For over two decades, the studies of Johan Rockström dug deeper into an idea that sounded like sci-fi for many: Planet Earth faces invisible thresholds that, once crossed, would risk the environmental stability that allowed for the development of humankind.

What then sounded like a distant danger became a tangible reality. Current director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Rockström – together with us all – today observes six of these thresholds being crossed and asks himself whether he should’ve been more alarming back then.

One of the most respected scientific voices in global sustainability, in an interview with EXAME, the Swedish researcher, who will be in COP30 and was one of the attractions of the Encontro Futuro Vivo – seems to live in a paradox: despite his data showing the world in a critical state, his conviction that there is still time for change seems unshakable.

With Trump back in power, the USA being out of the Paris Agreement and seeing cuts in scientific financing, the necessary global cooperation to leave this condition is compromised, right?

“I believe there are reasons for us to be deeply concerned. From a strictly scientific perspective, if we analyze only the planetary limits and what the world can tolerate, it’s not too late. The planet is notoriously resilient. But when we add geopolitics, denialism, populism, egotism, and the tendency for countries to build walls and argue against cooperation… It's almost as if solidarity has become a bad word. The only chance we have to return to a safe operating space is for all nations to work together. You can’t have a handful of nations doing the right thing while there are many more doing the wrong thing, because there is only one planet, after all.”

In the last World Economic Forum, there was much talk that A.I. and Fusion energy could solve the climate issue through mass carbon absorption. Would AI not be, in reality, a dangerous distraction?

“A.I. can become a distraction that receives disproportionate amounts of focus when we have a planetary crisis. And not just A.I., but also the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, and the ridiculous tariffs of the Trump Administration. There are many factors that push us away from the necessary focus on fighting climate change. For instance, I always get asked whether I am worried about A.I. because of the energy consumption of their data centers. I answer that I am not, because of the simple fact that renewable energy sources are being developed so fast that we should have abundant energy. My concern lies in biodiversity, fresh water, minerals, the soil, and the entire biosphere.”

During COP29, you signed a document with other authorities affirming that climate summits are no longer effective. Can COP30, in Brazil, still be effective, or do we need a completely new model?

“What we suggested was an overhaul of COP, not its closing. We should celebrate that, throughout 29 meetings, we managed to finish many formal documents of legal climate structure, such as the Paris Agreement and clauses on deforestation, methane, losses and damages… But we no longer need to negotiate. What we need now are sessions where countries are held responsible for their progress, discussing solutions and financing. And COP30 is a unique opportunity to formally connect climate change with nature.”

I imagine that you have been following the tensions in Brazil about oil digs and changes in environmental laws. How can we lead with a new approach to climate in COP30 without domestic issues compromising our sovereignty?

“I, of course, get worried when I hear President Lula suggesting giving new rights for the exploration of oil in the Amazon Basin. But Brazil has unique leadership qualities; it is a country that really understands and articulates that sustainability is about development, not just conservation. Second, you already understand that indigenous communities are fundamentally part of a sustainable agenda. And, third, understand that climate and nature walk together.”

Can hosting COP30 in the Amazon make corporate leaders finally understand that a sick planet means a broken economy?

“There are already big corporations that understand that a healthy planet means healthy business. The corporate sector also played an important role in giving political leaders confidence to sign the Paris Agreement in 2015. The question is whether companies operate in markets regulated by politics. When politics are removed, as they were now in the case of the USA, you can’t be alone with taxes on carbon and ambitious environmental legislation if your competitors lack them. And then we are back to square one: if you want to be successful as a company or economy and still be sustainable, you need rules that apply globally.”

Fifteen years after creating the concept of planetary limits, your “health checks” have shown the planet in critical condition, with six thresholds crossed. Do you still believe in humanity to avoid civilizational collapse, or have we already passed the point at which gradual actions still work?

“The global carbon budget we have left is reduced to less than 130 billion tons, or three years’ worth of emissions. We are at this point of urgency, in which we cannot emit more carbon or lose more biodiversity and ecosystems. Therefore, we need a transformative and scaling change, which means doubling positive results over a generation.

So, honestly, we cannot exclude a very dark future. Six thresholds have been violated, onwards to the seventh, and all, except for air pollution, are still moving in the wrong direction. But, from the scientific perspective, the window is still open. We have the solutions and know how to produce within systems that will lead us back to a safe spot. Hence, failing is not inevitable; failing is a choice. If we can turn the page, however, there will be a brighter future ahead of us.”