I'm a quarter Swedish, so my ancestors are stirring as I  write from the Tallberg.  Fascinating people in a glorious setting, wrestling with the exam question: 'How on earth can we live together, within the planetary boundaries?'  (Thanks again, Tomorrow's Company for providing the platform of credibility that gets me invited)

 

In our up-coming Tomorrow's Climate, we talk about the disconnect between science, policy and the business response - and the systemic issues this raises in coming to terms with climate change.  We say this is especially important because of the risk at least that the factors driving 'runaway' climate change are intensifying.

 

Listening to some of the world's leading scientists this morning I was struck by three things:

 

- first, the personal impact on the scientist themselves

 

- second, the new insights from science, coming out one after one, saying things are getting worse and in new ways we had not before understood: 

 

Its not so much about canaries in the coalmine, but a flock if not species in the coalseam

 

- third, its systemic, the climate crisis is itself multifaceted and is integrally linked to the biodiversity and economic/financial crisis.

 

Thus increasing population in the poorest regions means more land being cleared, greater water stress and impacts on climate.

 

All of which takes me back to the brilliant 'Frodo Syndrome' analogy - 'one ring will rule them all' and the ring is the planetary system of which we are not only part but such a powerful driver, but which we barely understand and on which we all depend for life, much less being able to do business.

 

(The analogy's author in Johan Rockstrom of the Stockholm Environment Institute and Stockholm Resilience Centre)

 

The chilling resonance of this analogy though is the burden of carrying this understanding - of scientists as human beings bearing the human burden of forces which will bring deaths and suffering to millions.

 

This matters at an ethical level - and it matters because having come to terms with understanding the science, now the scientists feel overwhelmed sharing their conclusions, not least because there is precious little track record of us listening.

 

The Tallberg analysis of the nine planetary boundaries:-

- climate change: carbon in the atmosphere
- ozone depletion
- atmospheric aerosol loading
- ocean acidification
- global freshwater use
- chemical pollution
- land system changes
- biodiversity loss
- bio-geochemical loading
(in particular global nitrogen cycles)

 

So like the Lord of the Rings, the law of nine applies.

 

Finding out new things is important - but it really matters because we are operating at the limit of our planetary boundaries.

 

One example, 'global dimming' - the belief that underlying global warming is more advanced, that the 2 degree threshold has been breached, but is being masked by sulphur and other particularates in the atmosphere (providing a kind of glitter in the sky which reflects back heat from the sun).  David Wasdell tells me this accounts for a cooling effect of between 1 and 1.4 watts

 

So if this is correct, as we clean the skies above us (good thing) we create the 2degree warming we are saying is the maximum that is ok (obviously very bad thing).  The law of unintended consequences takes on a whole new meaning.

 

And we are told 2 degree rise means 40 to 60million more people in Africa living with malaria.

 

On the (potential) plus side - 3 and a half billion people are burning wood and dung for heat and light.  Switching to solar and biomass would reduce 'black carbon' two or three fold.

 

So spare a thought for the scientists - and as we come to terms with what they're telling us, for we all need to rise to the burden of holding the one ring of our planetary future