In the run-up to the Paris Climate Agreement and thereafter, there has been heated debate as to what the Loss and Damage debate should cover. Some have suggested that compensation for losses already incurred is to be its focus. Other observers have suggested it should focus on identifying and providing tested risk management measures to tackle future risks shaped by climate change. Finally, there are those that consider the debate to largely be of symbolic character while broadly emphasizing a need to avoid dangerous climate change. Insiders have been wondering whether these diverse perspectives can be disentangled and even reconciled? We suggest that there is potential for doing so and assert that there is a distinct risk and options space for the Loss and Damage debate. The options space can be defined to encompass transformative measures for avoiding and managing intolerable risks as well as curative measures for dealing with unavoided and unavoidable impacts. The discussion develops and applies a principled framework for aligning perspectives and evaluating policy options, incl. financing, climate-related insurance, comprehensive disaster risk management and a climate displacement facility – options that are under discussion as climate negotiations are going forward.