Wow, I am so happy to see Johan Rockström on this podcast. I live in Germany and follow him and Stefan Rahmstorf for a long time. Thank you for having him on the show🙏
I’m nobody and live somewhere in Asia I have been listening to most of your videos and thank you for sharing the knowledge. According to Mr Rockström, we are in a climate emergency, so what should climate activists do to make their strategies more effective ? Several of them have been jailed. Ordinary people don’t have any clue as to what is happening to the climate what’s going to happen to their children and grandchildren. And they hate the activists for making things inconvenient. What are we supposed to do with this information when we are just irrelevant people
Whatever we do, we need not, must not do it alone. That is the point of political ecology. Finding a buddy, then an affinity group. We do what we can, not what we can't. For life. For love.
If and when desperation becomes widespread, us ordinary folks may become pressured into action or leadership. One thing is certain, a sacrificial statement is always possible that involves reaching outside of our normal and typical forms. People go on hunger strikes or even perform violent acts against resistant bodies. Since our personal death is sooner or later guaranteed one could imagine that a huge numbers of individuals may choose self immolation as the ultimate statement. Perhaps being prepared to suffer as an act of contrition is a start. Beyond that your guess is as good as mine.
Johan gives some advice at the end of the interview: take every chance to talk about the topic and your views on it with relatives, friends, colleagues etc. If talking isn‘t your type of thing try to be a silent role model exhibiting a reduced eco footprint e.g. by vegan diet, no flying, biking/walking, not buying „stuff“, repair/reuse etc.
@@achenarmyst2156 Yes - we should #TalkCollapse because collapse is what is happening. Reduced eco-footprint..... hmmm maybe fly to Pottsdam perhaps and make Johan a salad?
25 years ago I had the same question, today I can answer it. You are supposed to do... nothing. Because the only way to solve the twin symptoms of death in our species future of climate change and ecological collapse, is to get rid of the driving cause behind it, which is perpetual growth capitalism. And though I wish it were not true with all of my being, I have to admit I see more chance of us seeing Jesus in a titty bar than of ever seeing the end of capitalism before 2030 which frankly is all the time left that we have for it to be able to make any difference to the inevitable outcome beyond that date. So by all means, if it gives you purpose, campaign if you wish, but don't let the inevitable lack of change, take up and / or ruin the best years of your life. As an old expression goes, God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. Enjoy your life, and don't feel guilty for doing so, the world / humanity, was already set on the road to hell 250 years before you were born.
The unapologetic indifference of our global power structure, our "ruling elite", to the suffering of their FELLOW HUMANS (Ukraine, Gaza, and sub-Saharan Africa for example), makes it seem very problematic that they will ever adequately address inanimate objects like air quality, ocean acidification and circulation, biodiversity, water quality/availability. Public opinion, and scientific analysis seems to be low on their priority agenda. To them, the Earth is merely the venue where they conduct their business and geo-political deals.
To them, Earth is the planet they think they will be laughing about on Mars by mid-century because a conman who can't even make cars work correctly has convinced them he has a way out of the unavoidable predicament we got ourselves into.
It is very hard to argue with anything you are saying. It certainly looks that way and feels that way. I tried to think back on how other changes have happened in our world and hold out hope that with continued influence from people in the world that leaders will see the light. One can only hope... But more than hope we can continue to act in the best way that we can in our everyday life. I remember what Johan said and that is to keep talking to people. That will increase the pressure from everyone else in the world to those who say they are our leaders. Clearly they need to step up to the plate
I doubt this is a problem with elites. They are just better at the same game most of us are playing, sort of an epiphenomena of our genetics. To me the biggest pointer in favor of this are the 3 mideastern cults that bizarrely spread across the planet despite relying on texts that are clearly incoherent amalgamations which only make sense if they contain permission to engage our genetic oddities and flaws. As in many ways does science and humanism, whose core tenet is more humans are better. A truly sustainable existence won't have to thrust such concepts externally on various populations but will be following their own nature. As the Tao notes pretty clearly.
It's the hypocrisy of blaming the ruling elite that gets me. They had as much choice in whether diesel or synthetic fertilisers were invented or the economic model they were born into. Does anybody who blames others know how much energy is in a tank of diesel? 636 kilowatts, around the same amount of electrical energy I consumed last summer with the air con going 24/7, for 3.2 months, if winter it's around 5 months. Does anybody give a second thought to people are killed in wars so that we can have oil and all its products, or do we fill up our tanks to go for a drive and think the scenery is nice? I think we should stop asking for answers or blaming people we are the customers of. Expecting the ruling elite to give us alternatives to what seems to be working for their goals of jobs and taxes and keeping the ball rolling, is a waste of our time. Maybe we should look at and blame our own current actions and change those before we blame some 1% that we don't appreciate how close to that we are on a world wide basis.
This was one of those conversations that fills in the gaps. Johan Rockström's explanation of how the Arctic tipping points trigger other earth systems was so articulate and informative. I was surprised though to hear his unwavering belief in attainability of 1.5˚C and the technological "solutions" on offer, and wonder if privately he may be more doubtful.
I admit I am a doomer, but I still see a lot of advantages to being hopeful I am an activist not for myself & my species but to minimise the damage for whatever manages to survive us We & the lifeforms we love most will die long before a lot of hardier beasts able to survive low oxygen levels
I am not a doomer, I am a realist, neither pessimist nor optimist, I am only interested in what we know for certain and can say for sure. And what I can say for sure is no amount of wind turbines, electric cars, green growth new deals, no new taxes nor new regulations, and no technology today, nor any coming down the road, will ever be able to allow a top down anti democratic perpetual growth global economic system such as capitalism, to outrun the immutable physics of a finite world. The laws of thermodynamics are real clear on why in an enclosed finite system such as earth is, it is a STUPID idea use the system that makes the mess (capitalism) to produce systems (green growth / renewables / EV etc) to clean up the mess you are making
The solution is simple. Just 57 companies are responsible for 80 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report released by UK-based think tank Influence Map. Just buy 51% of the stock in those companies and close them down. Any other questions?
Awesome interview! Johan Rockstrom educated and inspired me. I could not stop listening. His knowledge is encyclopedic, but very clearly communicated. Now I understand the planetary boundary framework. His optimism about positive tipping points in society was my bonus for listening to the end. Keep up the good work Nate!
Denne må høres om man har barn og bryr seg om deres framtid. Johan Rockström er den som har mest og best oversikt over samlet klimaforskning, og satt dette sammen.
Even with no kid, as in my situation, I cannot envision the future with the hellish predicament in front of us. No kid for me but kid for others. And besides human condition, I hope that we won’t forget other species in our difficult transformation path
Nature promotes diversity. That’s really all it does. It doesn’t care how any species that interferes with this process is culled or culls itself by exceeding its carrying capacity. We either adapt to nature or suffer the consequences of trying to make it adapt to us.
Your last sentence is probably the best short summary I have read about 'our' predicament. Now, how do we make people aware of it? And prevent that they say 'we need to dominate nature to survive'.
Overcoming long standing religious and economic objections to family planning won’t be easy. We might stop skirting the issue for fear of being censored, called eugenicists or worse.
Thanks for having Rokstrom on. It was a very informative interview, and he gave a very persuasive account of how he sees the polycrisis at this point in time. In my opinion he is way too sucked in to the establishment approach to the emergency: acknowledge something has to be done, set goals like zero emissions by 2050, and then sit back and watch the politicians fumble the ball. It's becoming more and more evident that the only way out of this predicament is somehow surviving the catastrophes that Rockstrom fears, and accepting that the human population on this planet is going to plummet and the beloved economy along with it. We will not design the brave new world; ecological catastrophe will simply push what remains of us into it.
I have been out there talking to as many people as possible for many years now. However, unlike most of the people who say "get out there and talk to people", I have not been primarily talking to highly educated global northerners. I have been talking with lots of people from lots of places and walks of life and... I haven't seen any evidence they are capable of actually understanding the issues, bringing any knowledge into their daily decision-making and, most importantly, of translating that into political choices that they make. The vast majority of the 90% (10% in science/tech/government) are simply not in a position to push in the right direction. They are just consumers, and you can explain until you are blue in the face, they only care while you are looking, and then completely ignore it as soon as they pick up their phone again.
my experience to, people don't want to hear this as it is on top of their other problems. You should ask when you finished your talk if they belief you or are just choosing to ignore it as it is too unconfortable. 😥
Agree in general. But maybe we can at least convince them to get out of the way of people who want to actively do something. If we can just stop the obstructions, we can make more progress.
Dr. Rocktrom mentions talking with many CEOs and coming away from those conversations with hope that they have the future in mind, in essence joining the sustainability bandwagon. Although I don't have access to CEOs in powerful positions, I do read what they say or write and observe the decisions being made by the corporate (American dominated) world. If anything, I see even further push to economic practices through which short term "profit" maximization and through which environmental (DEI etc.) concerns are taboo (some greenwashing talk notwithstanding). Actually, some profit is necessary for a business to be viable, but so called "profit" is basically economic rent, gains through manipulation of the financial system, and gross exportation of externalities to the world at large. There are alternatives--I've read the literature on quite a few of them. But political power is the name of the game and vested interests fight exploration of these ideas.
We all use oil foreign people have been killed over, in a tank of diesel there is the same amount of energy as my electrical energy for 3.2 months over last summer with the air con going 24/7. " Getting out there " has costs that we can't ignore either.
Ultra-Flexinol super substance will provide an inexhaustible recyclable edible delicious moldable fuel to get us up to 12 billion happy people. Roll it up and smoke it.
@@dylanthomas12321 Thank you. What else is there, besides rose colored glasses, and hopium? Neither one fits me, when I gaze at the avalanche of available"sober data", year, after year, after year. I'll have a few beers, please.
I see this talk as an interview with a doctor who figured out that his patient has a stage IV lung cancer and that, in spite of this diagnosis, can't help his urge to get more details about the tumour (maybe in hope that he finds that the condition isn't terminal?). There's no rational explanation for his hope. I was astounded that he dared to say the words "Global governance", though. It shows that he understands the main obstacle to any solution.
Well, you cant tell the truth......everybody would just say "F**k it" and give up. Gotta keep giving the impression there is a solution....apart from the one we refused to implement over the last 100 years.
Coincidentally I just started reading “The Invention of Nature: the adventures of Alexander Humboldt, the lost hero of science“ by Andrea Wolfe. Apparently Humboldt predicted human induced climate change as early as 1800 . One of the first scientists to notice Omni connections.
@NancyBruning Oddly I was reading the book length Wikipedia entry on Alexander Humboldt when I stumbled upon your comment. He was the most prolific scientist of his day, lived 1769 to 1859, a world traveler, inspired Darwin, friend of Goethe, knew Thomas Jefferson, travelled the world. 30 or more species are named after him. A life devoted to systems thinking as regards nature and the planet. A remarkable man of history who should be celebrated today.
The crazy thing is the ruling class has been systematically thinkers to maintain their interests for long time. The tactics of counter insurgency are what are used to constantly support a system that ignores externalities on people and planet. There is Both a sort of “crush them” school of thought and a “HEARTS AND MINDS” school of thought. As I heard someone quote “I worked counter intelligence in the military and it’s the same thing as marketing”. The more I learn about political economy and also how the bio/psycho/social/cultural/geopolitical/enviromental / - insurgency-counter insurgency tactics of the systems we exist in work. It’s just nuts.
What a thoroughly enjoyable episode. Your questions were really on point Nate, I'm sure Mr Rockstrom appreciated that. On a personal note, I was a bit surprised to hear him talk about the 1.5 target as though it was still attainable. And I found it disappointing that he brought up the "modern" renewables and electric cars having earlier stated "we already have the solutions". Just goes to show that not even the most brilliant academics can be informed on every topic!
Sure, any manmade (hollow) structure is a disadvantage -- cars, houses, buildings, roads, railways... billions and more billions that all obstruct at least some sunshine and warm fluid in the air that instead of reaching the ground and moisten soil, level temperature + bring life there, brake/delay the circulation and dividing of energies to let the global average temperature increase because of this. There's a finite space in and under the troposphere where any of us organisms can survive, and it's been shrinking since 1900 when the "craze" really started with increased transportation and wider urban areas with more and more people. When the remaining space and areas are shrinking each year, it''s like prehistoric times with an earth with smaller and smaller diameter, but with the same amount of sunshine + air + water to level energies over and under the surface. No wonder the flux of temperature/humidity/wind when there's less stirring by rough natural terrain to level this today. Extra CO2 also delay the rapid mixing we need and bring on extremes, What to do with some obstructions? Besides green roofs, let mirrors on roofs guide sunshine in + under the house, building... to reach rooms and soil, and let air + water in to get something to grow there. At least this with new structures replacing the old.
It is surprising that anyone still talks about 1.5 degrees C warming. We are currently tracking at 1.6 degrees C and most informed climate scientists, if they are prepared to tell it like it is, speak of 2 degrees C being locked in and probably 3 degrees C on current trajectories. The latest Statistical Review of World Energy 2024 notes that there has been an increase in use of fossil fuels and that the so-called renewables aren’t even keeping up with the growth in energy demand. James Hansen et al are projecting temperature increases much higher than those in the IPCC projections and have challenged the models used to produce those IPCC projections. There is simply no way we are going to avoid 2.0 degrees C and unlikely that we will avoid 3 degrees C. One of the drivers of crossing Planeyary is the material intensity of so- called renewable energy sources and we haven’t even begun to deal with the disposal of solar panels and wind turbine blades and foundations. I have calculated that here in Australia with another 50% increase in Solar PVS installation and a 20 year average life for PVs, we will have to recycle/dispose of millions of cubic metres of panels every year forever… and that is for 27 million people. Renewables are going to help push planetary boundaries even further into the red. The same applies to electric vehicles. Life cycle analysis should be a legislated requirement in all the countries party to the IPCC process so that there is transpar3ncy and honesty about the impacts of so-called solutions.
@@douglasjones2814 Aye, I did read it, though many never will. I just question why UA-cam chose to censor it, as happens with many comments of substance these days.
Another great interview, Nate. Brings up a few questions: How could 195 countries come together for an enforceable global agreement on reducing encroachment into these planetary boundaries? Additionally, since the global economy and monetary systems are based on fossil fuels, how could an energy transition transition be made smoothly? Finally, what new energy technologies could be quickly implemented so modern society does not fall into chaos? Hopefully there are some experts to interview who could address these questions.
@ideafood4U You’re barking up the right tree. A global mutually beneficial agreement that doesn’t have to be “enforced” but voluntary because of the advantages enjoyed by the parties. The Global Carbon Reward is one of those proposals. It’s based on the deep intelligence of living systems and physics. Check out the work of Delton Chen.
Not even two countries or the biggest/most powerful five-ten countries can agree on anything. They always rule in their own interest/in the interest of their closer "partners" and ensure that nothing gets agreed on which can violate their own interests. We can't achieve any kind of global agreement. We are not one homogeneous"humankind " and we never will be. It's not possible.
i know some professors in this area that are unaware of J Rockstrom and planetry boundaries. We have a long way to go. I try to spread the word.. His papers are very readable. We need this though in schools. Need to pressure politicians.. Businesses, aside from v big business will follow. Ultimately we have no choice but to live within limits. Just hope the boundaries are not irretrivably broken by then.
What folly to ignore planetary boundaries! Our response must address all aspects regulating life on earth. Let's consider our predicament with open eyes and be willing to accept reality as is and respond appropriately! Hard choices must be made now, so we avoid far worse scenarios...
Yes - all 'solutions' like flying to Pottsdam to chat with Johan, are inherently maladaptive. There are better and worse ways to respond to our predicament but the fundamental predicament of #overshoot cannot be solved. Efforts to Make The World Green Again, like all change (2nd law thermodynamics) requires energy and produces entropy - with associated material/ecological throughput. Change on the scale required is a massive #hypergrowth of energy consumption, material use, and ecological drawdown. There is no 'solution' . Don't just collapse - #JustCollapse! JustCollapse.or g
We have already cut down 2 out of 7 rain patterns that Amazon rainforest has created before water flows back to the sea. And even more worrisome, these losses are near Atlantic ocean where most humidity enters the system. This leads to rapid drying that climate warming worsens (1C draws 7% moisture, so we are over 10% lessened moisture levels already).
It's been my observation that more people prefer entertainment over education and if that is the case it answers the question of why more people are not aware of our current situation or the seriousness of it. For all of the views that "Don't Look Up" got, how many people learned something from it and how many people could identify themselves in the masses? Literacy is the most basic form of education. How many adults read and write regularly after completing school? How many watch TV every day? So yeah, entertainment over education is why so many don't know nor care to know.
Nate thank u for bringing all your guests on board. Showing the world whats most important. I purchased 11 acres. I let's 3.5 acres go back to forest, trees, biodiversity/ecological system return to nature.
Johan Rockström is one of the most important figures in global natural science and his planetary boundary framework is truly invaluable. So thanks for this great interview. What you did not ask about is the Great Simplification. Johan does not seem to be especially open to that line of thought, maybe out of tactical reasons. For me it still appears inevitable given the developmental lines of our most important energy sources.
Every generation try's to create a home for their family within the constraints of their life. They will work with what is for them. People want be loved and happy. I'm I'm 71 and have seen enormous changes in the environment on a very small scale. I grieve for the planet.
We don’t need more studies, we need to take care of the food and water and forests as a priority along with radically different political and economic and industrial systems. Who is we ?
It annoys the hell out of me people waiting for some invention or study also , we know people need clean fresh safe water and we know how to deliver it to everyone yet 2 billion people do not have access to safe water so the problem is us now .
Halfway through listening to this conversation and I haven’t heard overpopulation mentioned yet. Yes, in many western countries, native birth rates are down. But populations are rising because of climate, economic and political migration.
Only a fraction of the population that is booming elsewhere, arrives here (as of yet). The issue lies there, not 'here' (western countries). What do you propose?
You might already have seen Nate talking with Corey Bradshaw, if not, that's the one. Second part is a pretty solid exploration of the population issue, even had Nate baffled on the key factor of ongoing growth in developing countries- women deciding to have more kids because they feel child mortality is too high and old age care isn't provided in these lands . "Insurance kids" First part on extinction ecologi, is worthwhile too
I have a question that is both a difficult question to ask and answer. This conversation reminds me of a part in The One Straw Revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka where he was at a meeting about mercury in the fish and he was asking the symposium why are we even trying to invent these quick fixes to these problems when the solution is going to be just shutting off the machines that make pollution. My question is to what extent do we need further research on these topics if it’s clear that regardless of what the information indicates about long term survival, it isn’t moving the needle for policy leaders and public opinion? It seems like climate denial is getting stronger and the world is moving toward authoritarianism and maintaining the status of the highest polluters. I can’t remember exactly how this was worded but knowing about climate change does very little to change your consumption patterns unless you have certain morals ingrained. It’s awesome we have these models telling us there’s danger but if we know policy makers are going to act in bad faith then what’s the point? Shouldn’t we be putting our resources to building localized biodiverse low input food systems instead of climate models? We’ve known how to solve climate change for decades, it’s just to use less energy and material, but it’s unacceptable so shouldn’t we be more pragmatic about using what resources we have to build things to deal with the consequences of our actions? I don’t think the majority of people can be motivated by the logos of climate science. I think people are motivated by the pathos and ethos of strongman “promising” to restore high consumption in exchange for freedom and blood. I think that’s where the problem lies.
Unfortunatelly... this scientist is very smart about earth but malicious (couldn´t be innocent right?) about the global north politics... ESG is just greenwashing. Sustainability is not really possible. Green energies alone will not be enough to save us. Actually there are only a few truly sustainable actions possible: have fewer (or no) kids, agroforestry precisely on degradable land, eat more insects and mushrooms, eat less cow meat, reduce the tech consumism, reduce transportation in general, stuff like that. A global economic downsizing is really in desperate need now just to halt tipping points acceleration. It is much better we start these true sustainable measures right now, instead of later. The reason is very simple to understand: as sooner we start, as less painful this century will be. Like it or not, that´s the raw truth. The countries that need more strongly applying these unconfortable measures are in the global north for sure... where this scientist lives...You, global north people, are all playing a planetary engineering game (but you don´t have knowledge enough to be sure if it is safe even for you!), destroying underdeveloped humanity at the tropical belt. Why don´t you really lead the global economic downsizing instead of just pretending with greenwashing games? Global north are now too much attached to the modern facilities like children sucking pacifiers. It is finally about time for the Jim Morrison´s sayins: "There can´t be any large-scale revolution until there´s a personal revolution". Where are the youth rebels of the rock music like on 60´s and 70´s... ???
Unfortunately, there likely is no 'dealing with the consequences', they will be overwhelming no matter how prepared we think we are. We are hitting on physical impossibilities. The only way out is to take political power and make the change that's necessary. I agree with you though... I turned down a career in academia because I firmly believe we know more than enough. The only thing that matters anymore is to put all our efforts into trying to effect political change. My hope and fear is that we will very soon hit a point where denying it will no longer be possible. But of course, I wouldn't begrudge anyone trying to build a self sufficient small community in some remote place.
And I'd like to add on a positive note: The people who lived under the rule of absolute monarchs and the church must have seen their world just as set in stone as we see it today. Change is possible.
The unfortunate answer is that we need to choose a solution that works within the 'boundaries' of human psychology. People won't accept a lower standard of living if they have any choice, so there is no chance of the crisis being solved in the way you proposed, even if it would be ideal.
Tx for an awesome interview. I've been a "fan" of the planetary boundary framework for many years (after a Rockstram TED talk I saw a few years ago). It's really great to get an Earth system overview from Dr Rockstram himself. It's heartening to hear the progress being made into understanding the Earth system as a whole (the Gaia hypothesis) and focussing on planetary health and not just the climate system in isolation as if the climate crisis is the only ecological crisis the world is facing at present. It's great to know the world is waking up to the planetary crisis in an holistic & integrated manner! The ecological crises stems from a very narrow & exploitative view of ecological systems, processes, services & goods by humans - we see nature almost like a supermarket... take take take (fill your trolley with everything to need, want & love and leave unconcerned with the devastation left behind). For most nature has no intrinsic value other than to provide resources for profit. Nature has no purpose other than to fulfill human needs. ALL human systems exist WITHIN the ecological sphere; human systems are FULLY DEPENDENT on the ecological system - NOT the other way around! Unfortunately the communication around the ecological crisis has been dominated by natural scientists. While the NATURAL SCIENCES (physics, chemistry & ecology etc) help us understand the ecological emergency, the crisis is driven by human decision & policy making - the purview of the SOCIAL SCIENCES. Both the physical & social sciences need to work together to help humanity through this transition as a matter of urgency. I get excited by various scientific / social developments that could guide humanity into a prosperous future - the planetary boundary framework for a liveable planet (understanding the limits & challenges of nature) - Project Drawdown (holistic approach to the solutions across ALL human systems) - biomimicry (how humans can live within ecological boundaries without sacrificing our prosperity) - postive psychology (understanding what genuinely makes us happy & content in life) - urban sustainability (if 75 to 80% of people will live in cities by 2050 then cities HAVE TO become part of the SOLUTION to ecological systainability awa human prosperity... at present cities act like parasites on Earth systems) I've just discovered this channel so will be exploring all previous interviews with much interest.
Awesome guest and conversation! The Earth System needs its own Fit Bit - a social media network of global change scientists paired with environmental projects/applications that monitors and offsets Planetary Boundary impacts with existing techniques.
Where's the discussion on the fossil fuel impact of these "innovative technological solutions" Johan Rockstrom suggests? And what of Jevons paradox - in a world of 8 billion and counting? We need massive fundamental shifts in our culture, our lifestyle and consumption habits, and a re-igniting of our ageless kinship with Earth. An informative discussion, nonetheless. Thank you Nate and Johan!🌏♥
Yes - Second law of thermodynamics - all transformation (change) requires energy and produces entropy (waste). Changing the world as it is currently configured requires an impossible degree of energy input with a corresponding degree of ecological drawdown - waste, pollution, and general environmental impact. So called 'solutions' are maladaptive #hypergrowth. Don't just collapse - #JustCollapse. JustCollapse.or g
Compensate people for making choices that benefit society. Education to be employed in the field of sustainability or as a scientist should not come with tens or hundreds of thousands in debt. Agreeing not to have a child is a decision that can change later too. These choices can be unwound as people grow older. Adopting should be more supported. Biologist. Environmental engineer. Sustainable developers. The issue is that those opposed… those who will lose money/wealth… power. They will oppose these changes. That’s the quandary.
A great conversation among two brilliant minds. A joy to listen to and very informing. I didn't realize that it will be easier to meet our climate goals by preserving the oceans and terrestrial ecology. Keep them coming Nate!
Johan Rockström gave an interesting and informative conversation, but little was said of Peak Oil and the effects it will have. As you Nate and Art Berman have discussed, Oil is now basically any hydrocarbon molecule that enters an Oil refinery. When Oil/Gas becomes too costly and or difficult to obtain, they’ll be an even greater increase in Coal use with Coal liquefaction becoming common place. Just looking at our present situation Coal’s use is on the increase, to quote Mark Mills recently (MM) (Decouple Media - “Is an AI Energy Crisis Looming”) - (MM) “So I'll make a couple predictions. First, the plans for shutting down coal and gas plants will stop. …they'll probably reverse plans, as they already did in Germany.” Second prediction relates to NG and Nuclear. Throughout your conversation Rockström reinforced your questioning that humans were responsible for exceeding Earth’s Planetary Boundaries, but that’s for one reason, a reason neither of you touched on, though it came very close to being touched on towards the end of your conversation “question” “what do you care for most in the world” to which Rockström replied “The Planet, and my children… …ultimate definition of justice is every human being’s right to be born on a liveable planet.” But this is where all Earth’s ecological problems lie ‘POPULATION’, there are far far to many many of us, but I very much doubt come “The Great Simplification” enough people globally would terminate their lives to save Earth and their progeny, in fact I’d go as far as to say there’s a greater chance they’ll procreate to increase their numbers. And so Johan Rockström is far far to optimistic with much of his optimism founded on Hopium, why because much of what he believes humans will do just Ain’t Gonna’ Happen🤔
Behaviour is the problem not population perse, otherwise all polical arguments degenratye in finakl solutions with own origins people as favored e;lite & everyone else scape goated into the shower blocks
@@ziggyfrnds No I hadn’t forgotten about all creatures great and small, how could I, or anybody else after reading Lyle Lewis’s book “Racing To Extinction - Why Humanity will soon Vanish” if you’re not familiar with his book suggest you obtain a copy (check Lyle Lewis out). Had a guy call at my house the other day touting for work, he wanted to power wash and seal my block paved drive at quite a reasonable price, he pointed out that a number of my blocks were sinking due to 🐜 burrowing underneath, said they’d remove the blocks KILL OFF the 🐜and replace blocks to be level with the others. I said no thank you, I’d put up with the 🐜, as if you notice they’re not anywhere near where vehicles stand. I just wonder what you “ziggyfrnds” would’ve said🤔
Peak Oil might be one of those old timer things Thanks to investment and experience doing carbon capture and sequestration... a Oil field in Canada retired for CCS in 2017... So much Oil came out; want a fresh lease-permit until 2090 Doubt unique to lone specific well
Nate Hagens Thank you for having Dr. Rockstrom on ! I am going to call him Dr. Rockstar because he explains our situation all so well and I Thank you Both !
I'd love to hear him explain how we can have renewable energy for 8 billion people without fossil fuels. He must have considered the question, mustn't he?
This was my 1 burning question after watching all that, and sure enough, it's the top comment. While a brilliant climate scientist, he's drinking the techno-future kool-aid. Look, I don't wanna give up modern comforts either, but if that's the reality to not cross these boundaries then so be it. Still a great discussion though.
All organisms maximise resource use if they are able to, it's hardwired into life. Humanity's "intelligence" can't overide this ancient genetic legacy.
I disagree. We eventually learn and change. It is a very difficult process, because it often involves having to make people change that do not want to voluntarily.
It’s hard to rectify this explanation with the fact that nearly every major religion has had ascetic branches and many of them were widely practiced for centuries
@@stephenboyington630 Can't learn or change when you're dead. As clearly expressed here, now would be the time. You see people learning and changing? People are carrying on as they always did; without learning, without changing.
Dr. Rockström's amazing story from water in Africa to planetary boundaries that was presented in the Netflix original film, Breaking Boundaries: the Science of Our Planet (2021), got my attention and then changed my life, as an architect who realized in 2019 that the greenest buildings in the world are basically green washing if we don't change the system itself so everyone can participate. I became a climate activist supporting the Declare Emergency campaign in the US which has same change theory / strategies as the A22 Network campaigns in Europe. Thank you, Nate, for the wonderful questions and conversation. Do you know why Johan said we're at 1.2C (average global surface temperature above the preindustrial 1850-1900 reference) when other climate scientists say we're approaching 1.5C now?
Informative, enlightening and important conversation and I'll do my part to have conversations with others related to this topic. Thank you Nate, Johan and the people supporting you to contribute to the potential future of Earth's rich and incredible capacities.
Great interview and insight on planetary boundaries... good to see the entire array of human impacts on earth incorporated, not just a narrow climate-change discussion. However, the prescription of "just leave behind fossil fuels/ follow the Climate Accords" is clearly lacking. There are serious problems and limitations with the green-tech future, as its currently articulated.. Many of Nate's previous guests have made this point. We need a better, intricate analysis of the risks and blockers associated with truly abandoning fossil fuels for "renewables".
This is my second time listening to this podcast. It's so filled with infirmation, data, that I'll probably eatch again in a month. Last time I pribably left a comment telling Nate not to be so skeptical of technologies and business models such a solar, wind, EVs, AI and more. Mainly because his gloomy log cabin raise chickens and wait for Armageddon feeling is not far from survivalist Road Warrior theology. But given his sophistication, Wall Street experience in particular, and knowing my own path through corporate high tech, venture capital, etc., He knows that carbon capture, grren new deals, etc., will tend to get captured by the incumbent players and become window dressing for business as usual. If you studied and worked on these issues or just thought a lot about them for many decades, as I have, it's hard not to get discouraged. I think the application if technology in service of the planet is desperately needed. There's many green baby shoots. If they're killed or captured, then count me president of gloom. I'm going to research the 9 planetary boundaries and Potsdam Institute. It's thoroughly in accordance with Systems Thinking. Thank you Nate. This is your most consequential interview, in my opinion. I wish it, and the field of study and consequent behavior were required courses for all people.
I have one big concern with this goal of decreasing half of green gaz emission until 2030 when it's still globally increasing. It supposes that each year our civilization would diminish by at least 5% cumulatively its consumption of fossil fuels, like a COVID crisis cumulating one over the previous each year. Do you really think that we are on this track? The interdependencies between energy sources are so intertwined that the most willing among us should succeed in solving a web of complexity, a challenge even more complicated than winning at Mikado's game! And what about political and economic leaders, the vast majority of whom are incompetent regarding energy, climate and environmental issues, who blithely confuse an energy carrier such as hydrogen with a primary energy source, who uses oxymorons such as “sustainable development” and “green growth”. In this sense, talking about energy transition remains a delusion. Never did have energies from different sources replace each other, they have intertwined with each other. Especially when we see the ineffective forms that liberal democracies can take. Provocative, Jørgen Randers declared in 2012 at the Smithsonian Institute, celebrating in Washington the 40th anniversary of the book "The Limits to Growth", that the American political regime, whose CEOs remain enslaved to the quarterly results of their corporations and political actors hampered by election results every two years, was unable to face the challenges of the century, as it was unable to implement the policies required without seeing them defeated by the electoral alternations game, but that the Chinese political regime was capable of doing so, as it was capable of planning over a long enough period.
"Do you really think that we are on this track?" Asking is answering.. I think they've mentioned near the end that it would take a global effort, which isn't happening. RIP
I thought this was a really good interview Nate, thanks for that. I'd previously heard of Johan & his work on another interview with Prof Kevin Anderson (who you should also have a discussion with!). I think he must be in a bind with finding the right balance of telling it how it is, but still providing a note of optimism. I don't begrudge him for it - pretty hard to run an institute where the message is little more than "the end is nigh".
Noone is better than Rockström at explaining why the ”climate has always changed” talking points are not valid arguments. His book Breaking Boundaries is very enlightening.
This is one of the finest conversation that I had the privileged to listen carefully for one & half hour, wish I could have been five hours. This is superb and Thanks for doing it.
Mixed feelings. I love the idea of paying to save places that are critical to all life on the planet, yes, it's time for us to come together and do this. I would also like to change the "throwaway attitude" of the West, and to do that we could start by making it illegal to produce anything that is designed to fail. (Planned Obsolescence)
I'm in Eastern Canada and, not only did we get several rains and thaws during what should have been the coldest parts of winter (normally consistently in the -20's and -30's), this summer is hotter than ever. Was able to plant tomatoes outside a whole MONTH earlier than usual!! We are getting massive bumper crops of apples/plums/blueberries/grapes/pear this year, apparently the changes triggered the trees and bushes to go CRAZY with flowering. Waiting to see if winter will be unusually delayed too.
What a brilliant conversation... and depressing. It contextualises the war we see not just on nature but also women and other countries.... It is a visionary problem, and it feels like when we are teenagers and think we know everything, but when we get out from our parents' wings to discover how little we actually know... But at a species level.
This progeam is a must listen to along with Planet Critical. I urge people to subscribe to both. It will give people something to do while our efforts to recover from what has been done gets overwhelmed by the consequences . I for one am concentrating on the next life. Evolution has and end, God does not. Vaya con Dios.
Nate, thanks for sharing this conversation with Johan. I don't think there is any conversation, lecture, presentation from him that hasn't acted as fuel for me to keep tackling the next narrative hurdle.
Nate, Thanks again, as always, the professor is so right on in so many ways, and in the last couple of minutes of the podcast, he goes in the wrong direction. In the same way, that a discussion focused on fossil fuels at the cars and not biodiversity loss, and everything else that we’ve spoken about when he talks about his generation being the cause and he and I are the same age that’s just not correct it’s civilizations based on agriculture That have neglected to take care of ecosystems over the last 10,000 years. Every civilization that has fallen has fallen, because it has neglected to understand the finite nature of their surroundings. And perhaps we miscarriages versus invasive as those civilizations, which seem to have survived on a specific piece of land, in somewhat sustainable matter for a long period of time, but even that definition is not accurate. if we attempt to shoulder the entire burden of this problem or predicament as you so well, put it on our generation, we’re never gonna get beyond this. Yes, we have the responsibility of changing the course of humanity going forward, but assuming all the responsibility for the cumulative problems of 10,000 years is only going to impose psychological barriers on beginning that process. It’s not our responsibility for the problem, and it’s not our responsibility to come up with the solutions. Our only responsibility is to introduce a new ethos, based on love and stewardship and care for the super organism of all of life, and acknowledge the interconnected nature that we have fallen away from of human beings to everything else, and pray for future generations to continue along a better trajectory, and those that have come in our past. Keep up the good work.
We thank Johan and team for the very useful 'Planetary Boundaries' framework and for the many times he uses the word 'collapse'. However, 5 mins in, Johan talks of global 'transformation' and we need to get real about this. All transformation of any kind requires energy and produces entropy (waste). This is basic physics (the second law of thermodynamics). Intentionally transforming the world as it is currently configured, in a fraction of the time it took to develop, is #hypergrowth. Massive transformation requires enormous amounts of energy with associated material/ecological drawdown and throughput - waste/pollution/CO2/biodiversity-loss, etc etc... there are no 'solutions' and this is the wrong kind of thinking to address our fundamental predicament of extreme human ecological #overshoot. In truth, the pursuit of this kind of "sustainability" is unsustainable. Thankfully, Johan Rockstrom appreciates the value of critique, agitation, and 'dissensus' and we can hope he would appreciate this critical thinking. Let's get real - there are no solutions. There are, however, better and worse responses. Don't just collapse - #JustCollapse! JustCollapse.or g I
I knew of planetary boundries, but Rockstrom made them come alive and gave me insight into how they work and the interconnections of all of them. I've listened to William Rees' lectures on ecological footprints and biocapacity and they seem like they complement Rockstrom's ideas very well. Climate change is important, but by itself, it is not the answer. If we could only agree on a strategy, like with the ozone hole, but that one was solvable because industry had a ready replacement that they could use to keep the money coming in. And in the end, the replacement, HCFCs, had similar problems to the CFCs and it appears some countries (China) are backsliding on the ozone destroying compounds. It's hard for the privileged to share their wealth with those at the bottom and it's them that decide who the leaders are and what direction society is taking. When I try to share with my friends and family they tell me it's too depressing, so I don't share much anymore, but it's a heavy weigth to carry.
Concerning the 30-30-30 rule to preserve biodiversity: There also is an inevitable strong element of justice in that. In Germany for example we have only approx. 2% of our national area protected in form of national parks. 98% are more or less open to industry, traffic, residential buildings, agriculture and all sorts of extractivist activities. We simply cannot expect from any country in the world to keep 30% of its national area under full protection (which essentially means wilderness) if we are not prepared to lead in that direction. This also means sacrifice, a word that Johan unfortunately seems to be allergic to. But maturity and responsibility is practically unthinkable without the readiness to also accept sacrifice.
German corporation RWE is raping Colorado's state owned lands to install a giant "GREEN" solar project to sell electricity in the southwest. They'll kill the pronghorns,, eagles, hawks and every other living thing and screw the local humans too. Democrats support this stupidity. Thanks a lot Germany.
big fan of NH and TGS. Since TPB is alligned with the UN &SDG, one needs to realize they are political organizations. The communication training of Prof.Rockström clearly shows when being asked about how he seperates the awareness from going mad with fear (paraphrazing).
I enjoyed listening to this podcast and will look for more like it. I might have to listen again to find out where the guest speaker describes this direction we should go, that seems so ironed out and plausible, that will solve all our problems. At a high-level, he mentions the 30% by 20 30 etc., but doesn’t give any details as to how we might get there. Therefore I don’t share his optimism as weak& guarded as it is
Great interview. We have sailed way past the tipping points. The fundamental problem is that the vast majority of homo sapiens are simply focused on what they can consume.
Great episode. The show has been hit or miss for me since initially discovering as a new favorite a few months ago. More like this! Very knowledgeable guest
Emergency = immediately life threatening (planetary) situation. Thank you both for trying to save life on earth for generations to come, Gaia help us all!
This is unpresented global matter and requires a radical revolutionary change to our socio-economic system. Perpetuating the competitive market system with it's extended unlimited growth arm is the dominant factor thats driving decision making from micro to macro scales. For me, much discussion should be had on a transition to a resource based economy.
Johan Rockstrom probably had the best answer to Nate's "what should people do?" closing question among all the guests in the podcast so far. It was the most articulate, most beautiful, most hopeful argument not to despair, and to actually believe that there might still be a way to slow down this crazy runaway train of a society.
The only reason we fixed the ozone layer was because there was money to be made in fixing it. The need to replace all refrigeration systems was a major profit opportunity, hence we fixed the problem.
And apparently it really was an easy fix. It's not a good example of anything, compared to burning fossil fuels which is not a problem to be fixed with know-how and even a dose of economic incentive. But our very way of life. It's life itself, it's everything we are. There is no alternative. Or at least nothing that can match it....
Actually with Bill Gates on this. Appeals to selflessness aren't enduring. Need a profit angle to stick with it 2) ozone story isn't over yet. Decaying Elon Musk Starlink sats threaten it and geoengineering would deplete it 14% per -1C
Twisted - I don't think you understand - I'll explain it once and hope you will see my point. I know alot more than Johan about financial overshoot, human behavior, and renewable energy - and the global macro system -lets call it 3X. He knows 10X! what I do about planetary boundaries. He invited me to his campus and agreed to an interview - why should he - a globally reknowned physical earth scientist be expected to both explain that we exceeding planetary boundaries and how - and ALSO what to do. You ask too much - of my guests and of me - the purpose was to have one specific conversation to get a broad overview of what the 9 planetary boundaries are - and how quickly we are reaching/exceeding them. And he did that extremely well (says my 82 year old layperson Dad). Johan also has to raise $$$ to support the hundreds of scientists on staff to research and understand the biogeochemical systems - if he goes of on eg. population, or the material requirements of renewables or how europe is broke, how helpful is that to his mission, or ours? Please look at the larger picture. Not each guest sees the whole system, but this professor is world class on what he does knows and (imo) we should be grateful for that. You should know this. Please have some respect. this isn't WWF. On to the next.
@@thegreatsimplificationfurther, what's the point of disabusing 'hopium' By definition if needed them to 'wake up' because need their help on another strategy... Then you'd have hope for something
@@DrSmooth2000 its not his responsibility to provide (or even understand) the answers and responses. It IS his job to understand and describe the systems and their risks. (it amazes me that people can't see this). He is not only doing that but is putting out a cogent clarion call on how perilous our natural systems situation is - in hopes that (many) others grok, integrate and respond.
@thegreatsimplification fair, if unrelated to what I intended to say. Point was to question the function of, as Twisted Cabbage proposes, trying to challenge a guest to drop their Hopium You as a show host can be said to have special responsibility to audience but in day to day interactions... what is the purpose of trying to have someone give up Hope? If seek to persuade someone that Green Growth is waste of time and only dour Mitigation has a chance, or the inverse, or that adapting to warm wet world is best use... then by definition have hope because seek others to join your cause. True Doomer wouldn't care if people think there's an adequate path out of predicament. Roll her eyes that the conversation turned Cringe and flip to another episode (on same channel of course 😇)
It seems the goal still has to do with sustaining the unsustainable (with nuclear, hydrogen etc) and not addressing overshoot...but that remark was made a mere few minutes in...still waiting to hear about permafrost and methane....
Yeah none of those green solutions are realistic... Even fusion, which you might think might be our miracle cure; 'free' energy, but as some have put it, that would likely be the worse scenario as it would just allow us to consume even more and more, which is the last thing we need.
As a scientist myself, I find this interview interesting and full of insights. However, as a social scientist, I am still focused on applied science. As an activist, I am focused on realpolitk. It is clear we have been in a planetary emergency since 1970 or even before. It is also clear our political overlords are not willing to fix the multiple problems that they generate. [Really; do you expect federal and state governments to do anything besides a little bit of fiddling?] Indeed, they will repress you and put you in jail if you actually get something done. So we prepare for collapse BUT we should also do what we can to fix small problems in our local areas. The paradigms here are: 1) solutions that encompass the short-term, mid-term and long-term, 2) think globally, act locally, 3) apply the precautionary principle in your own actions, and 4) reduce your own energy footprint. [Carbon footprint is less encompassing than energy footprint so energy footprint is a better term.] "Keeping the dialogue going"(1:20:00 ff) is all well and good, but it means nothing unless you get off your dead ass and actually DO something.
The problem we need to overcome is the same one that people who smoke, eat, and drink to much, continue to do so until they get a heart attack, or cancer. I am no different to those people other than I have experienced cancer as a threat to my life. Yet I still carried on smoking, until I heard a story, from my then girlfriend, who explained the loss of her dad to lung cancer, she didn't hold back on the details, and it shook me to the core. I have now not smoked one cigarette for 20 years. Its the human condition that is preventing us to change, people naturally don't like change. So what's the answer when there are so many humankind's, righting, left-wing, spiritual, atheist, and many, many more! I've tried for 20 years to warn people and educating them including family, about the climate and it seems I have failed. People only change when they stand on the precipice, in our case the northern hemisphere, its the AMOC stopping. By which time of course it will be too late.
Totally agree with this conversation, in fact I have alway believed this, but the key word is “IF”, an I see no sign that people (in general) are either not willing or unable to give up their fossil fuel vehicles, and by the time that happens the earth systems will beyond its tipping point, in my opinion, great conversation, thank you, on hind thought it’s may be a lack of rain that will be the nail in the coffin for the Amazon, sadly, The old saying hope for the best but prepare for the worst, Peace !
HI Nate and thx a lot ! Like Johan said, I think we need to gathering leader to find another way to make economy and new rules in order to survive on Earth ! May be Try NEMO IMS ?
Part of the problem with switching to renewable energy is that it will expand into intact nature. I don't see how we can do both. And frankly, in a world where we can't agree on anything -- from ceasefires to pronoun usage -- I don't have any hope that we will pull together to address anything in the next 5 years. We've seen protests occur when the governments have tried to take any action at all. And nobody is bold enough to talk about what will happen to the food/supply systems and subsequently the human population if we cut fossil fuels. We've only reached this level of population because of fossil fuels, and cutting that in half will have a corresponding impact on the population.
We already have a grid that is 20% powered by wind and solar and there has been no major issues with expanding into nature. Solar systems are easily integrated onto existing structures or can be part of new dual use ones like solar car ports or fences. They are also happily utilized on farms situated among crops that need partial shade. Technology doesn't need to be perfect in order to be good.
The discipline of Social Work has been using and improving a method called "Planned Change" and "Motivational Interviewing" which may help move the conversation with policy makers. Psychology also is the key source for the science of Behavior Change, and applied behavior change, addiction counseling, etc. The Social Sciences are a tools waiting to be integrated as well.
1:26:57 basically it rockstrom et al. have come up with the greatest concept to grace the field of atmospheric science; planetary boundaries serve as a guiding framework we'll (hopefully) be able to utilize for the rest of our existence and I can only hope we take adequate action in respects to it. his emphasis on shifting the narrative to a 'cool', attractive future with a reexamination of what 'modernity' actually is, it an imperative. targeting coal use and describing it as archaic is a social tool we should be exercising as much as possible
Unfortunatelly... this scientist is very smart about earth but malicious (couldn´t be innocent right?) about the global north politics... ESG is just greenwashing. Sustainability is not really possible. Green energies alone will not be enough to save us. Actually there are only a few truly sustainable actions possible: have fewer (or no) kids, agroforestry precisely on degradable land, eat more insects and mushrooms, eat less cow meat, reduce the tech consumism, reduce transportation in general, stuff like that. A global economic downsizing is really in desperate need now just to halt tipping points acceleration. It is much better we start these true sustainable measures right now, instead of later. The reason is very simple to understand: as sooner we start, as less painful this century will be. Like it or not, that´s the raw truth. The countries that need more strongly applying these unconfortable measures are in the global north for sure... where this scientist lives...You, global north people, are all playing a planetary engineering game (but you don´t have knowledge enough to be sure if it is safe even for you!), destroying underdeveloped humanity at the tropical belt. Why don´t you really lead the global economic downsizing instead of just pretending with greenwashing games? Global north are now too much attached to the modern facilities like children sucking pacifiers. It is finally about time for the Jim Morrison´s sayins: "There can´t be any large-scale revolution until there´s a personal revolution". Where are the youth rebels of the rock music like on 60´s and 70´s... ???
Loved the way NH states his disagreement of the Geo- engineering pitch (Carbon sequestering) from Prof. Rockström. Again, political communication training shows, me thinks. Compared to other TGS guests the subsequent (following communication training) honesty sounds artificial, compared with the sometimes very open struggle by other guests, equally knowledgable about this subject matter. i am not complaining - but the communication difficulties betweeen academia and the public, is certainly one of the many challenges we face.
Taking to your friends about this issue is just as juicy as talking about politics or religion. I believe it’s the utter sense of helplessness and lack of control that makes people defensive or puts them into full blown denial.
24:55 "that is a service [keeping Amazon rainforest intact], that is global commons it is a service to humanity and therefore you should compensate me for this. So you can actually have a quite powerful policy position" - And that is a scary, powerful weapon of mass destruction.
There will likely be a great purging, a "Turning Point" (in the words of Fritjof Capra) that will usher -in the clean age, where humanity becomes enlightened, responsible stewards of the planet.
2024, we are in the 1,5 °C overshoot already. I would suggest to say that pretty clearly. In 2023 we were at +1,45°C annual average compared to the pre industrial baseline.
Science is inherently political. Nate asks why most people don’t know about or understand planetary boundaries. Rockström points out the failure of scientists to effectively communicate their findings. He also laments the lack of leadership in the world. These problems are addressed in Shawn Lawrence Otto’s “Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America.” He argues that it’s not enough for scientists to conduct quality research. They must ALSO actively participate in the effective communication and dissemination of their findings. The scientists that fail to do so (or refuse to because they “don’t want to be political” and want the science to speak for itself) are abdicating their primary responsibility as scientists. One reason is that others may misinterpret or misrepresent their research, which negatively impacts society and negates the purpose of science. Scientists must not shy away from being good communicators. They must advocate for the accurate interpretation and dissemination of their work in order to support and effect positive change in society. Thus, he argues that participating in science is inherently a political act.
Hallam and colleagues are some of the very few among us trying to awaken the 99.99 percent of us locked into social media, corporate political criminal dramas, sport, materialism - capitalism and the other diversions to reality. Discussions such as this vidcast are partially satisfying fare for the intellectual types. Sadly, they achieve little to no progress as most of us listening wouldn't go on a just stop oil climate protector action if the lives of our children depended on it. We're incapable from professors to bankers to lawyers and those of us with essential jobs who we trivialise and pay little money and attention to. Why haven't we found any aliens yet? We're all living the answer to this question at the very minute.
We're right in the middle of it. But what you and everybody would like to know is when the shit really hits the fan, when the power goes off, groceries stores close down, civil unrest, etc., and as illustrated by this interview, nobody really knows. Some early estimates give a few short decades (1-2?), some are still talking about 2100 (lol), others 2050... Who knows! Depends where you are also. In US and Europe inflation already getting bad, and it won't get any better.
@@toadvine9264 this is just CO2. If positive feedback loops come into existence or accelerate, methane would have a greater effect, as would the albedo changing where formerly ice and snow were present.
@@RubenKemp Yep, I'm aware of that. By the time we hit 500, the methane and nitrous will make it more like 800 and we will certainly have tripped some major shit. we got 20 years tops, prolly a lot less.
Wow, I am so happy to see Johan Rockström on this podcast. I live in Germany and follow him and Stefan Rahmstorf for a long time.
Thank you for having him on the show🙏
Stefan conversation out in a few weeks - that also was a fanstastic episode. VG, Nate
talk is cheap. What policies has he got changed.
Why don't you email him and ask?
@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885 😘
@@Mtnshell56b/c he does not provide access.
I’m nobody and live somewhere in Asia I have been listening to most of your videos and thank you for sharing the knowledge. According to Mr Rockström, we are in a climate emergency, so what should climate activists do to make their strategies more effective ? Several of them have been jailed. Ordinary people don’t have any clue as to what is happening to the climate what’s going to happen to their children and grandchildren. And they hate the activists for making things inconvenient. What are we supposed to do with this information when we are just irrelevant people
Whatever we do, we need not, must not do it alone. That is the point of political ecology. Finding a buddy, then an affinity group. We do what we can, not what we can't. For life. For love.
If and when desperation becomes widespread, us ordinary folks may become pressured into action or leadership. One thing is certain, a sacrificial statement is always possible that involves reaching outside of our normal and typical forms. People go on hunger strikes or even perform violent acts against resistant bodies. Since our personal death is sooner or later guaranteed one could imagine that a huge numbers of individuals may choose self immolation as the ultimate statement. Perhaps being prepared to suffer as an act of contrition is a start. Beyond that your guess is as good as mine.
Johan gives some advice at the end of the interview: take every chance to talk about the topic and your views on it with relatives, friends, colleagues etc. If talking isn‘t your type of thing try to be a silent role model exhibiting a reduced eco footprint e.g. by vegan diet, no flying, biking/walking, not buying „stuff“, repair/reuse etc.
@@achenarmyst2156 Yes - we should #TalkCollapse because collapse is what is happening. Reduced eco-footprint..... hmmm maybe fly to Pottsdam perhaps and make Johan a salad?
25 years ago I had the same question, today I can answer it. You are supposed to do... nothing. Because the only way to solve the twin symptoms of death in our species future of climate change and ecological collapse, is to get rid of the driving cause behind it, which is perpetual growth capitalism.
And though I wish it were not true with all of my being, I have to admit I see more chance of us seeing Jesus in a titty bar than of ever seeing the end of capitalism before 2030 which frankly is all the time left that we have for it to be able to make any difference to the inevitable outcome beyond that date. So by all means, if it gives you purpose, campaign if you wish, but don't let the inevitable lack of change, take up and / or ruin the best years of your life.
As an old expression goes, God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference. Enjoy your life, and don't feel guilty for doing so, the world / humanity, was already set on the road to hell 250 years before you were born.
The unapologetic indifference of our global power structure, our "ruling elite", to the suffering of their FELLOW HUMANS (Ukraine, Gaza, and sub-Saharan Africa for example), makes it seem very problematic that they will ever adequately address inanimate objects like air quality, ocean acidification and circulation, biodiversity, water quality/availability. Public opinion, and scientific analysis seems to be low on their priority agenda. To them, the Earth is merely the venue where they conduct their business and geo-political deals.
Individual "Leaders" can't change the voracious habits of 8.3 Billion homo-sapiens seeking to improve their quality of life. It's futile.
To them, Earth is the planet they think they will be laughing about on Mars by mid-century because a conman who can't even make cars work correctly has convinced them he has a way out of the unavoidable predicament we got ourselves into.
It is very hard to argue with anything you are saying. It certainly looks that way and feels that way. I tried to think back on how other changes have happened in our world and hold out hope that with continued influence from people in the world that leaders will see the light. One can only hope... But more than hope we can continue to act in the best way that we can in our everyday life. I remember what Johan said and that is to keep talking to people. That will increase the pressure from everyone else in the world to those who say they are our leaders. Clearly they need to step up to the plate
I doubt this is a problem with elites. They are just better at the same game most of us are playing, sort of an epiphenomena of our genetics.
To me the biggest pointer in favor of this are the 3 mideastern cults that bizarrely spread across the planet despite relying on texts that are clearly incoherent amalgamations which only make sense if they contain permission to engage our genetic oddities and flaws. As in many ways does science and humanism, whose core tenet is more humans are better.
A truly sustainable existence won't have to thrust such concepts externally on various populations but will be following their own nature. As the Tao notes pretty clearly.
It's the hypocrisy of blaming the ruling elite that gets me. They had as much choice in whether diesel or synthetic fertilisers were invented or the economic model they were born into.
Does anybody who blames others know how much energy is in a tank of diesel? 636 kilowatts, around the same amount of electrical energy I consumed last summer with the air con going 24/7, for 3.2 months, if winter it's around 5 months. Does anybody give a second thought to people are killed in wars so that we can have oil and all its products, or do we fill up our tanks to go for a drive and think the scenery is nice?
I think we should stop asking for answers or blaming people we are the customers of. Expecting the ruling elite to give us alternatives to what seems to be working for their goals of jobs and taxes and keeping the ball rolling, is a waste of our time. Maybe we should look at and blame our own current actions and change those before we blame some 1% that we don't appreciate how close to that we are on a world wide basis.
This was one of those conversations that fills in the gaps. Johan Rockström's explanation of how the Arctic tipping points trigger other earth systems was so articulate and informative. I was surprised though to hear his unwavering belief in attainability of 1.5˚C and the technological "solutions" on offer, and wonder if privately he may be more doubtful.
Delusional hopium - Anthropocentric Humans cannot handle the truth.... Certainly not the general hoi-polloi...
I admit I am a doomer, but I still see a lot of advantages to being hopeful
I am an activist not for myself & my species but to minimise the damage for whatever manages to survive us
We & the lifeforms we love most will die long before a lot of hardier beasts able to survive low oxygen levels
I am not a doomer, I am a realist, neither pessimist nor optimist, I am only interested in what we know for certain and can say for sure. And what I can say for sure is no amount of wind turbines, electric cars, green growth new deals, no new taxes nor new regulations, and no technology today, nor any coming down the road, will ever be able to allow a top down anti democratic perpetual growth global economic system such as capitalism, to outrun the immutable physics of a finite world.
The laws of thermodynamics are real clear on why in an enclosed finite system such as earth is, it is a STUPID idea use the system that makes the mess (capitalism) to produce systems (green growth / renewables / EV etc) to clean up the mess you are making
The solution is simple. Just 57 companies are responsible for 80 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report released by UK-based think tank Influence Map. Just buy 51% of the stock in those companies and close them down. Any other questions?
@grevberg
I'm not sure if you were joking or not... shutting down the global economy is an idea. Now let's try to think of a good idea.
Awesome interview! Johan Rockstrom educated and inspired me. I could not stop listening. His knowledge is encyclopedic, but very clearly communicated. Now I understand the planetary boundary framework. His optimism about positive tipping points in society was my bonus for listening to the end. Keep up the good work Nate!
Denne må høres om man har barn og bryr seg om deres framtid. Johan Rockström er den som har mest og best oversikt over samlet klimaforskning, og satt dette sammen.
Even with no kid, as in my situation, I cannot envision the future with the hellish predicament in front of us. No kid for me but kid for others. And besides human condition, I hope that we won’t forget other species in our difficult transformation path
Nit just climate research but planetary boundaries research…
Nature promotes diversity. That’s really all it does. It doesn’t care how any species that interferes with this process is culled or culls itself by exceeding its carrying capacity. We either adapt to nature or suffer the consequences of trying to make it adapt to us.
Your last sentence is probably the best short summary I have read about 'our' predicament. Now, how do we make people aware of it? And prevent that they say 'we need to dominate nature to survive'.
Overcoming long standing religious and economic objections to family planning won’t be easy. We might stop skirting the issue for fear of being censored, called eugenicists or worse.
This is Great! Thanks for bringing Johan on this show!
Thanks for having Rokstrom on. It was a very informative interview, and he gave a very persuasive account of how he sees the polycrisis at this point in time. In my opinion he is way too sucked in to the establishment approach to the emergency: acknowledge something has to be done, set goals like zero emissions by 2050, and then sit back and watch the politicians fumble the ball. It's becoming more and more evident that the only way out of this predicament is somehow surviving the catastrophes that Rockstrom fears, and accepting that the human population on this planet is going to plummet and the beloved economy along with it. We will not design the brave new world; ecological catastrophe will simply push what remains of us into it.
I have been out there talking to as many people as possible for many years now. However, unlike most of the people who say "get out there and talk to people", I have not been primarily talking to highly educated global northerners. I have been talking with lots of people from lots of places and walks of life and... I haven't seen any evidence they are capable of actually understanding the issues, bringing any knowledge into their daily decision-making and, most importantly, of translating that into political choices that they make. The vast majority of the 90% (10% in science/tech/government) are simply not in a position to push in the right direction. They are just consumers, and you can explain until you are blue in the face, they only care while you are looking, and then completely ignore it as soon as they pick up their phone again.
My experience as well.
my experience to, people don't want to hear this as it is on top of their other problems. You should ask when you finished your talk if they belief you or are just choosing to ignore it as it is too unconfortable. 😥
Agree in general. But maybe we can at least convince them to get out of the way of people who want to actively do something. If we can just stop the obstructions, we can make more progress.
Dr. Rocktrom mentions talking with many CEOs and coming away from those conversations with hope that they have the future in mind, in essence joining the sustainability bandwagon. Although I don't have access to CEOs in powerful positions, I do read what they say or write and observe the decisions being made by the corporate (American dominated) world. If anything, I see even further push to economic practices through which short term "profit" maximization and through which environmental (DEI etc.) concerns are taboo (some greenwashing talk notwithstanding). Actually, some profit is necessary for a business to be viable, but so called "profit" is basically economic rent, gains through manipulation of the financial system, and gross exportation of externalities to the world at large. There are alternatives--I've read the literature on quite a few of them. But political power is the name of the game and vested interests fight exploration of these ideas.
We all use oil foreign people have been killed over, in a tank of diesel there is the same amount of energy as my electrical energy for 3.2 months over last summer with the air con going 24/7. " Getting out there " has costs that we can't ignore either.
Thank you Nate and thank you Johan.!!!
Nate is a childless dog man who deeply cares about the future of humanity. ❤
Agreed from a childless, dog lady.
This has thoroughly convinced me, what our fate is. I need a drink.
Ultra-Flexinol super substance will provide an inexhaustible recyclable edible delicious moldable fuel to get us up to 12 billion happy people. Roll it up and smoke it.
A realist!
@@dylanthomas12321 Thank you. What else is there, besides rose colored glasses, and hopium? Neither one fits me, when I gaze at the avalanche of available"sober data", year, after year, after year.
I'll have a few beers, please.
I see this talk as an interview with a doctor who figured out that his patient has a stage IV lung cancer and that, in spite of this diagnosis, can't help his urge to get more details about the tumour (maybe in hope that he finds that the condition isn't terminal?).
There's no rational explanation for his hope. I was astounded that he dared to say the words "Global governance", though. It shows that he understands the main obstacle to any solution.
In mountain rescue there is a saying: Not dead until warm in dead. I think people like Lovelock and Rocksrtom are following this principle.
Well, you cant tell the truth......everybody would just say "F**k it" and give up.
Gotta keep giving the impression there is a solution....apart from the one we refused to implement over the last 100 years.
Coincidentally I just started reading “The Invention of Nature: the adventures of Alexander Humboldt, the lost hero of science“ by Andrea Wolfe. Apparently Humboldt predicted human induced climate change as early as 1800 . One of the first scientists to notice Omni connections.
Dang now that is a systems thinker
@NancyBruning Oddly I was reading the book length Wikipedia entry on Alexander Humboldt when I stumbled upon your comment. He was the most prolific scientist of his day, lived 1769 to 1859, a world traveler, inspired Darwin, friend of Goethe, knew Thomas Jefferson, travelled the world. 30 or more species are named after him. A life devoted to systems thinking as regards nature and the planet. A remarkable man of history who should be celebrated today.
@@dylanthomas12321 The Science Friday book club is featuring the biography this month. At least that’s some recognition, eh?
The crazy thing is the ruling class has been systematically thinkers to maintain their interests for long time. The tactics of counter insurgency are what are used to constantly support a system that ignores externalities on people and planet. There is Both a sort of “crush them” school of thought and a “HEARTS AND MINDS” school of thought. As I heard someone quote “I worked counter intelligence in the military and it’s the same thing as marketing”. The more I learn about political economy and also how the bio/psycho/social/cultural/geopolitical/enviromental / - insurgency-counter insurgency tactics of the systems we exist in work. It’s just nuts.
@@dylanthomas12321 30 species _and_ the Humboldt current
What a thoroughly enjoyable episode. Your questions were really on point Nate, I'm sure Mr Rockstrom appreciated that. On a personal note, I was a bit surprised to hear him talk about the 1.5 target as though it was still attainable. And I found it disappointing that he brought up the "modern" renewables and electric cars having earlier stated "we already have the solutions". Just goes to show that not even the most brilliant academics can be informed on every topic!
Sure, any manmade (hollow) structure is a disadvantage -- cars, houses, buildings, roads, railways... billions and more billions that all obstruct at least some sunshine and warm fluid in the air that instead of reaching the ground and moisten soil, level temperature + bring life there, brake/delay the circulation and dividing of energies to let the global average temperature increase because of this.
There's a finite space in and under the troposphere where any of us organisms can survive, and it's been shrinking since 1900 when the "craze" really started with increased transportation and wider urban areas with more and more people.
When the remaining space and areas are shrinking each year, it''s like prehistoric times with an earth with smaller and smaller diameter, but with the same amount of sunshine + air + water to level energies over and under the surface.
No wonder the flux of temperature/humidity/wind when there's less stirring by rough natural terrain to level this today. Extra CO2 also delay the rapid mixing we need and bring on extremes,
What to do with some obstructions? Besides green roofs, let mirrors on roofs guide sunshine in + under the house, building... to reach rooms and soil, and let air + water in to get something to grow there. At least this with new structures replacing the old.
It is surprising that anyone still talks about 1.5 degrees C warming. We are currently tracking at 1.6 degrees C and most informed climate scientists, if they are prepared to tell it like it is, speak of 2 degrees C being locked in and probably 3 degrees C on current trajectories. The latest Statistical Review of World Energy 2024 notes that there has been an increase in use of fossil fuels and that the so-called renewables aren’t even keeping up with the growth in energy demand.
James Hansen et al are projecting temperature increases much higher than those in the IPCC projections and have challenged the models used to produce those IPCC projections.
There is simply no way we are going to avoid 2.0 degrees C and unlikely that we will avoid 3 degrees C. One of the drivers of crossing Planeyary is the material intensity of so- called renewable energy sources and we haven’t even begun to deal with the disposal of solar panels and wind turbine blades and foundations.
I have calculated that here in Australia with another 50% increase in Solar PVS installation and a 20 year average life for PVs, we will have to recycle/dispose of millions of cubic metres of panels every year forever… and that is for 27 million people. Renewables are going to help push planetary boundaries even further into the red. The same applies to electric vehicles.
Life cycle analysis should be a legislated requirement in all the countries party to the IPCC process so that there is transpar3ncy and honesty about the impacts of so-called solutions.
@douglasjones2814 One may question why your reply is hidden.
@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ I don’t know. It was a fairly lengthy comment on the nonsense of still talking about 1.5 degrees C.
@@douglasjones2814 Aye, I did read it, though many never will. I just question why UA-cam chose to censor it, as happens with many comments of substance these days.
Honored to hear this amazing scientist, thank you Nate for this gift!
Another great interview, Nate. Brings up a few questions: How could 195 countries come together for an enforceable global agreement on reducing encroachment into these planetary boundaries? Additionally, since the global economy and monetary systems are based on fossil fuels, how could an energy transition transition be made smoothly? Finally, what new energy technologies could be quickly implemented so modern society does not fall into chaos? Hopefully there are some experts to interview who could address these questions.
@ideafood4U You’re barking up the right tree. A global mutually beneficial agreement that doesn’t have to be “enforced” but voluntary because of the advantages enjoyed by the parties. The Global Carbon Reward is one of those proposals. It’s based on the deep intelligence of living systems and physics. Check out the work of Delton Chen.
Not even two countries or the biggest/most powerful five-ten countries can agree on anything. They always rule in their own interest/in the interest of their closer "partners" and ensure that nothing gets agreed on which can violate their own interests. We can't achieve any kind of global agreement. We are not one homogeneous"humankind " and we never will be. It's not possible.
i know some professors in this area that are unaware of J Rockstrom and planetry boundaries. We have a long way to go. I try to spread the word.. His papers are very readable. We need this though in schools. Need to pressure politicians.. Businesses, aside from v big business will follow. Ultimately we have no choice but to live within limits. Just hope the boundaries are not irretrivably broken by then.
What folly to ignore planetary boundaries!
Our response must address all aspects regulating life on earth. Let's consider our predicament with open eyes and be willing to accept reality as is and respond appropriately!
Hard choices must be made now, so we avoid far worse scenarios...
Crossing a tipping point is not something to trifle with, we don't need the exact number, WE KNOW ENOUGH TO ACT
Yes - all 'solutions' like flying to Pottsdam to chat with Johan, are inherently maladaptive. There are better and worse ways to respond to our predicament but the fundamental predicament of #overshoot cannot be solved. Efforts to Make The World Green Again, like all change (2nd law thermodynamics) requires energy and produces entropy - with associated material/ecological throughput. Change on the scale required is a massive #hypergrowth of energy consumption, material use, and ecological drawdown. There is no 'solution' . Don't just collapse - #JustCollapse! JustCollapse.or g
We have already cut down 2 out of 7 rain patterns that Amazon rainforest has created before water flows back to the sea. And even more worrisome, these losses are near Atlantic ocean where most humidity enters the system. This leads to rapid drying that climate warming worsens (1C draws 7% moisture, so we are over 10% lessened moisture levels already).
Your other two comments are hidden from view.
It's been my observation that more people prefer entertainment over education and if that is the case it answers the question of why more people are not aware of our current situation or the seriousness of it.
For all of the views that "Don't Look Up" got, how many people learned something from it and how many people could identify themselves in the masses?
Literacy is the most basic form of education. How many adults read and write regularly after completing school? How many watch TV every day?
So yeah, entertainment over education is why so many don't know nor care to know.
Nate thank u for bringing all your guests on board. Showing the world whats most important. I purchased 11 acres. I let's 3.5 acres go back to forest, trees, biodiversity/ecological system return to nature.
California fires have made people cut down more forests. The irony.
Johan Rockström is one of the most important figures in global natural science and his planetary boundary framework is truly invaluable. So thanks for this great interview.
What you did not ask about is the Great Simplification. Johan does not seem to be especially open to that line of thought, maybe out of tactical reasons. For me it still appears inevitable given the developmental lines of our most important energy sources.
Every generation try's to create a home for their family within the constraints of their life. They will work with what is for them. People want be loved and happy. I'm I'm 71 and have seen enormous changes in the environment on a very small scale. I grieve for the planet.
We don’t need more studies, we need to take care of the food and water and forests as a priority along with radically different political and economic and industrial systems. Who is we ?
It annoys the hell out of me people waiting for some invention or study also , we know people need clean fresh safe water and we know how to deliver it to everyone yet 2 billion people do not have access to safe water so the problem is us now .
Halfway through listening to this conversation and I haven’t heard overpopulation mentioned yet. Yes, in many western countries, native birth rates are down. But populations are rising because of climate, economic and political migration.
The forbidden word lol
Only a fraction of the population that is booming elsewhere, arrives here (as of yet). The issue lies there, not 'here' (western countries). What do you propose?
@@RubenKemp The term 'overpopulation' refers to the problem, and the answer is obvious; reduce population. How? Simple; less or no children.
You might already have seen Nate talking with Corey Bradshaw, if not, that's the one.
Second part is a pretty solid exploration of the population issue, even had Nate baffled on the key factor of ongoing growth in developing countries- women deciding to have more kids because they feel child mortality is too high and old age care isn't provided in these lands . "Insurance kids"
First part on extinction ecologi, is worthwhile too
"political migration" you mean political refugees, or what else ?
Keep going Nate - the momentum of your channel is building to the tipping point
I have a question that is both a difficult question to ask and answer. This conversation reminds me of a part in The One Straw Revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka where he was at a meeting about mercury in the fish and he was asking the symposium why are we even trying to invent these quick fixes to these problems when the solution is going to be just shutting off the machines that make pollution. My question is to what extent do we need further research on these topics if it’s clear that regardless of what the information indicates about long term survival, it isn’t moving the needle for policy leaders and public opinion? It seems like climate denial is getting stronger and the world is moving toward authoritarianism and maintaining the status of the highest polluters. I can’t remember exactly how this was worded but knowing about climate change does very little to change your consumption patterns unless you have certain morals ingrained.
It’s awesome we have these models telling us there’s danger but if we know policy makers are going to act in bad faith then what’s the point? Shouldn’t we be putting our resources to building localized biodiverse low input food systems instead of climate models? We’ve known how to solve climate change for decades, it’s just to use less energy and material, but it’s unacceptable so shouldn’t we be more pragmatic about using what resources we have to build things to deal with the consequences of our actions?
I don’t think the majority of people can be motivated by the logos of climate science. I think people are motivated by the pathos and ethos of strongman “promising” to restore high consumption in exchange for freedom and blood. I think that’s where the problem lies.
Unfortunatelly... this scientist is very smart about earth but malicious (couldn´t be innocent right?) about the global north politics... ESG is just greenwashing. Sustainability is not really possible. Green energies alone will not be enough to save us. Actually there are only a few truly sustainable actions possible: have fewer (or no) kids, agroforestry precisely on degradable land, eat more insects and mushrooms, eat less cow meat, reduce the tech consumism, reduce transportation in general, stuff like that. A global economic downsizing is really in desperate need now just to halt tipping points acceleration. It is much better we start these true sustainable measures right now, instead of later. The reason is very simple to understand: as sooner we start, as less painful this century will be. Like it or not, that´s the raw truth. The countries that need more strongly applying these unconfortable measures are in the global north for sure... where this scientist lives...You, global north people, are all playing a planetary engineering game (but you don´t have knowledge enough to be sure if it is safe even for you!), destroying underdeveloped humanity at the tropical belt. Why don´t you really lead the global economic downsizing instead of just pretending with greenwashing games? Global north are now too much attached to the modern facilities like children sucking pacifiers. It is finally about time for the Jim Morrison´s sayins: "There can´t be any large-scale revolution until there´s a personal revolution". Where are the youth rebels of the rock music like on 60´s and 70´s... ???
Unfortunately, there likely is no 'dealing with the consequences', they will be overwhelming no matter how prepared we think we are. We are hitting on physical impossibilities. The only way out is to take political power and make the change that's necessary. I agree with you though... I turned down a career in academia because I firmly believe we know more than enough. The only thing that matters anymore is to put all our efforts into trying to effect political change. My hope and fear is that we will very soon hit a point where denying it will no longer be possible. But of course, I wouldn't begrudge anyone trying to build a self sufficient small community in some remote place.
And I'd like to add on a positive note: The people who lived under the rule of absolute monarchs and the church must have seen their world just as set in stone as we see it today. Change is possible.
The unfortunate answer is that we need to choose a solution that works within the 'boundaries' of human psychology.
People won't accept a lower standard of living if they have any choice, so there is no chance of the crisis being solved in the way you proposed, even if it would be ideal.
Tx for an awesome interview. I've been a "fan" of the planetary boundary framework for many years (after a Rockstram TED talk I saw a few years ago). It's really great to get an Earth system overview from Dr Rockstram himself. It's heartening to hear the progress being made into understanding the Earth system as a whole (the Gaia hypothesis) and focussing on planetary health and not just the climate system in isolation as if the climate crisis is the only ecological crisis the world is facing at present. It's great to know the world is waking up to the planetary crisis in an holistic & integrated manner!
The ecological crises stems from a very narrow & exploitative view of ecological systems, processes, services & goods by humans - we see nature almost like a supermarket... take take take (fill your trolley with everything to need, want & love and leave unconcerned with the devastation left behind). For most nature has no intrinsic value other than to provide resources for profit. Nature has no purpose other than to fulfill human needs. ALL human systems exist WITHIN the ecological sphere; human systems are FULLY DEPENDENT on the ecological system - NOT the other way around!
Unfortunately the communication around the ecological crisis has been dominated by natural scientists. While the NATURAL SCIENCES (physics, chemistry & ecology etc) help us understand the ecological emergency, the crisis is driven by human decision & policy making - the purview of the SOCIAL SCIENCES. Both the physical & social sciences need to work together to help humanity through this transition as a matter of urgency.
I get excited by various scientific / social developments that could guide humanity into a prosperous future
- the planetary boundary framework for a liveable planet (understanding the limits & challenges of nature)
- Project Drawdown (holistic approach to the solutions across ALL human systems)
- biomimicry (how humans can live within ecological boundaries without sacrificing our prosperity)
- postive psychology (understanding what genuinely makes us happy & content in life)
- urban sustainability (if 75 to 80% of people will live in cities by 2050 then cities HAVE TO become part of the SOLUTION to ecological systainability awa human prosperity... at present cities act like parasites on Earth systems)
I've just discovered this channel so will be exploring all previous interviews with much interest.
Wonderful discussion. Thank u so much! ❤🙏🙏🙏
Awesome guest and conversation! The Earth System needs its own Fit Bit - a social media network of global change scientists paired with environmental projects/applications that monitors and offsets Planetary Boundary impacts with existing techniques.
Where's the discussion on the fossil fuel impact of these "innovative technological solutions" Johan Rockstrom suggests? And what of Jevons paradox - in a world of 8 billion and counting? We need massive fundamental shifts in our culture, our lifestyle and consumption habits, and a re-igniting of our ageless kinship with Earth. An informative discussion, nonetheless. Thank you Nate and Johan!🌏♥
Yes - Second law of thermodynamics - all transformation (change) requires energy and produces entropy (waste). Changing the world as it is currently configured requires an impossible degree of energy input with a corresponding degree of ecological drawdown - waste, pollution, and general environmental impact. So called 'solutions' are maladaptive #hypergrowth. Don't just collapse - #JustCollapse. JustCollapse.or g
Maybe a global 1-child policy would help. Don't know how to implement that though.
Compensate people for making choices that benefit society. Education to be employed in the field of sustainability or as a scientist should not come with tens or hundreds of thousands in debt. Agreeing not to have a child is a decision that can change later too. These choices can be unwound as people grow older. Adopting should be more supported. Biologist. Environmental engineer. Sustainable developers. The issue is that those opposed… those who will lose money/wealth… power. They will oppose these changes. That’s the quandary.
A great conversation among two brilliant minds. A joy to listen to and very informing.
I didn't realize that it will be easier to meet our climate goals by preserving the oceans and terrestrial ecology.
Keep them coming Nate!
Johan Rockström gave an interesting and informative conversation, but little was said of Peak Oil and the effects it will have. As you Nate and Art Berman have discussed, Oil is now basically any hydrocarbon molecule that enters an Oil refinery. When Oil/Gas becomes too costly and or difficult to obtain, they’ll be an even greater increase in Coal use with Coal liquefaction becoming common place. Just looking at our present situation Coal’s use is on the increase, to quote Mark Mills recently (MM) (Decouple Media - “Is an AI Energy Crisis Looming”) - (MM) “So I'll make a couple predictions. First, the plans for shutting down coal and gas plants will stop. …they'll probably reverse plans, as they already did in Germany.” Second prediction relates to NG and Nuclear. Throughout your conversation Rockström reinforced your questioning that humans were responsible for exceeding Earth’s Planetary Boundaries, but that’s for one reason, a reason neither of you touched on, though it came very close to being touched on towards the end of your conversation “question” “what do you care for most in the world” to which Rockström replied “The Planet, and my children… …ultimate definition of justice is every human being’s right to be born on a liveable planet.” But this is where all Earth’s ecological problems lie ‘POPULATION’, there are far far to many many of us, but I very much doubt come “The Great Simplification” enough people globally would terminate their lives to save Earth and their progeny, in fact I’d go as far as to say there’s a greater chance they’ll procreate to increase their numbers. And so Johan Rockström is far far to optimistic with much of his optimism founded on Hopium, why because much of what he believes humans will do just Ain’t Gonna’ Happen🤔
Behaviour is the problem not population perse, otherwise all polical arguments degenratye in finakl solutions with own origins people as favored e;lite & everyone else scape goated into the shower blocks
yup AGH! and what about the other non-humans denizens on this planet? don't they have a right to life? WASF mate!
@@ziggyfrnds No I hadn’t forgotten about all creatures great and small, how could I, or anybody else after reading Lyle Lewis’s book “Racing To Extinction - Why Humanity will soon Vanish” if you’re not familiar with his book suggest you obtain a copy (check Lyle Lewis out). Had a guy call at my house the other day touting for work, he wanted to power wash and seal my block paved drive at quite a reasonable price, he pointed out that a number of my blocks were sinking due to 🐜 burrowing underneath, said they’d remove the blocks KILL OFF the 🐜and replace blocks to be level with the others. I said no thank you, I’d put up with the 🐜, as if you notice they’re not anywhere near where vehicles stand. I just wonder what you “ziggyfrnds” would’ve said🤔
@@barrycarter8276 you are a good man. I would have done what most people would do :-(
Peak Oil might be one of those old timer things
Thanks to investment and experience doing carbon capture and sequestration... a Oil field in Canada retired for CCS in 2017...
So much Oil came out; want a fresh lease-permit until 2090
Doubt unique to lone specific well
Nate Hagens Thank you for having Dr. Rockstrom on ! I am going to call him Dr. Rockstar because he explains our situation all so well and I Thank you Both !
I'd love to hear him explain how we can have renewable energy for 8 billion people without fossil fuels. He must have considered the question, mustn't he?
A very weak point of the presentation. Thanks for noticing.
There's a gaping hole in most of the discourse which fails to acknowledge just how non-renewable the industry behind renewable energy is.
This was my 1 burning question after watching all that, and sure enough, it's the top comment. While a brilliant climate scientist, he's drinking the techno-future kool-aid. Look, I don't wanna give up modern comforts either, but if that's the reality to not cross these boundaries then so be it. Still a great discussion though.
That is my question too. How many people can we truly have on earth and how do we get there?
This article is a decade old! Wonder what became of this?
www.goodnewsnetwork.org/rossi-ecat-confirmed-by-swedes/
EVERYONE should see this- especially politicians, CEOs, teachers and scientists
All organisms maximise resource use if they are able to, it's hardwired into life. Humanity's "intelligence" can't overide this ancient genetic legacy.
Humanity's
I disagree. We eventually learn and change. It is a very difficult process, because it often involves having to make people change that do not want to voluntarily.
It’s hard to rectify this explanation with the fact that nearly every major religion has had ascetic branches and many of them were widely practiced for centuries
@@stephenboyington630 Can't learn or change when you're dead. As clearly expressed here, now would be the time. You see people learning and changing? People are carrying on as they always did; without learning, without changing.
commenting so this gains traction!! people need to know this.
Dr. Rockström's amazing story from water in Africa to planetary boundaries that was presented in the Netflix original film, Breaking Boundaries: the Science of Our Planet (2021), got my attention and then changed my life, as an architect who realized in 2019 that the greenest buildings in the world are basically green washing if we don't change the system itself so everyone can participate. I became a climate activist supporting the Declare Emergency campaign in the US which has same change theory / strategies as the A22 Network campaigns in Europe. Thank you, Nate, for the wonderful questions and conversation. Do you know why Johan said we're at 1.2C (average global surface temperature above the preindustrial 1850-1900 reference) when other climate scientists say we're approaching 1.5C now?
Yes 1.5 is 2024 alone. Climate is a trend w ups and downs. The 1.2 is the trend/moving average. Stefan rahmstorf explains it well in upcoming episode
Informative, enlightening and important conversation and I'll do my part to have conversations with others related to this topic. Thank you Nate, Johan and the people supporting you to contribute to the potential future of Earth's rich and incredible capacities.
Great interview and insight on planetary boundaries... good to see the entire array of human impacts on earth incorporated, not just a narrow climate-change discussion. However, the prescription of "just leave behind fossil fuels/ follow the Climate Accords" is clearly lacking. There are serious problems and limitations with the green-tech future, as its currently articulated.. Many of Nate's previous guests have made this point. We need a better, intricate analysis of the risks and blockers associated with truly abandoning fossil fuels for "renewables".
This is my second time listening to this podcast. It's so filled with infirmation, data, that I'll probably eatch again in a month. Last time I pribably left a comment telling Nate not to be so skeptical of technologies and business models such a solar, wind, EVs, AI and more. Mainly because his gloomy log cabin raise chickens and wait for Armageddon feeling is not far from survivalist Road Warrior theology. But given his sophistication, Wall Street experience in particular, and knowing my own path through corporate high tech, venture capital, etc., He knows that carbon capture, grren new deals, etc., will tend to get captured by the incumbent players and become window dressing for business as usual. If you studied and worked on these issues or just thought a lot about them for many decades, as I have, it's hard not to get discouraged. I think the application if technology in service of the planet is desperately needed. There's many green baby shoots. If they're killed or captured, then count me president of gloom. I'm going to research the 9 planetary boundaries and Potsdam Institute. It's thoroughly in accordance with Systems Thinking. Thank you Nate. This is your most consequential interview, in my opinion. I wish it, and the field of study and consequent behavior were required courses for all people.
I have one big concern with this goal of decreasing half of green gaz emission until 2030 when it's still globally increasing. It supposes that each year our civilization would diminish by at least 5% cumulatively its consumption of fossil fuels, like a COVID crisis cumulating one over the previous each year. Do you really think that we are on this track? The interdependencies between energy sources are so intertwined that the most willing among us should succeed in solving a web of complexity, a challenge even more complicated than winning at Mikado's game! And what about political and economic leaders, the vast majority of whom are incompetent regarding energy, climate and environmental issues, who blithely confuse an energy carrier such as hydrogen with a primary energy source, who uses oxymorons such as “sustainable development” and “green growth”. In this sense, talking about energy transition remains a delusion. Never did have energies from different sources replace each other, they have intertwined with each other.
Especially when we see the ineffective forms that liberal democracies can take. Provocative, Jørgen Randers declared in 2012 at the Smithsonian Institute, celebrating in Washington the 40th anniversary of the book "The Limits to Growth", that the American political regime, whose CEOs remain enslaved to the quarterly results of their corporations and political actors hampered by election results every two years, was unable to face the challenges of the century, as it was unable to implement the policies required without seeing them defeated by the electoral alternations game, but that the Chinese political regime was capable of doing so, as it was capable of planning over a long enough period.
China is concerned with growth just as much as the West. Too much wishful thinking all round, even in this podcast.
"Do you really think that we are on this track?"
Asking is answering.. I think they've mentioned near the end that it would take a global effort, which isn't happening. RIP
this needs billions of views.
I thought this was a really good interview Nate, thanks for that. I'd previously heard of Johan & his work on another interview with Prof Kevin Anderson (who you should also have a discussion with!).
I think he must be in a bind with finding the right balance of telling it how it is, but still providing a note of optimism. I don't begrudge him for it - pretty hard to run an institute where the message is little more than "the end is nigh".
yes to an interview w/Kevin Anderson
Noone is better than Rockström at explaining why the ”climate has always changed” talking points are not valid arguments. His book Breaking Boundaries is very enlightening.
This is one of the finest conversation that I had the privileged to listen carefully for one & half hour, wish I could have been five hours. This is superb and Thanks for doing it.
It's gonna be like that movie "Don't Look Up" until the end.
Mixed feelings. I love the idea of paying to save places that are critical to all life on the planet, yes, it's time for us to come together and do this. I would also like to change the "throwaway attitude" of the West, and to do that we could start by making it illegal to produce anything that is designed to fail. (Planned Obsolescence)
I'm in Eastern Canada and, not only did we get several rains and thaws during what should have been the coldest parts of winter (normally consistently in the -20's and -30's), this summer is hotter than ever. Was able to plant tomatoes outside a whole MONTH earlier than usual!! We are getting massive bumper crops of apples/plums/blueberries/grapes/pear this year, apparently the changes triggered the trees and bushes to go CRAZY with flowering. Waiting to see if winter will be unusually delayed too.
crazy stuff going on!
Yes, I believe you. In Nor Calif a few years ago all the fruit trees flowered early, followed by a deep freeze in the twenties.
A bountiful climate change
What a brilliant conversation... and depressing.
It contextualises the war we see not just on nature but also women and other countries....
It is a visionary problem, and it feels like when we are teenagers and think we know everything, but when we get out from our parents' wings to discover how little we actually know...
But at a species level.
This progeam is a must listen to along with Planet Critical. I urge people to subscribe to both. It will give people something to do while our efforts to recover from what has been done gets overwhelmed by the consequences . I for one am concentrating on the next life. Evolution has and end, God does not. Vaya con Dios.
Thanks Nate for this great discussion.
Nate, thanks for sharing this conversation with Johan. I don't think there is any conversation, lecture, presentation from him that hasn't acted as fuel for me to keep tackling the next narrative hurdle.
Nate,
Thanks again, as always, the professor is so right on in so many ways, and in the last couple of minutes of the podcast, he goes in the wrong direction. In the same way, that a discussion focused on fossil fuels at the cars and not biodiversity loss, and everything else that we’ve spoken about when he talks about his generation being the cause and he and I are the same age that’s just not correct it’s civilizations based on agriculture That have neglected to take care of ecosystems over the last 10,000 years. Every civilization that has fallen has fallen, because it has neglected to understand the finite nature of their surroundings. And perhaps we miscarriages versus invasive as those civilizations, which seem to have survived on a specific piece of land, in somewhat sustainable matter for a long period of time, but even that definition is not accurate. if we attempt to shoulder the entire burden of this problem or predicament as you so well, put it on our generation, we’re never gonna get beyond this. Yes, we have the responsibility of changing the course of humanity going forward, but assuming all the responsibility for the cumulative problems of 10,000 years is only going to impose psychological barriers on beginning that process. It’s not our responsibility for the problem, and it’s not our responsibility to come up with the solutions. Our only responsibility is to introduce a new ethos, based on love and stewardship and care for the super organism of all of life, and acknowledge the interconnected nature that we have fallen away from of human beings to everything else, and pray for future generations to continue along a better trajectory, and those that have come in our past. Keep up the good work.
We thank Johan and team for the very useful 'Planetary Boundaries' framework and for the many times he uses the word 'collapse'. However, 5 mins in, Johan talks of global 'transformation' and we need to get real about this. All transformation of any kind requires energy and produces entropy (waste). This is basic physics (the second law of thermodynamics). Intentionally transforming the world as it is currently configured, in a fraction of the time it took to develop, is #hypergrowth. Massive transformation requires enormous amounts of energy with associated material/ecological drawdown and throughput - waste/pollution/CO2/biodiversity-loss, etc etc... there are no 'solutions' and this is the wrong kind of thinking to address our fundamental predicament of extreme human ecological #overshoot. In truth, the pursuit of this kind of "sustainability" is unsustainable. Thankfully, Johan Rockstrom appreciates the value of critique, agitation, and 'dissensus' and we can hope he would appreciate this critical thinking.
Let's get real - there are no solutions. There are, however, better and worse responses. Don't just collapse - #JustCollapse! JustCollapse.or g
I
Not easy to listen to ! But thank you Nate for bringing this challenging conversation to light
I knew of planetary boundries, but Rockstrom made them come alive and gave me insight into how they work and the interconnections of all of them. I've listened to William Rees' lectures on ecological footprints and biocapacity and they seem like they complement Rockstrom's ideas very well. Climate change is important, but by itself, it is not the answer. If we could only agree on a strategy, like with the ozone hole, but that one was solvable because industry had a ready replacement that they could use to keep the money coming in. And in the end, the replacement, HCFCs, had similar problems to the CFCs and it appears some countries (China) are backsliding on the ozone destroying compounds. It's hard for the privileged to share their wealth with those at the bottom and it's them that decide who the leaders are and what direction society is taking. When I try to share with my friends and family they tell me it's too depressing, so I don't share much anymore, but it's a heavy weigth to carry.
Concerning the 30-30-30 rule to preserve biodiversity:
There also is an inevitable strong element of justice in that. In Germany for example we have only approx. 2% of our national area protected in form of national parks. 98% are more or less open to industry, traffic, residential buildings, agriculture and all sorts of extractivist activities.
We simply cannot expect from any country in the world to keep 30% of its national area under full protection (which essentially means wilderness) if we are not prepared to lead in that direction.
This also means sacrifice, a word that Johan unfortunately seems to be allergic to. But maturity and responsibility is practically unthinkable without the readiness to also accept sacrifice.
German corporation RWE is raping Colorado's state owned lands to install a giant "GREEN" solar project to sell electricity in the southwest. They'll kill the pronghorns,, eagles, hawks and every other living thing and screw the local humans too. Democrats support this stupidity. Thanks a lot Germany.
This is a keeper, one of your top discussions EVER, Thanks Nate and Kudos.
big fan of NH and TGS.
Since TPB is alligned with the UN &SDG, one needs to realize they are political organizations. The communication training of Prof.Rockström clearly shows when being asked about how he seperates the awareness from going mad with fear (paraphrazing).
I enjoyed listening to this podcast and will look for more like it. I might have to listen again to find out where the guest speaker describes this direction we should go, that seems so ironed out and plausible, that will solve all our problems. At a high-level, he mentions the 30% by 20 30 etc., but doesn’t give any details as to how we might get there. Therefore I don’t share his optimism as weak& guarded as it is
Great interview. We have sailed way past the tipping points. The fundamental problem is that the vast majority of homo sapiens are simply focused on what they can consume.
Great episode. The show has been hit or miss for me since initially discovering as a new favorite a few months ago. More like this! Very knowledgeable guest
Emergency = immediately life threatening (planetary) situation.
Thank you both for trying to save life on earth for generations to come, Gaia help us all!
Yep, but in the face of the sober reality, the scientist still wants to chase a more precise number. It's frustrating.
This is unpresented global matter and requires a radical revolutionary change to our socio-economic system. Perpetuating the competitive market system with it's extended unlimited growth arm is the dominant factor thats driving decision making from micro to macro scales. For me, much discussion should be had on a transition to a resource based economy.
Johan Rockstrom probably had the best answer to Nate's "what should people do?" closing question among all the guests in the podcast so far. It was the most articulate, most beautiful, most hopeful argument not to despair, and to actually believe that there might still be a way to slow down this crazy runaway train of a society.
Standing ovation Nate!!
The only reason we fixed the ozone layer was because there was money to be made in fixing it. The need to replace all refrigeration systems was a major profit opportunity, hence we fixed the problem.
And apparently it really was an easy fix. It's not a good example of anything, compared to burning fossil fuels which is not a problem to be fixed with know-how and even a dose of economic incentive. But our very way of life. It's life itself, it's everything we are. There is no alternative. Or at least nothing that can match it....
Actually with Bill Gates on this. Appeals to selflessness aren't enduring. Need a profit angle to stick with it
2) ozone story isn't over yet. Decaying Elon Musk Starlink sats threaten it and geoengineering would deplete it 14% per -1C
Yeah. Now money goes towards space travel, which destroys ozone healing.
@@lilyjawad13 Starlink is an issue due to low orbit and short lifespan
Nate, I'm deeply disappointed with your lack of hard questions. Please don't keep hitting the hopium pipe.
Twisted - I don't think you understand - I'll explain it once and hope you will see my point. I know alot more than Johan about financial overshoot, human behavior, and renewable energy - and the global macro system -lets call it 3X. He knows 10X! what I do about planetary boundaries. He invited me to his campus and agreed to an interview - why should he - a globally reknowned physical earth scientist be expected to both explain that we exceeding planetary boundaries and how - and ALSO what to do. You ask too much - of my guests and of me - the purpose was to have one specific conversation to get a broad overview of what the 9 planetary boundaries are - and how quickly we are reaching/exceeding them. And he did that extremely well (says my 82 year old layperson Dad). Johan also has to raise $$$ to support the hundreds of scientists on staff to research and understand the biogeochemical systems - if he goes of on eg. population, or the material requirements of renewables or how europe is broke, how helpful is that to his mission, or ours? Please look at the larger picture. Not each guest sees the whole system, but this professor is world class on what he does knows and (imo) we should be grateful for that. You should know this. Please have some respect. this isn't WWF. On to the next.
@@thegreatsimplificationfurther, what's the point of disabusing 'hopium'
By definition if needed them to 'wake up' because need their help on another strategy...
Then you'd have hope for something
@@DrSmooth2000 its not his responsibility to provide (or even understand) the answers and responses. It IS his job to understand and describe the systems and their risks. (it amazes me that people can't see this). He is not only doing that but is putting out a cogent clarion call on how perilous our natural systems situation is - in hopes that (many) others grok, integrate and respond.
@thegreatsimplification fair, if unrelated to what I intended to say. Point was to question the function of, as Twisted Cabbage proposes, trying to challenge a guest to drop their Hopium
You as a show host can be said to have special responsibility to audience but in day to day interactions... what is the purpose of trying to have someone give up Hope?
If seek to persuade someone that Green Growth is waste of time and only dour Mitigation has a chance, or the inverse, or that adapting to warm wet world is best use... then by definition have hope because seek others to join your cause.
True Doomer wouldn't care if people think there's an adequate path out of predicament. Roll her eyes that the conversation turned Cringe and flip to another episode (on same channel of course 😇)
@@thegreatsimplification Good response imo.
Both of you love Earth and you show it!!!!
This is a fantastic talk! We need energy wellbeing efficiency! Getting rid of rentier capitalism would be great in that respect.
It seems the goal still has to do with sustaining the unsustainable (with nuclear, hydrogen etc) and not addressing overshoot...but that remark was made a mere few minutes in...still waiting to hear about permafrost and methane....
Yeah none of those green solutions are realistic... Even fusion, which you might think might be our miracle cure; 'free' energy, but as some have put it, that would likely be the worse scenario as it would just allow us to consume even more and more, which is the last thing we need.
Wonder if Nate would've posed a question about Jevons paradox, what be Rockstrom answer??
As a scientist myself, I find this interview interesting and full of insights. However, as a social scientist, I am still focused on applied science. As an activist, I am focused on realpolitk. It is clear we have been in a planetary emergency since 1970 or even before. It is also clear our political overlords are not willing to fix the multiple problems that they generate. [Really; do you expect federal and state governments to do anything besides a little bit of fiddling?] Indeed, they will repress you and put you in jail if you actually get something done. So we prepare for collapse BUT we should also do what we can to fix small problems in our local areas. The paradigms here are: 1) solutions that encompass the short-term, mid-term and long-term, 2) think globally, act locally, 3) apply the precautionary principle in your own actions, and 4) reduce your own energy footprint. [Carbon footprint is less encompassing than energy footprint so energy footprint is a better term.]
"Keeping the dialogue going"(1:20:00 ff) is all well and good, but it means nothing unless you get off your dead ass and actually DO something.
The Planet. And my children. Same list. I hope he's heard and listened to more.
Potsdam is NOT a suburb of Berlin!!! It's different, independent and much cooler! Love the content, keep it up
The problem we need to overcome is the same one that people who smoke, eat, and drink to much, continue to do so until they get a heart attack, or cancer. I am no different to those people other than I have experienced cancer as a threat to my life. Yet I still carried on smoking, until I heard a story, from my then girlfriend, who explained the loss of her dad to lung cancer, she didn't hold back on the details, and it shook me to the core. I have now not smoked one cigarette for 20 years. Its the human condition that is preventing us to change, people naturally don't like change. So what's the answer when there are so many humankind's, righting, left-wing, spiritual, atheist, and many, many more! I've tried for 20 years to warn people and educating them including family, about the climate and it seems I have failed. People only change when they stand on the precipice, in our case the northern hemisphere, its the AMOC stopping. By which time of course it will be too late.
Totally agree with this conversation, in fact I have alway believed this, but the key word is “IF”, an I see no sign that people (in general) are either not willing or unable to give up their fossil fuel vehicles, and by the time that happens the earth systems will beyond its tipping point, in my opinion, great conversation, thank you, on hind thought it’s may be a lack of rain that will be the nail in the coffin for the Amazon, sadly, The old saying hope for the best but prepare for the worst, Peace !
The mother of all special interests, the global economy, up against the mother of all existential threats, life support systems collapse.
HI Nate and thx a lot !
Like Johan said, I think we need to gathering leader to find another way to make economy and new rules in order to survive on Earth !
May be Try NEMO IMS ?
Thanks from Brazil.
Thank you for this content.
Part of the problem with switching to renewable energy is that it will expand into intact nature. I don't see how we can do both. And frankly, in a world where we can't agree on anything -- from ceasefires to pronoun usage -- I don't have any hope that we will pull together to address anything in the next 5 years. We've seen protests occur when the governments have tried to take any action at all. And nobody is bold enough to talk about what will happen to the food/supply systems and subsequently the human population if we cut fossil fuels. We've only reached this level of population because of fossil fuels, and cutting that in half will have a corresponding impact on the population.
We already have a grid that is 20% powered by wind and solar and there has been no major issues with expanding into nature. Solar systems are easily integrated onto existing structures or can be part of new dual use ones like solar car ports or fences. They are also happily utilized on farms situated among crops that need partial shade.
Technology doesn't need to be perfect in order to be good.
The discipline of Social Work has been using and improving a method called "Planned Change" and "Motivational Interviewing" which may help move the conversation with policy makers. Psychology also is the key source for the science of Behavior Change, and applied behavior change, addiction counseling, etc. The Social Sciences are a tools waiting to be integrated as well.
Brilliant. Thank you.
1:26:57 basically it
rockstrom et al. have come up with the greatest concept to grace the field of atmospheric science; planetary boundaries serve as a guiding framework we'll (hopefully) be able to utilize for the rest of our existence and I can only hope we take adequate action in respects to it.
his emphasis on shifting the narrative to a 'cool', attractive future with a reexamination of what 'modernity' actually is, it an imperative. targeting coal use and describing it as archaic is a social tool we should be exercising as much as possible
I think my olfactory organ senses hopium.
I thought the same. Nate was being super easy going with his questions and allowed a lot of hopium to shine forth in at least 2/3 of the conversation.
Definitely, lotsa hopium! We're in on for 3-4 C.
Sounds like he’s in control of his effort…too bad his work make absolutely no difference. His hopium is hilarious.
Unfortunatelly... this scientist is very smart about earth but malicious (couldn´t be innocent right?) about the global north politics... ESG is just greenwashing. Sustainability is not really possible. Green energies alone will not be enough to save us. Actually there are only a few truly sustainable actions possible: have fewer (or no) kids, agroforestry precisely on degradable land, eat more insects and mushrooms, eat less cow meat, reduce the tech consumism, reduce transportation in general, stuff like that. A global economic downsizing is really in desperate need now just to halt tipping points acceleration. It is much better we start these true sustainable measures right now, instead of later. The reason is very simple to understand: as sooner we start, as less painful this century will be. Like it or not, that´s the raw truth. The countries that need more strongly applying these unconfortable measures are in the global north for sure... where this scientist lives...You, global north people, are all playing a planetary engineering game (but you don´t have knowledge enough to be sure if it is safe even for you!), destroying underdeveloped humanity at the tropical belt. Why don´t you really lead the global economic downsizing instead of just pretending with greenwashing games? Global north are now too much attached to the modern facilities like children sucking pacifiers. It is finally about time for the Jim Morrison´s sayins: "There can´t be any large-scale revolution until there´s a personal revolution". Where are the youth rebels of the rock music like on 60´s and 70´s... ???
Hopium is 10% better than Nopium.
What a relief to watch this sane conversation after watching the 2024 Bitcoin conference.
Population needs to be discussed!!
It's too late to discuss.
It's not too late. For example we should discuss how China can recover from its devastating 1 child policy.
I am still learning so much more in the precious wonderment of Gaia Mother Earth let alone our astrology of other wonderful Civilisations 🕊🌏❤️
Loved the way NH states his disagreement of the Geo- engineering pitch (Carbon sequestering) from Prof. Rockström. Again, political communication training shows, me thinks. Compared to other TGS guests the subsequent (following communication training) honesty sounds artificial, compared with the sometimes very open struggle by other guests, equally knowledgable about this subject matter. i am not complaining - but the communication difficulties betweeen academia and the public, is certainly one of the many challenges we face.
Taking to your friends about this issue is just as juicy as talking about politics or religion. I believe it’s the utter sense of helplessness and lack of control that makes people defensive or puts them into full blown denial.
24:55 "that is a service [keeping Amazon rainforest intact], that is global commons it is a service to humanity and therefore you should compensate me for this. So you can actually have a quite powerful policy position" - And that is a scary, powerful weapon of mass destruction.
There will likely be a great purging, a "Turning Point" (in the words of Fritjof Capra) that will usher -in the clean age, where humanity becomes enlightened, responsible stewards of the planet.
2024, we are in the 1,5 °C overshoot already. I would suggest to say that pretty clearly. In 2023 we were at +1,45°C annual average compared to the pre industrial baseline.
Science is inherently political. Nate asks why most people don’t know about or understand planetary boundaries. Rockström points out the failure of scientists to effectively communicate their findings. He also laments the lack of leadership in the world. These problems are addressed in Shawn Lawrence Otto’s “Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America.” He argues that it’s not enough for scientists to conduct quality research. They must ALSO actively participate in the effective communication and dissemination of their findings. The scientists that fail to do so (or refuse to because they “don’t want to be political” and want the science to speak for itself) are abdicating their primary responsibility as scientists. One reason is that others may misinterpret or misrepresent their research, which negatively impacts society and negates the purpose of science. Scientists must not shy away from being good communicators. They must advocate for the accurate interpretation and dissemination of their work in order to support and effect positive change in society. Thus, he argues that participating in science is inherently a political act.
At least that would be honest.
Perhaps would be good to get Roger Hallam on before he goes to prison?
He's in prison. You get sentenced you serve time, in the UK. The judge doesn't understand law if he has no concept of pro bono.
@@ppetal1 ffffffk. Can you explain the pro bono reference?
@@guapochino140 oh. I guess you were being sarcy.
Hallam and colleagues are some of the very few among us trying to awaken the 99.99 percent of us locked into social media, corporate political criminal dramas, sport, materialism - capitalism and the other diversions to reality. Discussions such as this vidcast are partially satisfying fare for the intellectual types. Sadly, they achieve little to no progress as most of us listening wouldn't go on a just stop oil climate protector action if the lives of our children depended on it. We're incapable from professors to bankers to lawyers and those of us with essential jobs who we trivialise and pay little money and attention to. Why haven't we found any aliens yet? We're all living the answer to this question at the very minute.
How long do we have until collapse? Need this info for career planning purposes
We're right in the middle of it. But what you and everybody would like to know is when the shit really hits the fan, when the power goes off, groceries stores close down, civil unrest, etc., and as illustrated by this interview, nobody really knows. Some early estimates give a few short decades (1-2?), some are still talking about 2100 (lol), others 2050... Who knows! Depends where you are also. In US and Europe inflation already getting bad, and it won't get any better.
@@literalghost929 Jim Lovelock thought 500 ppm. Were goin up 3 maybe 4 ppm per year.
@@toadvine9264 this is just CO2. If positive feedback loops come into existence or accelerate, methane would have a greater effect, as would the albedo changing where formerly ice and snow were present.
@@RubenKemp Yep, I'm aware of that. By the time we hit 500, the methane and nitrous will make it more like 800 and we will certainly have tripped some major shit. we got 20 years tops, prolly a lot less.
10 years plus or minus 10 years.