Pulling back from the boundaries: An interview with Johan Rockström

Since Johan Rockström and a team of internationally renowned scientists first proposed the planetary boundaries framework in 2009, it has become a key reference in global sustainability efforts. The framework seeks to track the planet’s ability to support human life and development, and it focuses on nine systems and processes that govern the stability of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, ice sheets, and ecosystems. Climate change and its cascading impacts are the most familiar of these systems, but Professor Rockström’s work also covers eight other interrelated Earth systems: biosphere integrity, land-system change, freshwater change, biogeochemical flows, ocean acidification, atmospheric aerosol loading, stratospheric ozone depletion, and novel entities. If these systems are destabilized beyond a defined level, the theory suggests that they could trigger major tipping points into less favorable states and significantly deplete the natural capital at the heart of all economies.

In an interview with McKinsey’s Hamid Samandari, a lead author of “Nature in the balance: What companies can do to restore natural capital,” Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, discusses his research, the current state of the planet according to the evolving planetary boundaries modeling, and what he thinks governments, businesses, and individuals would need to do to lessen global environmental risks (see sidebar, “Additional reading”).

These ideas call for valuing nature and natural resources in a way that has never been done before and would entail a fundamental transformation of the world economy. A task of such unprecedented magnitude would require an equally unprecedented level of support from—and concerted action by—all key stakeholders, from citizens to governments and corporations. There would need to be alignment on common objectives that harmonize with other pressing needs and priorities, as well as careful thinking and planning of the transformation steps with a view to not only their immediate effect but also their higher-order implications. In that regard, Rockström believes that “big decisions” are needed to change incentives and that the journey to keep the Earth within “safe and just planetary boundaries for humanity” can be a winning path for all.

Hamid Samandari: How did the planetary boundaries framework evolve, and why is it relevant today?

Johan Rockström: The planetary boundaries [PB] framework defines the safe operating space for humanity on Earth. Stay within the safe thresholds of PBs, and you have a high chance of securing the ability of Earth’s system to support life, ensure stability and resilience, and provide the foundations for health, prosperity, and equity. Cross a boundary, and the risk increases of causing permanent damage to the functions that determine the stability and resilience of Earth’s life support. This is because crossing would trigger tipping points that cause irreversible changes and create self-amplifying trajectories toward less and less livable conditions on Earth.

The PB framework emerged as the next natural scientific evolution after decades of major Earth system science advancements. Three strands of science provided the foundation for the PB framework.

One, we know that Earth is a complex, self-regulating system in which all the spheres interact—the biosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, geosphere, and cryosphere. These interactions and the associated feedback loops determine the equilibrium state of the system. This means that Earth has multiple “tipping element” systems—large biophysical systems that contribute to regulating the state of the planet. Push them too far, and they will “flip” from one state into another. For example, a rainforest that buffers and dampens climate change through carbon uptake could flip into an irreversible savanna state, losing carbon, biodiversity, and moisture feedback such as rainfall generation.

Two, we have ample evidence that the Holocene epoch—the warm interglacial period that started after the last ice age some 16,000 years ago—is the only state of Earth that we know for certain can support the world we cherish. It is only in the Holocene that modern humans transformed from being a few million hunter-gatherers to billions of people living in a global civilization.

Three, we have overwhelming evidence that we have transitioned from the Holocene to the Anthropocene era: we are now the largest geological force of change on planet Earth. In short, we are hitting the ceiling of Earth’s capacity to function in a stable way.

The PB framework answers two questions: First, what are the processes that contribute to regulating the state of the Earth system? Second, for each of the PB processes or systems, is it possible to scientifically quantify an appropriate boundary level which, together with all such levels for other PBs, gives us a safe operating space for humanity on Earth?

PBs thus define the biophysical safe operating space, providing a good chance of holding the Earth system in a Holocene-like state. If we stay within PBs, we can avoid crossing tipping points that may lead to interactions and feedbacks which convert Earth from self-cooling to self-warming.

Hamid Samandari: What is the current condition and momentum of the nine planetary boundaries?

Johan Rockström: In the latest scientific assessment in 2023, six of the nine planetary boundaries are already transgressed. This is very serious, confirming that we are facing not only a global climate crisis but also an ecological one. It provides ample evidence that our planet is losing resilience—in other words, losing its capacity to buffer, dampen, and reduce effects of human-caused stresses such as global warming.

We have mapped 16 so-called climate-tipping elements—large systems that contribute to regulating the state of Earth’s climate and that have multiple stable states. If we push them too far, they will cross biophysically defined tipping points. Our most recent assessment concludes that many of these elements are already likely to cross tipping points with a 1.5°C rise in global mean surface temperature. These include the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, the abrupt thawing of permafrost in the boreal zone, and the collapse of tropical coral reef systems. If these tipping points are crossed, the Earth system would become even weaker, triggering feedback loops that could further accelerate a path toward increased global warming and the continued loss of natural capital to support humans.

Hamid Samandari: Throughout human history, we have been able to push the limits of the possible through better technology, enabling the Earth to sustain an ever-larger population. What is different this time? Is there any reason why technology would not be able to solve this problem like many others before?

Johan Rockström: Technological advancements have indeed played a pivotal role in expanding the capabilities of our societies. Today, however, we face an unprecedented challenge: we have entered the Anthropocene, in which human activities constitute, as the result of the technologies we have developed, a planetary-scale force of change and are putting the stability of the Earth system at risk. Technologies for carbon removal, for example, could prove powerful and essential tools, but they alone cannot rectify the multifaceted and systemic nature of these challenges. We need good governance to ensure that carbon-removal technologies are carefully regulated and don’t impede the transition away from fossil fuels. It is not just about inventing new solutions but about transforming our relationship with the planet. We must shift from a paradigm of exploitation to one of stewardship. This requires profoundly rethinking how we produce, consume, and live within the limits of our planet.

Hamid Samandari: How large a threat is this in your view, and what is the relationship between the planetary boundaries and other global systemic risks?

Johan Rockström: There are many reasons to worry about multiple planetary boundaries being crossed. For starters, the fact that we are in a mass extinction phase of living species on Earth has a direct impact on food security and nature’s capacity to sequester and store carbon and thereby threatens the very basis of our economy and societies.

Even if one only focuses on solving the climate crisis, we know today that this cannot be done solely through a global energy transition away from fossil fuels. We also need to come back to a safe operating space for the boundaries of biodiversity, land, and water as well as nitrogen and phosphorus. These biosphere boundaries determine the carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide stocks and flows in the Earth system.

Finally, there is a growing worry that global systemic risks are being reinforced and are potentially accumulating into a “polycrisis,” which is when the effects from breached planetary boundaries interact with geopolitical, social, and economic risks. To give an example, climate change and the degradation of ecosystems affect food security—particularly in vulnerable regions such as the Horn of Africa and the Sahel—which then collides with weak social structures and geopolitical instability. This can lead to displacement, migration, and rising conflicts.

Hamid Samandari: In your view, what will it take by way of mindset and behavioral shifts for humanity to revert to operating within what the theory considers a safe operating zone?

Johan Rockström: A fundamental required step is to reconfigure our relationship with Earth. We need to reconnect our societies and the global economy to the planet. We also need to shift from the prevailing yet obsolete and incorrect perception that the human world is small and the planet is infinitely large. Ever since humans embarked as a global force on the “great acceleration” in the mid-1950s, manifested in the myriad “hockey sticks” of rapidly rising pressures on all planetary boundaries, this old paradigm no longer holds true—if it ever did.

We are now a big world on a relatively small and finite planet. This requires us for the first time to be stewards of the entire system. We must recognize that everything we do nationally, locally, in companies, and in our private lives must be accounted for and add up within finite budgets at the global scale. We are starting to understand this for climate: there is a global carbon budget associated with holding the 1.5°C limit. But the same goes for all boundaries; one must clearly articulate a budget for nitrogen, phosphorus—translating to allocations for fertilizers—freshwater, land, and so on.

This, in turn, means that we have come to a new point regarding justice and equity. The ultimate definition of justice is the right for every human being—both the current and future generations—to live on a livable planet. It requires us to share the remaining safe space on Earth in a fair way among all citizens and ensure that we hand over a stable, resilient planet to future generations.

Hamid Samandari: The world has not managed yet to live within the carbon budget you allude to, which has been known for a while. What would make conforming to all these budgets more likely, in your view?

Johan Rockström: Interestingly, after 30 years of negotiations, I believe we have the global, legally binding policy tools required to enable a global transformation away from planet-damaging fossil fuel emissions and the degradation of our lands and oceans. Our primary challenge today is delivery at scale and at unprecedented speed. Global emissions of greenhouse gases must shift within this decade from rising by 1 percent per year to declining by at least 7 percent per year to have a chance of staying within the remaining global carbon budget. To succeed, I think we need to see countries around the world enforce the agreed policy frameworks. Additionally, I think we need strong economic policies to create the right incentives.

An important first step is to internalize all the major external costs of our current planet’s damaging trajectory. Currently, we are subsidizing oil, coal, and gas with approximately $1 trillion per year in direct subsidies and $7 trillion including external costs. I think it’s critical that these be phased out and replaced by a price on carbon, which science shows needs to be on the order of $200 per metric ton of CO2. We know from economic research that a global price on carbon is the most effective way to rapidly shift away from coal, oil, and gas and provide an even stronger financial boost in investments in renewable-energy innovation. To accelerate innovation, industry needs to be guided by end dates—in other words, phaseout dates for large emitting technologies, such as the combustion engine. There is a need to support the Global South financially, to enable weak economies to transition away from fossil fuels toward renewable-energy systems. Similarly, the world needs to develop science-based budgets for land, water, nitrogen, and phosphorus, which should be handled in the same way. Such a pricing scheme may then trigger more innovation and a more rapid transformation of the global economy.

Hamid Samandari: How can one best reconcile a carbon tax with basic economic development in developing economies, addressing affordability issues and regressive effects on vulnerable countries and populations?

Johan Rockström: Is it possible to combine a price on carbon with socially responsible economic development that protects vulnerable people? I think the answer is yes. Combining carbon fees with social dividend systems is the way to handle this. As an example, Sweden introduced a carbon tax in 1991. It did this through a cost-neutral green tax reform that protected low-income households. The same is required for a carbon price to work in most countries and, in particular, countries in the Global South.

Hamid Samandari: In your view, what can individuals and corporations actively do now to play a role?

Johan Rockström: Individuals and corporations can—and must—do a lot. To start, they should be up to speed with what science is telling the world and, once and for all, recognize two things: first, that we must now urgently veer away from potentially catastrophic global risks, and second, that the transformation to sustainability is not only necessary but also possible. Indeed, it is a journey associated with myriad win–win outcomes for prosperity, equity, health, peace, and stability.

Individuals and corporations must also take responsibility. We are in this journey together, and no actor is too small for relevance. Every choice we make as consumers, citizens, and business executives counts. When a company decides to go for net-zero emissions across Scopes 1, 2, and 3 and does this by leading in innovation and by putting pressure on its supply chain and engaging with its consumer base, it matters.

The second dimension is the recognition that we have a systemic problem across the entire global economy. We do not have time to reconfigure the global economy, of course, but we need to make some big decisions that change the incentives, not only in a voluntary way but also in a compulsory or regulated way. We need political leadership. Countries and companies must be held accountable, and the rules on the market must be generic and predictable over time.

A key to all this is that the world needs global governance embedded in democratic and transparent structures which form the basis for justice. Again, this is needed to protect access of all humans to “ecological space” and stable life support systems such as safe and secure freshwater, soil, nutrients, air temperature, marine protein, manageable weather extremes, and disease patterns.

Hamid Samandari: What does the PB framework imply for resource use, and what impact would it have on economic resilience?

Johan Rockström: On resource use, it opens the way for systematic deep innovation and transformation. It would mean moving away from our current inefficient, linear logic, which creates waste, risks, and pollution, and toward a circular, resource-efficient world economy that operates within the finite and absolute budgets provided by the PBs.

Companies and economies shifting from linear to circular operating models would mean well-being is measured not only in terms of resources and consumption-driven GDP growth but also in terms of human health and welfare along with social resilience and stability. With this, we would see reduced risks of displacement, migration, and conflicts, as well as more even economic development across the world.

Hamid Samandari: As a leading scientist in this space, where do you see progress, and what gives you hope?

Johan Rockström: Unfortunately, in the last few years, and particularly right now, we see very little progress. This relates not only to global environmental risks as we slide deeper into the climate and ecological crises but also to the geopolitical instability in the world, rising distrust, a flood of misinformation, and the growth of extremism across the full spectrum. We are at an all-time low in our capacity to collectively address global challenges just when we need collective action and trust at the global level more than ever. This is deeply worrying.

At the same time, there are a few streaks of light in the tunnel. For one, even though it is too slow, the global energy transition away from fossil fuels has started and is unstoppable. The question is not whether we will have a fossil fuel–free world economy but whether we will be too late. Europe leads the way in terms of climate policy; China leads the way in terms of accelerating the transition to electrifying our societies.

Renewable energy not only has reached double-digit shares of electricity—and even energy—provision in many nations across the world but also now competes with oil, coal, and gas, even without subsidies. We need to remove all planet-damaging subsidies, whether in energy, agriculture, or other industries, and introduce the correct pricing of, for example, climate-damaging emissions of greenhouse gases, which would accelerate the path toward sustainability even further.

Finally, and probably most importantly, we have more and more evidence that transitioning to solutions and economies that operate within safe planetary boundaries not only is necessary and achievable at scale but also will generate better outcomes for people in terms of jobs, income, economic development, security, social stability, health, and equity. If we want to ensure equity for nine billion people, we can’t continue with business as usual. The only way to have a just future for all is by transforming to sustainable ways of running our societies within planetary boundaries.