The recent *Identifying a Safe and Just Corridor for People and the Planet* with Rockström et al is a scientific product of high quality that illustrates the problem
science has talking to policy. A thread of a very personal review. 1/n
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/20… The plain language review gives policy makers no doubt about the existential risk we face. GOOD. With a scientific reference for each aspect of this risk, no one reading this report should be in doubt. But do we need *another conceptual framework ?* 2/n

Business leader education: to create value for shareholders you need to sell to customers. So all businesses need to promote the wealth and health of all citizens so they 1) have money to buy your products and 2) stay alive long enough to buy them 1/n The main task of business besides the immediate bottom line is to participate in societal development that maximises the health of all citizens and the nature that all businesses depend on. Some ways to do that 2/n

So let me get this straight: rich people are rich because they sell stuff to poor people and many poor people, paying tiny amounts makes a large sum for one person to be..... rich. If that is true...1/n the best way to keep the economy going is that poor people have enough money to buy rich people's stuff. So rich people need to make a club that ensures there are jobs for everyone. But wait....2/n

1985-1990 the world entered a historic period of twin overshoot: extracting fossil carbon faster than the discovery rate and pumping fossil carbon into the atmosphere in quantities that put our climate system at risk. What did we do about it? /2

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT: Some 70% of people, depends how you ask, accept the global emergency. Climate system destabilisation is one aspect, declining biodiversity and increasing pollution is another. I ask: what would actually *break* if humanity responded decisively? 1/ Climate: a decisive response = cap on fossil fuel extraction and planned phase out. Fewer private car journeys, less electricity. Nothing would *break*. We still live and eat. There are alternatives and we can all cut back and share more. So what are we afraid of breaking? 2/

THREAD: Last-Century thinking got humanity into a mess. It worked well though, just too well. Into the third decade of the new century and I am sad to see how little last century thinking is being named and challenged. 1/ OLD THINKING: Take that nature, use that nature. Same amount of land that we stated with, but going on four times the population and much soil erosion behind us. NEW THINKING: use it, put it back, regenerate it. 2/

THREAD: one more time on the need for citizens to understand the need for, then demand, then deliberate on, then manage - a total pivotal change. Next tweet..what is a pivot and why we need one 1/ We all did this as kids: Walk up a see-saw, you keep going fine until you cross the fulcrum then WHAM! It flips.This is what happens in nature when resources are used up faster than they are replenished. All goes fine until nearly half are used up. All who study biology know..2/

THREAD: Johan Rockström's Performance lecture at the Swedish National Theatre (in Swedish, English Subtitles) and what it tells activists and Scientists alike. Watch it now or read my review 1/n svtplay.se/video/29406900… In the performance, Johan Rockström sits at the bottom of the bed of a young family and explains our climate predicament. In words, no graphs. The young mother listens and gets engaged in a dialogue with him. There is a lot to like about the performance ... 2/n

TRÅD: Sorgligt det inte tas upp hur tobak är negativt för miljö och hälsa - även i snusform. Lyssna inte på Swedish Match VD som får uttala sig i DN utan kritiska följdfrågor. forts.... DN.SE dn.se/ekonomi/swedis… Snus är ingen hälsoprodukt. Det är mindre farligt att snusa än att röka, men snusare har bland annat högre risk att dö om de drabbas av hjärtinfarkt och stroke, och nikotin ger styvare blodkärl, vilket ökar risken för hjärt-kärlsjukdomar. forts...

hjart-lung.se/vart-arbete/ti…

TAIL RISK THREAD: A tail risk is one that is small but devastating. When an 8 year- old asks about crossing the road to get to a bus stop you correctly point out that there is a 1% risk she will get run over. However you might want to suggest instead 1/x A 3-min walk to the traffic lights and crossing. To frame tail risk you include probability distribution of the event (car colliding with girl), with an outcome function (girl likely dies if hit), and account for the cost of mitigation (3 minutes to walk to traffic light) 2/x

THREAD: Understanding pivot. Growing pressure from world population life-style will reach a point where it is damaging the capacity of Earth systems to an extent where life support will be challenged. It is simply a question of at what stage governments act. 1/X Pivot is the same at each point 1-4. I use the STOP acronym. a) Stop, or halt, all increase of extraction/drawdown. b) Think, plan measures that will restore Earth system capacity and keep delivering basic services. c) Organise, re-work old regulations and agencies and then 2/x

Thread: A pivot is a sudden change in direction to another direction. The diagram explains why we need to pivot now: the sum aggregate of business activities is extracting more from and putting more into natural systems than the systems can handle. The consequence? Contd... Natural systems unable to support the number of human population and there will be a massive die-off. This phenomenon is well-known by biologists. Populations rise and crash all the time. Populations CAN exceed carrying capacity a short time - but a crash always results. contd

Thread on pivoting: to avoid worse crises our way of life has to pivot. That is to say, STOP. Stop going in current direction. THINK through the new direction. ORGANISE so we are ready then PIVOT.>>> Utopia you might say on Pivot. We cannot agree. We have I say. The broad direction and even speed of that change is embedded in the Sustainable Development Goals. How then to apply SDG goals to plan pivots? Well, >>>

Thread: Science Based targets like Global Carbon Budget, Planetary boundaries, SDGs, are a good start. They set up a common boundary, but a common boundary is not a commons. so ... globalcommonsalliance.org/alliance-proje… Current rules of the game that allow people with money to use that to buy property and use that property without any limits being set on that use - to the extent that the use of said property blows away all common-agreed limits contd: