population ethicists have thrown a spanner in the works by formulating various impossibility theorems that show that no theory about the value of population change can satisfy all the conditions we are inclined to think such a theory must satisfy. What shall we do, if we do not know which condition(s) to give up? One relatively unexplored option is to view the satisfaction of a condition as a matter of degree, as Geoff Brennan recently has suggested (in the context of Arrow’s impossibility theorem). This will open up for the possibility that some theories satisfy the conditions to a higher degree than others. In my talk, I shall explore various versions of this idea and see how far they will take us.