Við þurfum að viksa á því að, ekki á að þú svolítið að hafa verið alltaf skil í þið,þátt f Positive fördókt, þátt fyrfaðu og skillfélagum á Ísland,þá þarfum við átt til að hérna að hlutstum það sem við erum bæt í þaðþar að það er stjórn byggjumnienta og találins skil, að ef ég vefðóði ogekki ekki annað í Amazon, á Ég vefða systemið á Kólrýði, Ántáktíkaor in the temperate forest or the tropical forest,it will send invoices back and hit your jobs,your livelihood, your prosperity, your future,irrespective of where you are on the planet Earth.My guest today is a scientist whose work has traveled far beyond the lab.In 2009, Johan Rockström led the teamthat drew up the Planetary Boundaries Framework.It's a framework that helps us understand the conditionsthat keep our planet stable.And whether we are still operating within them.He directs the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Researchand is one of the most cited scientists in the world.Millions of people know him from his TED Talksand from the Netflix film Breaking Boundaries,narrated by David Attenborough.I recommend it highly.He has a gift for turning big numbers into something we can feel.And for all his warnings, his message has always carried hopethat we have agencyand that we have a future.Cooperation is our greatest strength.Johan, welcome. It's an honor to have you.Thanks for inviting me. Great to be here.Thank you.My ministry and your team,we have been working together to bring the topic of tipping points,AMOC and climate securityto the forefront of this year's Arctic Circle.And it's been a pleasure cooperating on this.I felt I couldn't let you leave Icelandwithout bringing this conversation to a wider audience.At Arctic Circle, our plenary sessionwas titled AMOC, a National Security Threat.So let's start there.AMOC is getting more and more attention,but most people still know very little about it.And I've even heard people joke that once you say the acronym,you've already lost your audience.Here in Iceland, I've tried to put it in more familiar termsby talking about the Gulf Stream.That's something we learn about in school.But I'd like to ask you first,how would you explain,what is AMOC to the public?What is AMOC and why does it matter?Yeah, I mean,you could think of it in the following way.I mean, I think everyone recognizes the importance of the oceanand that the ocean is,I mean, if we hadn't seen planet Earth from space,we would have called it the blue planetfrom the very start, thanks to the ocean.And the ocean, as far as we know,has essentially three ends.It has three engines that runs the exchange of heatand the currents in the ocean.And one of these three engines is the AMOC.The AMOC is a major pump,which is located just south of Greenland in the North Atlantic,which essentially runs the exchange of warm saline surface waterthat flows all the way from the Southern Oceanup via the Gulf Stream of the, you know,of the Northeast coast of the U.S.And when it reaches the tip of Greenland,it releases heat,which is why it makes it so pleasant to live in placeslike Iceland and where I come from in Sweden.And this saline water,which is heavy because saline water is much,has a higher density,it sinks.And that's the engine.We call that a thermodynamic or a thermohaline engine.And then it flows back beautifully,slowly and surely on the ocean floor,all the way back to Antarctica.And it continues that, that circular path.So it's an engine that makes life possiblein the Northern Hemisphere,but it also is a fundamental pieceof the stability of the entire oceanbecause it's connected to all the ocean parts.So it's connected to the Pacific,to the Atlantic.It, you know, it not only distributes heat,it also runs the currents,the fundamental exchange of nutrients.So,If you want to have, if you're interested in fisheries on Icelandor if you're interested in the stability of marine ecosystemsin coastal regions, you want to have a functioning enginethat runs this whole conveyor belt of heat and currentsand that's why we need the AMOC.It's a self-regulating climate system of a sort?Yeah, it's a self-regulating system because it runs on biophysicsmeaning it runs on energy and salinityso in that sense it's a natural systemand what is so dramatic is that we know that this systemhas been supporting us, it's been functioning in a very reliable wayfor the past 10,000 yearsbut we also know if we look at the data over the past 100,000 yearsthat it has a switchso it can turn on and offand not only can we see evidence that it turns on and offwe also understand the physics behind itthat it's an engine that can be turned offif you flush it with too much fresh waterwhich then dilutes the heavy saline waterand the more you dilute it, the slower it sinksand when it sinks slower, the whole engine slows downand the more you dilute it, the slower it sinksand you come to a tipping point where the system shuts downand as far as we know, it has shut down several times over the past 100,000 yearsand this is what concerns usthat we understand the physics of how it operateswe also know that it has a switchand we see it slowing downand we know why it's slowing downit's because the arctic and the green and ice sheet is melting so fastso it flushes out and it's not going to be able to moveit's because the arctic and the green and ice sheet is melting so fastit's because the arctic and the green and ice sheet is melting so fastit's about melting fresh waterwhich then dilutes the surface waterwhich then makes the saline water less heavyso the sinking is reducedand this then means that less saline warm water comes from the southern oceanwhich is why you see indications of the sea surface coolingright at the AMOC spotand this has been basically haunting science for the past 30 yearshere you have a planet that is warminghere you have a planet that is warmingyou have an ocean that is warming very fastso everyone who has any willingness to follow what's happening with the climate crisishas of course seen a global mapwhere it's red everywhereon every patch of the global oceanbecause the ocean is warming so fastand then there's this blue cold blobjust south of Greenlandwhich is quite bizarreI mean you could say it must be a data mistake or something like thatbut now we understand that this is an indicatorof a slowing AMOCbecause the reason is thatthe flow of warm water from the southern oceanis no longer supplying the same amountbecause the engine is slowing downand is this something that we realized only recently?the warnings have been there since the 1990sbut the scientific evidence of a slowdownthe slowdown estimates is that it's roughly slowed down by some 15%1-5%even though there's wide...wide uncertainty herethat slowdown evidenceand the science behind the risks of further slowdownhas been falling into place just over the past five yearsbut that saidin the most recentbig United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changethe IPCC reportthe sixth one that came outyou knowfive years agotherethe AMOC slowdown is confirmedand there is a statement that we cannot excludea further slowing downsoyou knowit's beenand ispart ofof the evidence base we haveit's just thatover the past five yearsthere's been so much more new science comingand given even morestronger and stronger evidencethat this must now be considered a serious riskthis is of course very relevant to ushere in Icelandbecause we areheavily dependent on theoceanthe oceanand the ocean occurrence are everything for usumumso if theof AMOC is at riskwe are talking about something that couldaffect thethe very foundations of oursocietyumwhich isexactly why the government decided topush itsto put its possible weakening or collapseon the National Security Councilagenda in September last yearumwhich leads me tomy next question to youif the AMOCweakened sharplydo you have any ideawhat we wouldnotice firsthere in Icelandwould it be thethe sea icewould it be our fishthe stormsextreme weathereventsagriculturewhat is it thatthat we wouldnotice firstyeah so if wefrom what we understand todaythat if you think of aof asignificant weakeningperhaps not a fullshutdownthis would translatequite rapidlytomore extreme weather eventsand ummore let's sayabrupt coolingeventsbecause you would getthat's perhaps one of the paradoxeshere you have global warmingwhich is causing the slowdown of the AMOCbut the immediate impacton Icelandand the Arctic regionis that it would on the long termcause an abrupt coolingumI meanpotentially catastrophic cooling actuallyon the long termbut you wouldyou would seemore extreme eventsvery likelyevenat a weakeningbut Ido foresee as welland Isay that this is notthis is something that still needsmuch more researchthat it willumvery likely alsoimpactonon fisheriesand the whole marine ecosystemwe see this alreadywith changes in temperaturein the sea surfacehow thatshiftsthe position ofhalibutand codand other large fish stocksandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandandyou would of coursealso very likely see a changein fish stocksbut remember thata slowdownof the AMOCdoes notumgive astop hereit givesan immediate impact herebut it would also give an impactonthe monsoon systemson globaltemperature risewhich wouldvery likelyincreaseumnotnot dramatically necessarily but it would increase even further which means that you would be youwould have a longer feedback to Iceland which is that it would contribute to an accelerated rateof warming and an even further degradation of big ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest because itwould probably shift the position of the monsoon system both in West Africa and in South Americawhich could of course lead to you know more food insecurity, more social disruption, moreenvironmental refugees in regions like in the Sahel. So you know one should recognize thatthe AMOC is a system that contributes to regulate the global climate system and the globalhydrological system so it's not only the immediate impacts here locally it's also the feedbacks.Yeah and the climate tipping points are all somehow connected.They can reinforce each other and so on.Exactly I mean from the latest science we see that so what predominantly can shut down the AMOC istemperature rising on planet earth and the accelerated rate of melting of another tippingpoint system namely the green and ice sheet. So the green and ice sheet drives AMOC slow down.If the AMOC then shuts down it would directly impact on the Amazon tipping point because theAmazon basin has a tipping point.We know that.We know this because the Amazon is a rainforest that generates 40% of its own rainfall throughconvective local moisture recycling and if the AMOC shuts down it probably pushes the whole monsoonsystem further south which then contributes to dry out the Amazon which then is more likely to tipinto becoming a dry savanna. Now if that happens then the tropical rainforest loses a large partof its capacity to absorb.Carbon which then accelerates warming even further but very likely you know you could think of it sothe AMOC is is an engine that that pushes the exchange of currents from the southern ocean tothe northern ocean. Now if that shuts down then of course you get more warm saline water gettingstuck in the southern ocean which then does not move to the north Atlantic where it normally shouldmove.Mm-hmm.So that is very likely then going to accelerate the melting of Antarctica.Mm-hmm.So you can see that what's happening in the Arctic will also impact on particularly the WestAntarctic ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet as we know is rapidly melting and it's slidingand we also see you know really concerning evidence that it might crack and potentially add you knowanother two,three meters of rapid sea level rise and an AMOC shutdown would probably cascade all the way down toaccelerating the melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet.Mm-hmm.So it's a you know it's a connected system.Yeah, yeah.You said the word if.There are always this these ifs.There are always those uncertainties but there are some who point to studies suggesting that we have not yet seen a clear decline.in AMOC while other research points to serious reasons for concern and critics of treating this as a nationalsecurity issue often point to to that uncertainty.So I'd like to ask you very directly because you're a scientist.How should policymakers deal with a risk when the science is uncertain but the consequences of getting itwrong could be catastrophic?Mm-hmm.Yeah, I probably surprised you by saying that.I think it's quite simple when very few times we can talk about simplicity in in cases of complexity liketipping points but I actually think it's quite simple for the following reason.There will always be uncertainty when it comes to any tipping point system to to say exactly when a system tips issimply something we have to just accept.We will never get that exact answer.So what we have to do is is is deal with these occurrences as as a risk assessment.Mm-hmm.Mm-hmm.And we're very good at doing that in in health and finance in insurance and what we need to do is to basically mapwhat does the entire scientific assessment on tipping risk tell us?Mm-hmm.Well, even if you now add up the most conservative assessment all the way to the most doomsday assessment.Mm-hmm.It's clear today that the evidence shows that even the most conservative assessment,which lands at a likelihood of a severe weakening of the AMOC,somewhere between one and 10% likelihood over the next 50 years,while the doomsday tells us that it's over 50% chance that it will occur.Mm-hmm.So let's assume that you take that whole span seriously.Then I would argue that even that most conservative assessment,that the one assessment that is is is least convinced about a shutdown,Mm-hmm.is still,is still showing a likelihood which is too high for a risk that if it's correct would lead to an unacceptable impact.Mm-hmm.Because anyone would agree that risk equals likelihood times impact.Mm-hmm.So for anything where the where the impact is unacceptably high,like for example an air crash or a house burning down or a car crash with with you know,life-threatening outcomes,any such risk and the AMOC is in that category.The AMOC is a shutdown of the AMOC is classified.Everyone agrees.I would say there's nobody that disagrees that it would,you know,it is an unacceptable impact at the global level.So therefore the probability that we have to be concerned about should be,you know,anything above 1% is a very high number.Mm-hmm.Mm-hmm.1% times an infinitely high unacceptable impact,the risk is infinitely high.Mm-hmm.So,so if you take a risk approach to this,even the range of uncertainty we have today leads to a very clear answer.It's unacceptably high risk,even though the uncertainty is still wide.Because even the most conservative uncertainty levels of likelihood is above what should be accepted in,in,in anything that has that kind of impact.So paradoxically,the danger of an AMOC shutdown helps us here.It,it should make policy makers much more confident that of course we need to act on this because,you know,if,if the impact had been,yeah,changes,perhaps the spring rain fall in one location,somewhere very far away.So we could accept a higher,like a higher probability level,but that's not the case.The AMOC is like one of these big,big systems.That we collectively depend on as humanity on earth.So therefore you don't want it to,you don't want to take,you don't want to come close to that risk even.So I think that is how I would guide how to handle that uncertainty.Then,then of course,as you know,in that range of uncertainty,I place myself in the middle or closer to the evidence that shows that we're closer to a 50% likelihood than a 1% likelihood.Why?Because we have so multiple lines of evidence that points at a slowdown today and that it is likely to continue slowing down.And that the critique is,I would argue,I mean,it's not wrong to have that academic critique,but it's,it's much less supported by,by evidence.Yeah.I think this is a brilliant way to,to frame this.Government is of course always managing risks.Of course.That's the role of the government.And we do it with military threats.We do pandemics with,with earthquakes,avalanches.So,and we try to manage risks before they become certainties,because when,when they do,we'll probably be,be too late.And,and of course in a,in a philosophical sense,we can't be certain about much else than,than abstract things like two plus two being four.But,Exactly.Your volcanoes here on Iceland.Exactly.And I'm thinking just on,on the European Union today,you know,putting 5% of GDP on military spending today,and it's all because of Russian threats of invading one NATO country.What's the likelihood of that happening?Well,I would say it's definitely below 1%,but still we invest,because we cannot accept anything close to that occurrence.Great point.Yeah.So,we wrote an article together in January this year.It was basically about,about this.It was roughly titled Climate Risks are a Security Concern.So,we were quite aligned then on,on this framing.And,and this is how we have tried to approach this within the Icelandic governance system.Since then,a lot has happened in this regard.And my view is that we have seen a,a certain shift in international climate,climate politics,with nations increasingly approaching climate change as a national security concern.Most recently,UK's foreign minister at Miliband,after taking office in July,one,one of his first acts was to meet with his Spanish counterpart and sign a joint statement with him,declaring that climate change is now a national security emergency facing Europe and threatening our way of life.And the UK has for some time committed substantial funding to research on climate tipping points,as you know.Climate has often been linked to security before,for instance,at the Munich,Munich Security Conference and within NATO.So,it's fair to say,though,that individual ministers and government representatives in Europe have rarely spoken out and pressed the issue the way they are doing now.Just last month,Miliband has been very vocal about this at the UN General Assembly,for example.So there are some positive developments there.What is your view on this?Have you felt more or less pushback on the security framing?And how do we make sure that framing climate as a security issue does not lead to fear or paralysisor to rushed decisions that might create new problems?I mean,to start with,I think that what you led and what you invited us in the science community in for raising this as a national security priority in the Icelandic governmentand bringing it all the way to the Nordic Council of Ministers is a very,very positive development.So,you know,thanks for your leadership there.And I think that is an example of how science and policy must collectively act today.In the broader sense,even though I agree with those positive developments,I think Ed Miliband is a perfect example of a really good leader in this space.I am concerned that we are not raising these climate emergency risks rapidly enough up to the Security Council of the United Nations.It should be even more present withinPentagonandNATOand,you know,I think these risks need to be central in our assessment of overall security.And remember that it has to do primarily actually with water security.It all translates immediately to extremes on water,droughts,floods,heatwaste,but also the biggest consumer sector in the world economy of water is the agricultural sector.So,I think that we need to recognize that climate change is increasingly recognized as a security risk,but we have to continue working very hard to raise it even,even higher up on the political agenda.And,I mean,I know that,you know,we have to continue working very hard to raise it even,even higher up on the political agenda.And,I mean,I know that,you know,we had climate security sessions at the Munich Security Conference,what is it now,two or three years ago,but it has not established itself where it should be.Namely,it should be,you know,center stage every time as one of the,you know,as,as central as geopolitics,armed conflict,and today the AI threats that are kind of taking center stagein a way that climate security is not doing.And that is,I find that quite disappointing that,you know,when the US president arranges a dinner on the most central security topic he can think of,it's on AI.And he invites…Superintelligence.Sorry.And,and,and of course the,the biggest security threat we're faced with is actually planetary security.We have other security challenges.I'm not,I'm not downplaying anyone,any of them.I mean,we have a very turbulent challenge,both geopolitically and earth system wise,but,but,but how can it be that we're not positioning the planetary scale security where it deserves to be?And actually to close this,we tried in the UN Security Council when,when Sweden had its seat there,Margot Wallström put climate security on the agenda.It was followed up by Germany.When,when Germany took Sweden's seat and now it's fallen off the agenda.And,and I think that we,we need to,you know,take this Icelandic lead and continue working in the direction of,of placing it where it deserves to be,namely on central stage at the global level.Exactly.I agree.And,and,and one,one matter that,that we have been in contact with your representatives about from,from Planetary Guardians is on,on elevating the science,the science even more with the establishment of a chief planetary scientist.And we are actually quite excited about this idea.And here in Iceland,we are looking into how our national committee on climate change science could become a,a point of contact with such an international network.So just to conclude,could you explain this idea directly to the Icelandic public?What is a chief planetary science officer?What,what gap would such a role fill?Of course,during the COVID pandemic,our chief epidemiologist became a household name here in Iceland.And people trusted his advice.Does the planet need something similar?A trusted scientific voice,for planetary risks?I think your analogy with,with,with the COVID trust we had with the chief scientist in the,in,in,in the health agency,I think is,is a very good one.I mean,the,the argument goes as follows.There are kind of two,two lines of arguments why we need a chief planetary science officer.One is that we have to once and for all land the fact that even if you care only abouthaving a good life for yourself,your family and your killed children on Iceland,we must today recognize that we're connected with all these big tipping point systems at a planetary scale.That if things go wrong in the Amazon,or in the coral reef systems,or in Antarctica,or in the temperate forest,or the tropical forest,it will send invoices back and hit your jobs,your livelihood,your prosperity,your future,irrespective of where you are on the planet Earth.So we have come to this point where anywhere you have to care about the planet,also politically.Now,those who are monitoring the planet best is the scientific community.So that's,that's one reason why every government who wants to be,take wise decisions for its people,for its security,for its prosperity within its nation would want to have a connection with the blessed,the best planetary science.The second line of argument is that a very successful way of handling the connection between science and policy has been the Anglo-Saxon tradition of having chief scientists very close to the government.So you have John Holdren,the classic one in the White House under Barack Obama,UK,Australia.It's a tradition in the Anglo-Saxon economies,and they have played a very important role in not,not being the expert on every topic,but in connecting policy with expertise.And that is also what enabled,for example,having scientists to step up and provide credible and authoritative information to citizens on the pandemic.And when you put these two together,the conclusion is every country should aim to have a chief planetary science officer who can then become the connection between science and policy.The connector between these,these,what I call global commons across the planet that have relevance into your local economy.And if you think of it,if you then start having not necessarily 195 chief planetary scientists,I mean,in every country in the world,but let's say you have 20 spread across all the continents,that would be quite a,quite a cool club to be part of because you then have a network of peers that you can exchange,you know,like almost like insider information on what's happening with value chains.I mean,I'm,I just came into the studio here drinking a fantastic cafe latte in one of your cafes here in Reykjavík.Well,I mean,coffee prices are going through the roof because the value chains are being destroyed because of climate change.You know,you want to have that kind of intelligence.So I think that is where,where the chief planetary science officer can be an asset for anyone who wants to be a,a,a smart policymaker and leader when we're navigating these turbulent times.Jóhann Rókström,this has been a fascinating conversation.I'm so grateful that you found the time to join us here in Iceland.Thank you very much and enjoy your stay here.Well,thanks for inviting me.It's great to be here.Thanks to everyone that has been with me over the last year.There was a lovely chat.I
