Johan Rockström interview | Planetary boundaries, 'negative emissions', mitigation models & fairness 

Just the usual reminder to keep comments respectful and on topic - i.e. about the specific subjects dealt with in this video. We're not premoderating comments this time, but we won't be giving a platform to denialist misinformation of any kind.

Kevin always makes such good sense. Hes very smart, completely honest and capable of seeing the big picture

The most important video on youtube today, what could be more important? That the IPCC, which reports are bad enough, still isnt showing whole picture

An excellent and well-balanced discussion. I used to work for ICOS (Integrated Carbon Observation System) managing a research station in Northern Sweden measuring GHG's, and we also started to see 'peak growth' in the forests (as mentioned by Johan for Finland). Yet, still many startups are founded on selling carbon credits based on afforestation or protection of an existing forest, despite the fact that a) need to manage that forest for 100+ years to offset the CO2 in the atmosphere and b) additionality, how to prove that the forest would not have existed in the first place without and investment c) reliable methods for measuting the NEE - the best being fluxes - but most startups think satellite data is good enough. Forests should be restored as per Kevin's recommendation as a benefit to natural ecosystems and as an amenity for humans (think afforestation in cities to help provide shade and reduce ambient temp) as opposed to offsets. Alot to think about, and this systems way of thinking is sorely needed.Thanks for posting!

I learned of Johan Rockstrom via Breaking Boundaries, a netflix documentary. An excellent scientific presentation for the general public.

Great point that given the scope and speed of the predicament, the only realistic solutions must come from the top-down, not the bottom-up. But the leaders have not acted for 30 years, and they continue to fail, so we need community engagement.

Thank you for the thought provoking discussion. Enjoyed and especially the idea of Rockström in getting the silent mass into the action was good. Shared in fb.

Thank you for this discussion. You raised many questions that bat around in my head. Yes, it IS the Thunberg's, Caroline Lucas (Green Party), Greenpeace & XR, JustStopOil voices we are hearing (UK). And I personally have no objections to their message or their methods - all avenues are required. But our Parliament is silencing the vociferous, from jail sentencing for peaceful protest, to resignation of the lone voice in Westminster no doubt through a sore head from brickwall banging! She can only take so much. So I welcome the admission that the academics & researchers aren't nearly visible and vocal enough and need to keep informing and updating -and absolutely publicising when you've changed your minds and why, as you have a right & a necessity to do! (like the rest of us). But journalists & TV arent interested in talking to you or giving you a platform - unless it is to create clicks & sell ads and generally cater to tabloid style headlines & readership, and I include ALL media in this degeneration of broadcasting. So how ARE you to be heard? How will you spread the messages to encourage the Silent Majority to finally stand up to our inept Governments? Elections are meaningless- voting in or out ministers changes nothing as all only interested in supporting the status quo. AI algorithms twist public attention and online viewship in nefarious ways. What are the solutions to being heard?

This is the best discussion of the issues that are both most vexing and most overlooked issues in the shere of climate mitigation challenges.

What an amazing thought provoking conversation. Thank you

I'm halfway through, and all the discussion around NETs just makes me think of the analogy I have with a terrible Satnav. If you were running late, with roadworks, diversions and your car breaking down, your Satnav would be considered useless if it continued to claim that you'd arrive at your destination on time. That's what it's increasingly seeming like with 1.5c. (Apologies for it being a car-related analogy!) I'd far rather have a blunt "Based on the trends from the last X number of years, this is the temperature we're heading for", rather than "If we somehow U-turn from what we're currently doing, this is where we'll be!"

Thank you for an interesting talkshow. So much to do while so little time left...

Excellent education on planetary boundaries and the implications of crossing them

I was astonished at how much Johan Rockström seems to believe in CCS and that it will have a substantial impact on CO2 reduction. His expression when mentioning it seemed that he would be very apprehensive if this doesn't work as he believes it will.

Exceptional discussion by two realists. Perhaps could have added discussion on how politicians manage the risks identified by scientists.

Both, forthright as ever. And a great follow up to the Greta conversation. I hope this gets a lot of views. Don't forget, three dots, 'Show Transcript', toggle timestamps off, copy and paste. FWIW.

Keep up your great work. Much appreciated!

Boreal Northern Forest has reached a tipping point, current research indicates in Canada after 200o-2005 instead net negative cO2, it now through forest fires contributes 3x more co2 per year than the whole Canadian civilization. Which of course doesn't factor into Canada measured contribution or any other nations contribution from my understanding.

Great chat guys! I am quite eager to have our first year of emission reductions so there will be something to celebrate. It will be a distinctly unique event for our species. I think we should start an new global calendar. Year One is the point in time where humans take responsibility for our pollution and create opportunities of life instead of diminishing it.

This was great, thanks for putting it together. #climateactionow

Johan, here's the thing where I think 'we'🙂 er you & most main stream scientists are falling short on messaging.. we have missed the boat for a comfortable livable future. Its dystopian whatever path we now take. You of any other shld KNOW this for sure. Its ESSENTIAL that you tell ppl the truth when talking about situation & 'solutions'. There are no real solutions just less pain suffering & death. The only way forward that will give us a decent chance of a less dystopian future surely hs to be an implemented climate Marshall plan.. something scientists shld be at least presenting as an option in addressing the climate catastrophe.k

🙏🙏🙏 great candid chat

Excellent discussion.

Great interview despite the bad news

I continue to believe we’ve misdiagnosed the problem, and that climate change (with other planetary boundaries) are more akin to symptoms. The economy is the problem, perhaps even industrial modernity. It is an organizational, distributional, and demographic problem, which is intuitive to many, but for which there isn’t the same rigorous evidence. Crucially, focusing on emissions isn’t interrogating the questions of energy and materials, our use of them in conflict with natural systems. In lieu of a desirable human social model, nothing will change.

Well done!

How does any proposed solution account for the constant growth of world economies?

Ochrona planety 💚💚💚 1 Zaprzestanie emisji CO2 2 Ochrona przyrody 3 Pozostałe 💚💚💚 Edukowanie społeczeństwa Wystarczy że 4 procent ludzi będzie walczyć o planetę i osiągniemy cel 💚💚💚 Kiedy troszczymy się o coś, obdarza nas to pokojem 💚💚💚 Zmiany na lepsze są odczuwalne, zauważalne i doceniane błyskawicznie 💚💚💚 Kiedy zatroszczymy się tylko trochę o środowisko naturalne, ono odzyje w ułamku sekundy... 💚💚💚 Natury nie można powstrzymać, wystarczy jej nie przeszkadzać i trochę się o nią zatroszczyc... 💚💚💚 Wszystko będzie dobrze 💚💚💚 💚💚💚 💚💚💚 💚💚💚

If i understand correctly, the NET is not yet close to what it should be, but it is assumed to be there in the 1.5 degrees model. At the same time, emissions are even growing. It sounds to me that this 1.5 model is not realistic anymore and we should prepare for a world with 2 degrees (or more) warming. Both persons in the interview seem to avoid that obvious conclusion, but hinting at it.

if nothing else, you two have helped to directly shape the trajectory of my life in the desire to become a climate scientist and serve as a net positive to do whatever I can to help us get out of this crisis

Kevin, to quote: "Jay Gulledge concluded that to adopt a more risk-sensitive approach, scientists would need in some cases to allow more tolerance of false positives, and less tolerance of false negatives" ... "However, it may be unrealistic and unfair of us to expect scientists to do this on their own. No self-respecting professional wants to violate the cultural norms of their field. For the cultures of science and risk assessment to meet in the middle, they each need to be represented by their own experts. This implies separating out the tasks of information gathering and risk assessment."

Great, important interview - everyone should watch it! Can you do the podcast version too?

The Lack of imagination of those that rule us and do all the investing is tragically devastating and pathetic

In the last minutes of the discussion the truth is revealed: there is no reward for academics in supporting the unpalatable measures required. In speaking out. In informing the general public. I have great respect for both speakers, but I demand more. It is this mentality of "not my business", or "what is in it for me" that has allowed nasty things to happen less than a century ago.

This is excellent. Ammunition for my GE hustings next week though I'll be surprised if I get asked a single question about climate 😐

I would challenge you both on the failings of the IPCC and policy makers. Yes, scientific conservatism is clearly a sticking point. However, I think the fundamental failure when it comes to the translation of science into policy is this. As scientists we know we are dealing with systems which exhibit inertia and amplifying feedbacks; we also know that our models poorly represent many of these feedback processes. It follows that we must operate within frameworks which explicitly account for uncertainty. As such, risk management should be integral to all policy making. This would ensure that low probability-high impact scenarios are given their due consideration.

There are several high profile climate scientists who have "cherry picked" the small percentage number of climate modelling runs which actually project us as staying within +1.5C. Yet it seems this small number includes many runs constructed & run upon false assumptions - like ignoring instability in other biosphere areas which adversely affect temperature rise. It might have helped mitigation progress if those over-confident scientists had declared, say, "out of the thousands of climate modelling runs carried out using varied parameters, we could only identify with confidence 5 (say) examples which would certainly keep us within +1.5". Had they made such declaration then it might, perhaps, have concentrated minds more on causationm & injected more urgency into the rapid reduction of fossil fuel burning based on the "real" unlikely ability of the Earth system to stabilise below +1.5C. Climate modelling is an exceptional tool but the outputs are still only a guide & our leaders & pathfinders should have paid more attention to Wally Broeker's analysis of the climate system as being volatile and "an angry beast"

Johan, you are wearing rose-colored glasses WRT any form of mechanical C Capture. Kevin is correct: Ramping up is not simple multiplication. The resources simply do not exist to build out all these technologies. See: Prof. Simon Michaux's analyses.

Yes. Important points. IPCC is not adding tipping points to their models, even when evidence shows that these tipping elements are already started to happen. Ice loss in Greenland diminishes gravitational pull in northern hemisphere, so more water goes south. And when sea level in the south rises, it adds more risks for Antarctic melting (that is likely accelerating now, 2,3 million square kilometers of sea ice missing, this year!). When Antarctica starts to melt, it adds sea levels in northern hemisphere. While these forces are balanced you may see equatoral coastlines taking worst hits. But if melting continues Antarctica has most mass, so northern hemisphere is hit hardest in coming centuries. We may lose major Antarctic glaciers, like Thwaites in just mere decades (+0,6m from this beast alone), so sea level rise is likely going well over 1 meter by 2100. Has Greenland ice sheet reached a final tipping point where there is no return, but all will melt? That's an open debate in science community these days. All around the world permafrost is melting. We may see permafrost ground gaining higher temperatures. Permafrost melting leads to bacterial activation in the soil and under water that leads to huge methane plumes (permafrost includes loads of water, so areas gets more wet when they thaw). Arctic sea ice could be gone during summers by 2030-2050. And that will change all weather and climate predictions. Everything changes and most changes are not positive for nature or mankind. We are losing rapidly most mountain glaciers and that will lead to a situation where several billion people has not enough water, even some has not enough water to drink. We ARE at 1,5C (august, 2023). El Niño is still gathering its strenght and will become worse in comnig 1-2 years. Climatic 30-year period will go over 1,5C, but not quite yet. We ARE heading toward 3-4C world. Pledges that have been given are failing. When emissions should have been declining 7-8% per year, they are at new record. And oil demand is at new record. G20 hardly even speaks about phasing out fossil fuels, not even mentioning coal burning. Next COP is in oil producing country led by oil CEO. And then we head to Australia, that just opened worlds largest coal mine. And in USA republican party is doing what ever it can to keep fossil burning alive with huge emissions. Even normal discussions are blocked with nonsense. Ukraine war has disrupted most global negotiations. Current science says: Every approx. 0,1C temperature rise will kill 100 million people. And that's without tipping points. UN human right leader has said about current situation that we are at climate dystopia. We see simultanoeus massive floods in Turkiye, Greece, Florida, Brasil and China, we may say that we are living in a climate dystopia. We see simultaneous massive heatwaves and droughts, often causing massive wildfires, in most of the continents, we are living a climate dystopia. Things are not getting better, specially when our leaders are not doing what is needed. Stop ALL (!) fossil burning. Today.

Could WE live in harmony with Gaia, IF we lived like they did,....pre 1700 style, using Age of Sail as our main sea going transport system? Thank you for uploading and sharing.

Globally planned, regionally organized and locally executed, planetary actions.

@36:00 if GHG’s where attributed to the importing countries and NOT the exporting countries, China and India’s growing carbon use would decline and production would localize.

Thanks for the upload! Where can I find the Swedish study Kevin Anderson is referring to?

I'm afraid ocean acidification has definitely passed its boundary just look at the graphs we've increased carbon dioxide more than equivalent of an intercalation and that's definitely swings through boundaries.. And that is reflected in the ocean acidification It's swung way past is boundary already and it still has lots to go

Btw when you say a planetary boundary has been exceeded in my opinion not means it's game over any single boundary that is exceeded on a planetary scale means we we are committed to critical collapse by definition wouldn't you say? And the thing is it's not just the event of passing the boundary but it's also the trend and the commitment of what's coming of pushing it and and we've definitely committed to collapse

Loving Kevin. Love johans work but my god our enemy is ruthless and they need to be called out and resisted; politicians and fossil fuel CEO’s , bankers and insurers do not care about us . No one I’d coming to save us. It’s desperate. Get out onto the streets - disrupt and resist !

Working from the top down or the bottom up both have major pitfalls, primarily in the legal fallacies of ownership and the destructive concepts of money and government. Did you know that indigenous tribes in South America have poisoned their own rivers which have supported their families for many generations? People offered them something called money for little pieces of metal called gold. The small amount of money they received was not enough to replace the equivalent benefits of the river and it was not distributed equally as some of the tribe refused the deal. This of course led to a division and violence in the tribe. This is not an isolated incident and it has occurred many times in many places. Of course we can sympathize or even empathize with the position of the indigenous people, but we still fail to comprehend the catalysts for these catastrophes.

Thank you for all the information. My biggest concern was not addressed in the conversation: the increase of Methan in the atmosphere since 2006. While previous increases can be explained by leakage of pipes and fracking, the increase since 2006 seems to include a significant amount of methane released by nature but induced by human-caused global warming. The methane is released from tropic and subtropic wetlands and increasingly methane and methane and methane hydroxide from thawing permafrost on land and the shelf areas underwater within the Arctic Circle. Comparing the graphs of the current Methane Emissions with those of the previous Interglacials, those are not alike at all. The current emissions look like the start of a termination event. Our logical reaction should be to stop the release of all climate gases immediately and hope that the tipping point hasn't been reached since otherwise the emissions are out of control and will probably result in cascading classic positive feedback loops. Unfortunately, logical solutions are not realistic on this planet.

Excellent discussion, thank you. Does anyone have a link to the Sweden citizens' report mentioned at about 53 minutes

Is it not fact that all CC projections are too conservative, conservative to the point that "future tipping points" have already been tipped?

@22:30 We tried to shutdown the world during pandemic, but that ment just 7% drop on emissions at that single year. That is the level that needed to be done by EVERY SINGLE year to have a chance for 2C.

At 44:12 there is a typo in the subtitles, pretty sure Johan says 70% emissions from the top 1%, not 17%.

I find it absolutely baffling that people still suggest the ice Tipping Points might not be crossed at +1.5C despite the fact that ice has been clearly melting for decades now and time is the only obstacle to it all disappearing (except perhaps a bit at Antarctic and possibly very highest altitudes in Himalayas)

So surprising how so many people claim to believe in science and know that the modern world has largely been produced by science and yet doubt this climate science. I think most of these people secretly think and believe a God is looking after them. If they were truly spiritual they would know that it is humans that have to be God like and responsible in order to do justice to that idea.

Could you publish an audio feed for Climate Uncensored? Would love to listen to this on the go, but RU-vid won't let me download

great show. i find it interesting how the word 'conservative' is used in the context of IPCC science. It seems to me 'conservative' of the status quo, or of modenr culture that has existed for a minute... but I think it would be more accurate to call a 'conservative' climate science view as one that takes a strong precautionary approach, one that is conservative in risk tolerance. One could say that a climate scientist that errs on the side of permitting more pollution than is safe, or discounting uncertainties/low probabilities that are extremely high cost... that is a radical scientist. And it sounds like the IPCC is the highest common denomintor of radical science.

Excellent interview. Unfortunately it confirms what Kevin has already noted in previous discussions. That we will fail. The reason being that the scientists and those doing the modeling and decisions about climate issues and actions/inactions, will never include in their models, scenarios where total elimination of carbon technologies is phased out in a lifetime epoch (25 years), even though needed, because it is too revolutionary. And anything "revolutionary" in terms of economics is strictly verboten. And always will be because "economics is KING". Which is why we are in our mess with climate in the first place.

Errr... You don't want to go with high emission pathways? Not even discussing about them? Well, it is pretty obvious that we ARE AT high emission pathway. We have been there since industrialization started. We are there still at least 50 years of scientific warmnings that we end up endangering ourselves. We were at about 10% OVER worst case scenario (RCP 8.5) before pandemic and we regained that position just after pandemic shutdowns ended. Emissions are at record high. Oil demand is at record high. Temperature is at record high. G20 is doing nothing. COP is in oil producing country led by oil CEO. And then we go to Australia that just opened worlds largest coal mine. We SHOULD talk about HIGH EMISSION SCENARIOS, because WE LIVE IN one.

The book Nomad Century by Gaia Vince proposes massive adaptation ideas including creating huge modern purpose built city states in the far north such as Greenland and Scotland….are these ideas viable ?

A good discussion but you completely lose me when you talk of the possibility of a better world being possible, where everyone has good health services, good prospects, higher standard of living, a more modern attractive life. That prospect may get people on board but it's a lie. The kinds of emissions reduction rates necessary would bring on collapse, perhaps even before the reality of a finite planet clashing with a technological civilisation would result in collapse, so what happens when it becomes clear that the promised beautiful future cannot be attained? Remember that "more sustainable" is not a valid scientific term. A sustainable society is one that consumes resources only at their renewal rate (preferably less), remembering that non-renewable resources have a zero renewal rate, and does not damage the environment beyond it's ability to assimilate that damage. The best we could do is manage the collapse so that suffering is minimised. But which scientists would support such a view? Reality is cruel but pretending that the impossible is possible certainly doesn't help anyone, long term.

In democratic countries we have even one more problem. Our governmant changes in short term cycles. So any meaningful climate policy can be reversed when next government comes. This can be seen in the USA. It shows its scales in Finland. And in many more countries. Having just one good government with appropriate means is not enough. And even those governments are currently handling climate chaos at the level that we need. Bulldoze down ALL fossil burning items, starting with coal plants and oil refineries. Build up the needed infra with more sustainable methods, like wind, solar, geothermal and even nuclear power plants. We need world war 2 like actions against climate change. So far these actions has been pushed sideways (sad about US politics, specially Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders climate driven campaigns, on world stage these could have been huge).

Sobering stuff. Totally agree that unproven tech should not be included in the solutions. It's not the job of scientists to pre-suppose what should be done culturally, economically, or politically. But of course, we are all humans. I dislike the concept behind the term, 'stewardship of nature'. That is a western/abrahamic religious view of how we see our relationship with nature. We once, and some indigenous communities still, relate to nature and the commons as part of it, not as rulers dominating it.

I don't think our science (i.e. models) understands the potential for ocean stratification. 2023 for oceans was, for lack of a better word, inconceivable. This really does call into question our understanding of tipping points. Another example is what is going on with the Amazon rainforest. Right now I feel we are just lying to ourselves. I feel like we are analyzing a fatal car accident as it happens.

I don't think we have the luxury of being able to wait the next 30 years for reducing emissions. There's a potential 50 Gt of methane at the East Siberian Arctic shelf in very shallow sea and while the next 30 years are going to be warmer than today, if it vents it's the equivalent of 1.400 Gt of CO2 (35 years emissions) added to the atmosphere in a very short timescale. There's therefore a necessity not only to reduce fossil fuel emissions immediately but also end beef rearing. It takes 1,000 cubic metres of water to produce a tonne of vegetables, 1,450 to produce a tonne of wheat, but 42,500 to produce a tonne of beef. (False Economy by Alan Beattie, Viking/Penguin) From what we've emitted now temperatures are going to increase annually for the next 30 years without massive carbon extraction and countries needing to import their food like the UK for instance are going to have to start paying for the water in it very soon while exporters losing water to the heat are going to be forced to feed their own citizens before they can continue exporting so phasing out domestic animal rearing will be doing everyone a favour in reducing carbon emissions in agriculture - 30% of all GHG emissions. I also think that where coal, gas, and oil have been mined on land, the sea water from the addition of the melting ice will return there so failing to publicise this showing how self-harming increasing emissions really is, especially for home owners, allows politicians opposed to ending the use of fossil fuels for economic reasons the advantage of using their constituents' financial interests as the key to their decision making on the issue; saving people money is always a winner for politicians and for the present generation when all their property is at risk of destruction - within the next 30 years - from climate change politicians that ignore it do so at their peril.

Hello? Who said tipping points were centuries away? Not professor Steffard that for sure and not the research I have read. Some scientists reality check has bounced.

So the earth is about to get selfwarming and our politicians are not knowing? 😮

📍49:15

Equity: In reality, the top 1/10 of 1% must decrease 99% or more. The top 1%, similar. The top 2 - 10%, 97%-ish. The top 11 to 50%, 85 to 97%. etc.

"climate Marshall plan is not an option" seriously 🤔😔

Climate change since 1750 , known since 1827 and understood by 1897 yet no actions were taken, are being taken or will be taken to mitigate the host of negative effects. The poor and brown who have little responsibility for climate change will /are suffering and dying first .

420 upvotes! *mind struggles*

Conservatism in IPCC etc seems to be backwards. One would want conservatism to represent the position least likely to have catastrophic consequences. This might mean bringing into focus scenarios which might have lower probability (now) but are nonetheless possible.

We are on our way to a warm version of iceage that our nature are not made for. Why dont the IPCC recognize that fact 😢

"the budget is gone"

If we have been losing the insect bio-mass of the planet, at a rate of 1-2% each year. This means we have lost 30% since 1970’s. What does it mean to lose all insects, and what happens to us? My kids will experience the consequences.

In fact there are two key processes we must get into place: 1. Introduce a carbon tax, start small and increase rapidly and exponentially over time. This is the key to changing the use of fossil fuels and everything that comes with it. 2. Decrease the population, otherwise any positive development will be negated by an increase in consumption.

The choice of the 9 boundaries is arbitrary. The Earth system is so intercomnected that one can choosen just about anything as a quantitative control variable. Examples could be the total surface area of arable land, or the total remaining volume of aquafer water, or the ratio of sea urchins to kelp forest coverage, or the number and intensity of "atmospheric river" in a single year...the list is endless and a function perspective; what a particular person cares about. In short, the opening statement lacks scientifically rigor and the planetary boundary framework is harmful; it wrongly suggests it is somehow ok that we transgressed some boundaries and retill remain fine, as long as we left others alone. If fact, multiple single planetary boundaries can be chosen, non of which can be crossed without feedback crashing others. And if the humans system is involved, the economic system running the show must also be included as a variable somewhere in the model. Otherwise the model has no value other than publishing a few papers and fooling the untrained persons that the authors knew what thet talk about.

Are trees really going to be carbon sinks, if they are all going to burn ?

The conversation is all rather nice but the train has long left the station. Discussion about pressure for change from above is a none starter. The real pressure will come from below when there are empty stomachs and a sequence of climate disasters that hit the capitalist heart lands of the rich west. And at our present rate of inaction that day is very close. FTT

Reminding that the pandemic shutdown was merely what we needed to do EVERY single year after that to have even a slight chance for 1,5C. My point is: The ways to go to 1,5C are not there anymore. Not even with total shutdown. Even a single thing says we are not even now at 1,5C world, but well over it. Adding aesol effects, we end up to 1,8C (IPCC) or to 2,55C (Hansen). We have no path to 1,5C (where we are at the fist time, august 2023 [monthly temperature, not yet as 30-year climatic period]). And we don't have a real scalable emission sucktion systems that would be needed. I think that the best suggested solution so far is seaweed/kelp farming (cannot burn, takes lots of carbon and ocean area is larger than land masses + additional benefits). If we won't even shutdown ALL fossil burning, the situation where we are will keep worsening every single day. Every 0,1C warming kills 100 million people.

Fortunately, a couple of heat events in major food growing areas will cause famine and war that destroys humanity before the innafectual dithering of our greedy corporate leaders leads to extinction of almost all life on earth due to runaway heating. This disscusion seemed massively optomistic and somewhat pointless under the circumstances.

So - *Shut down all NPP's* - BEFORE it gets really wild??????????

Does overpopulation get a mention?

Two climate topdoggs. One true swede and one bwedish Brit, lots of respect anyways. Peace is important. Be kund. Go vegan. Good stuffskiii

So now its kiss your ass goodbye....if you live by the sea

Yes, Indigenous knowledge aka TEK. The non-Indigenous corollary is permaculture. But do either of you listen to anything I say? No. Do you engage? No. So, which is it? You sincerely want to engage with regenerative knowledge holders or you don't?

You can speak honestly on climate and rely on others with regenerative expertise to translate that into policy... but you will not engage if the person is not famous, or has advanced degrees, or is not "connected," or....??? I have been talking to both of you for YEARS.

These guys are looking in the rear view mirror at 1.5 and think they are looking ahead. Next time you are speaking to a room with a hundred people or any multiple of this ask how many own automobiles. Then ask how many are willing to permanently park them as soon as they arrive home from the talk. Then do your calculations again. Even the most progressive spokespeople are living in an ivory tower.

This interview is a lesson in misunderstanding and neglect for human psychology. The "1.5 degrees" and "year 2100" are terrible mistakes in science communication.

Johan! Top-down? This indicates you are not thinking in terms of regenerative systems. The principles underlying regenerative systems and the current systems are diametrically opposed.This is partly because you simply do not understand what the degree of change must be. You clearly think it's about laws, regulations, flattening the wealth curve, but all of that will still continue to destroy the ecosystem. Those things cannot be made regenerative. Kevin! Closer to the mark, but still failing to understand what regenerative is. Since the current system **cannot** be made regenerative, the best you can ask of it is to minimally empower changes, BUT those changes will result in the END of those systems, and once the wealth and power holders understand this, they will no longer support these changes. Ultimately, aso, sustainability is local. Think in terms of a quilt. Each community is a square. We don't need big global systems, we need millions of small systems. It is VERY doable. Top down? Impossible.

We really need to look at earth history far enough back to recognise that C02 levels have been vastly higher without exceeding natural regulatory boundaries for life on earth. The C02 levels aren't closely correlated with temperature either. Next we need to look at the physics of the so called greenhouse effect. In fact if physics shows us that if we double overall C02 concentration in the atmosphere we would get no more than 1% or 0.7degC. There is not enough carbon in all fossil fuel reserves to create this doubling. The positive feedback loop proposed for greenhouse gas emissions is a faulty model as it does not account for clouds that regulate the thermal effects, by modulating albedo. Now look at the climate model predictions. We find that most are significantly over estimates compared to observed temperatures. Having laid the C02 nonsense to rest, we do need to beware of the natural cooling period we are now entering. Add to this the reversing and weakening magnetic field of earth and we really do have something to concern us about climate.

Angry over the discussion of NbSs. It is completely off-point. The ignorance of how we use and do regenerative systems is incomprehensible. However, they are correct that they should not be used as offsets.... because **nothing should be.*** This is dangerously incorrect framing. I am not just angry, I am shocked and deeply saddened at the lack of knowledge and irresponsible discussion of these things. Clearly, neither of you has ever discussed these issues with those who do regenerative systems/TEK. Really not acceptable in any way, shape or form. This is why nobody should rely first on climate scientists about mitigation and adaptation. It simply is not what they do.

I'm quite concerned that while we're sitting in our lovely chairs in our lovely newly renovated rooms discussing the effects of our society, science is already losing its position in society as a popular (in the sense of public need) and pioneering social industry Instead, Sweden and almost all around the world are pulling down on social services intended to make information and choice easier to access by the public, thereby slowly lending more and more creed to the idea that science is the tool of the elite, to be hoarded and hidden away from the masses, and that we therefore should be more sceptical of scientists and experts as the elite What this means is that no matter the work you're doing to prove yourselves right, the class divides lead to ever more anti-science and pseudo-academia, undermining our possibilities to even act upon your message I don't see these conversations as constructive in that analysis, and wish you would instead spend time creating institutions meant to circumvent university fees and do community outreach in these places that need it, and spread enlightenment once again, like your academic ancestors, directly with community leaders in the middle of Nowhere, Conservativeland I really liked Kevin's point just before the end there, pointing out that not acting is the same as acting in favour of the status quo. You are academics. Human, not robot. And i think that hasn't reached the majority of the world yet, and if it did, no leader would be able to stay silent on climate change or anything else for that matter any more

From my perspective, it is intellectual dishonesty to talk about the Anthropocene without mentioning the role of the CAPITALOCENE in the entire process that is leading to the destruction of planet Earth. Colonialist imperialism for profit and wealth accumulation began the process of commodification of literally everything. The enclosure of the commons created artificial scarcity and coerced people into taking useless and destructive jobs to make ends meet. We need a paradigm shift towards a social and ecological political economy (holistic civilization), not the reproduction of the capitalist system and the mindless consumer society. Resorting to the financialization of ecosystem services to maintain the status quo of an anachronistic civilizational paradigm will not solve the problem, but it could pave the way for a techno-fascist transhumanist dystopia.

Ok. Step 1 ban private jets. Once you have achieved that come back to me and ill listen.

Talk talk talk but still driving your car