Lars Rinnan (00:04)
Welcome to The World in 2029, the podcast where we explore how today's innovations are shaping our future. I'm your host Lars, and today we're confronting one of the toughest questions of all. Who will save the planet? Is it technology or is it activism? My guest today is Professor Dag O. Hessen, one of Norway's most respected biologists.

and head of the Center for Biogeochemistry in the Anthropocene at the University of Oslo. He's the author of numerous books and has published extensively. And he has also received more awards for his work than just about anyone I've ever seen. So basically he studies how human activity has become a geological force and what it will take to restore balance before it's too late.

Dag, welcome to the show.

Dag H (01:03)
Thank you.

Lars Rinnan (01:04)
It's great to have you on the show. I'm looking forward to getting the scientific version of climate change. We do get so much, let's say, unqualified versions of this from media and just about anyone. OK, so let's start with a fear that many people quietly carry. So what if the planet is...

already past the point of repair. And there was a report recently published called the 2025 Global Tipping Point Report, which paints a stark picture. Global warming has already hit 1.4 degrees and is expected to overshoot the 1.5 degree target around 2030.

And last year, 2024, was the warmest ever recorded. We had more than 150 extreme weather events, from the Los Angeles wildfires to droughts, leaving millions hungry across southern Africa. And we've also seen warm water coral reefs, home to hundreds of millions of people's livelihoods already crossing their thermal tipping point.

Also the ice in Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets shrinking faster every year, likely committing us to meters of sea level rise. And the Amazon rainforest weakened by drought and deforestation may actually tip into a savanna at just 1.5 to 2 degrees of warming.

⁓ And also even closer to home for us here in Norway, the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, the ocean conveyor that stabilizes Europe's climate also shows signs of collapse. So Dag, when you look at these numbers, what do you see? Are we still in control or are we just watching systems unravel?

Dag H (03:20)
Yeah, well, actually I was part of that report. So I've been involved in the writing and at least some of the conclusions and yeah, it looks pretty serious. I agree on that. And when you use a word like to a tipping point, seems like something unavoidable. Then you're off the cliff, right? And there is no way back. Fortunately, it's not, well, it's serious, but not that serious. ⁓

Well, I teach students and sometimes they come up and ask me, well, is there any hope for the future? there any use of taking education today or to thinking about having a family or children in this world? Is there any use for getting up in the morning at all? So my reply is then always that this is not the end of the world. It's not the end of humanity either.

It's likely not the end of civilization as we know it. But of course, it's still very serious. But I think that's very important to keep in mind that it's not the end of the world. And the other side of that argument is that this is something where we all not only could but should contribute. So the cumulative impact of effort from everybody, plus of course, all nations, is what it takes to change the course. And I would say that this ⁓

pretty serious report also whole section on the positive tipping point that we can come back to that there are in fact things we can do and already are doing to minimize the damage to stay below three degrees for instance. ⁓ Part of that is technology part is different use of economy, laws, social norms, et cetera. So

Yeah, as we always say, there is some hope and without hope we're of course completely lost. So of course the difficult thing is to balance the positive news with the negative ones. So the situation is really serious, but again, it's not the end of the world.

Lars Rinnan (05:29)
So these tipping points that the report describes, we are not past them yet. Is that the case?

Dag H (05:37)
Yeah, well likely the warm water coral reefs, they are doomed at least for the foreseeable future. Probably they will at some point be able to reestablish, but that's really on a long time horizon. So for the time perspective relevant to humans, they seem to be lost. Of course, we still have cold water corals. So corals per se will exist.

But then of course, this is not, we cannot exactly tell where these tipping points are. So these are temperature ranges. And some would argue that the Greenland ice sheet already have hit the tipping point. Others say that, well, this is not the case, especially when it comes to this Atlantic overturn circulation, the AMOC, the jury is still out and there are...

different opinions among the science. So it's not always that science have exactly the same opinion, but everyone agrees that the warmer it gets and the more prevalent the heat waves in the oceans are, the more likely it is that it will be weakened or even collapse. Of course, which is incredibly bad news for Northern Europe.

Lars Rinnan (06:53)
Yeah. So what does that mean, you know, in practical layman terms for Northern Europe? If this turns, what would happen then?

Dag H (07:03)
Well, will have it in Norway. We will have a kind of ⁓ green like climate with the ice covered coast, large part of the years with temperature in Oslo down to minus 40. Not only Norway, I mean the whole of Northern Europe, agriculture in UK, of course, will plummet. Also Germany will be hit hard. And so it will be a completely different climate.

It's hard to see how we can actually live at the same time. The southern part of the planet will still continue to heat up. So it will probably be a narrow range where people really can still thrive. So we can foresee in all of these scenarios, will be massive migrations. So that's the reason why, of course, climate change is also now seen as global.

Lars Rinnan (07:47)
Yeah.

Dag H (07:58)
threat to security. On top of this comes, of course, the geopolitical competition for critical resources, for land, for water, et cetera. So, yeah, when I say that this is not the end of the world, it still is something that should be taken really seriously.

Lars Rinnan (08:22)
So the report should be read more as a, let's say, warning report that we, if we continue doing the same that we do today, we will hit these tipping points. And a tipping point, you know, in this context. So when I think about tipping points, know, one of the best descriptions I think is, you know, just sitting on your chair, leaning backwards.

And at some point, you're not in control anymore. And then you fall. That happens very rapidly. It's not gradual. It's gradual, then it is very rapid. Are we talking about the same kind of tipping points also in this context?

Dag H (08:52)
Yeah. ⁓

Yeah, in principle, yes, because a tipping point per definition is when a system goes from one type of stable state to another type of stable state, then often there is self-propelling or self-positive feedback involved before the system flips over. And of course, this has to do with governance and political issues as well, because normally we are geared towards gradual changes. If you change...

something, let's say temperature to a certain degree, literally degree, then we can foresee a certain type of response, which is gradual. That's the problem, of course, with tipping points. And we don't only have tipping points in climate systems. Of course, we have tipping points in economy and society as well. But the common for all these is that everything seems smooth and under control, and it suddenly is not anymore. And the problem is that when you

tip from A to B, it's pretty hard to go back from where you started. So that's the phenomenon called hysteresis. So it tends to stay in this new stable state, which is often an unwanted state for extended time periods. It's really hard to reverse this. So again, the problem is that nobody can tell exactly, but we know that this has happened before and we know that there an increased

risk and it will change the planet for really extended time periods.

Lars Rinnan (10:41)
And these tipping points that I mentioned in the report, I assume that they're not, let's say, tipping points. They also kind of influence each other in certain respects.

Dag H (10:55)
Some of them do, so especially if these ocean currents change. Well, let's start with the Greenland ice sheet that someone believes already have hit a tipping point, which by the way is an example that tipping point might not necessarily be sudden. I mean, you hit that critical tipping point where the ice will continue to melt, but that will of course not manifest itself this week or next year.

take thousands of years, at least more than a thousand likely, before the entire ice sheet is melted down, which then implies six to seven meters sea level rise. ⁓

Lars Rinnan (11:36)
6

to 7 meters sea level rise.

Dag H (11:38)
Quite substantially. At the same time, we also see that the West Atlantic, Western Antarctic, sorry, ice sheet is also likely to respond, which also would add a couple of meters. But of course, we have some time to prepare, but some of the most productive and densely populated areas will then be underwater in a couple of thousand years.

Lars Rinnan (11:54)
Yeah.

Yeah, absolutely.

Dag H (12:08)
If this happens,

should say that if it happens. But then if this happens and as the freshwater input to the Arctic oceans increase, that could change the deep water formation, which is the starting point for these warm currents that come back to northern Europe after a long ride in the global oceans. And if that change, it would change the weather pattern. So it could also impact, for instance, the risk of ⁓

tipping point for the Amazon, which also of course would mean an incredible feedback in terms of carbon stored in forest that enters the atmosphere's CO2 and of course an unbearable loss of red listed species and the charismatic species and biodiversity as well as home for indigenous people.

Lars Rinnan (13:03)
This almost sounds like some kind of domino. One domino piece just pulling over all the other ones and then it ⁓ all collapses. That sounds rather ⁓ pessimistic.

Dag H (13:14)
Yeah, in the worst case.

Yeah, the really worst case is a kind of a hothouse earth, which likely would be something like five, six degrees above current level. I would say this is very unlikely. So this is really, really the worst case scenario. And we should hope and there is still likely hope for preventing many of these worst tipping points. So again, as you said, this is

This is an argument for taking the precautionary principle seriously and that people should be aware that if it continues, we could hit several of these tipping points.

Lars Rinnan (14:02)
Yeah, exactly. And all this is manmade. This is something that we, human beings, have ⁓ kind of provoked ⁓ with industrialization, et cetera, et cetera.

Dag H (14:17)
I think we are beyond the level where we need to discuss that. course, in previous history, before humans entered the scene, there were of course other causes for climate change, which is sometimes used as an excuse for not taking manmade climate change seriously. But many of these previous...

Dramatic climate change has also been a catastrophe for the planet with up to 60, 70, up to 90 % extinction of present life. So again, but that's really the worst case scenario. That's when temperature rise more than four or five degrees. I think still that is very unlikely, but currently we are on a course around 2.7 degrees as an average, of course with huge uncertainties, but around that level.

Lars Rinnan (14:50)
Mm.

Dag H (15:10)
which still is serious because it's of course not the average increase in mean temperature that is the main concern, but all the dramatic changes and storms, avalanches, droughts, floods, everything that follows this.

Lars Rinnan (15:28)
Yeah, exactly. And the 2.7 course, what kind of time frame is that? Is that in 2050?

Dag H (15:36)
Now 2100, but still that's just around the corner. Our grandchildren will likely experience that.

Lars Rinnan (15:38)
Okay, right.

Yeah, yeah, especially from a geological perspective, I guess that's nothing. Yeah, this is a perspective that's really easy to miss, the time frame of everything. going back to this being man-made, because I know there's a discussion right now, and for listeners who don't live inside of scientific papers.

Dag H (15:48)
Yeah, it's a glimpse of time, literally.

Mm.

Lars Rinnan (16:15)
Can you explain what scientists mean when they call this new epoch the Anthropocene?

Dag H (16:23)
Yeah, Anthropos are the name of Greek for humans. So this is the era of humans. ⁓ Those that follow this discussion will know that there has been a ⁓ vote in the Geocommittee that decides when we are entering a new geological epoch or era. And Anthropocene was turned on as a new geological era. So we are still in the Holocene, which I think is.

Okay, but as a label on the time we or the dramatic impact we have had on the surface of the planet, the oceans, not the least atmosphere, Anthropocene has come to stay as a name of that period, which I think is good. That's also why our center is called the Center for Biogeochemistry in the Anthropocene. It received its name before this vote in the

Lars Rinnan (17:16)
Exactly.

Dag H (17:21)
a geo committee, but still we maintain it. And there are also journals with that name. So I think many people use that and we continue to do so.

Lars Rinnan (17:29)
Yeah, yeah, I think it makes sense. But then again, I'm not a scientist or a geologist. ⁓ So if we just to close off the Global Tipping Point report, ⁓ if you could pick ⁓ one of those signals that truly keeps you awake at night, what would that be?

Dag H (17:56)
Well, to me, I think we can come back to the positive tipping point. So I think that's very important, which is half of the report also together with the governance issues. So it's not only bad news. Actually, there are many positive aspects also in this report that we should return to. But I think there are two stories today about where the world is heading in this context. And one is that

It really is a technological tipping point that now there is higher investments in green technology than fossil technology. Also, the market gives a strong pull because green energy is getting cheaper than brown or gray energy and so forth, which of course is good news and we can talk more about that. But the other side of this and the other...

truth is that CO2 is still increasing. hit a record high increase last year, despite the fact that there are reduced emissions many places in the world. So my main problem, my main fear with this is that if the largest of all ecosystem services that nature do for us, namely take up more than 50 % of our emission,

in photosynthesis partly on land and partly in sea. If that should be dramatically reduced, as we might see hint of and will clearly change if the Amazon hit the tipping point. And we also see now indications that the permafrost is thawing, meaning a release in CO2. And also we see that this huge boreal forest, the northern boreal forest,

⁓ show signs of increased forest fire and reduced CO2 uptake. And also when the ocean gets warmer and more acidic, it will also take up less CO2. So things like this, if the ecosystem feedbacks now mean that less CO2 is taken up and sequestered and more CO2 actually submitted, that's my main, most, or my real nightmare.

Lars Rinnan (20:21)
Mm.

Dag H (20:22)
because

it has two really downsides. One is of course that it will mean that CO2, it will be really hard to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere. Besides, it means that the ecosystems worldwide are really stressed to a critical level, at least some of them.

Lars Rinnan (20:39)
Yeah.

But it's a good point that you made that the report, ⁓ almost half of the report is actually about positive tipping points, which is also a good thing. ⁓ So if you were to choose one of the positive tipping points that still gives you hope that the Earth can stabilize if you move fast enough, what would that be?

Dag H (21:04)
Yeah, well, it's the tipping point I mentioned that we now see that actually the market forces themselves pull towards green energy. There is large investment. China is leading here, but worldwide there is a major investment in solar panels and green energy. Of course, it has an appetite on nature. Many of these are in conflict with nature and especially when it comes to wind turbines.

Put that aside for now, I think it's very rewarding to see that there is a massive increase now in CO2 free energy supply. And I think that's really good news. And some of these technologies in parts of the world has really hit that tipping point and are above the critical threshold. And in this report, there is one example that's used with a kind of mature

tipping point and that's the sales of electric cars in Norway, which is a classic example where you have used market forces, sticks and carrots mechanisms to make people in Norway change from diesel and gas cars, gasoline cars to electric cars. almost every new car now sold in Norway is electric.

Of course, electric cars come with some issues as well, but at least in terms of CO2 emissions, it's really good news and a classical tipping point.

Lars Rinnan (22:35)
Yeah, it's really good to see that. And hopefully this can be an example for the rest of the world. I mean, always a small country with a small population, but hopefully we can set an example. I think we are doing that exactly.

Dag H (22:49)
Yeah, I think so too. And that's of course an important part of all kinds of social tipping points and technological tipping point that, well, the forerunners inspire others to follow after and then you get this reach its critical threshold when it hits the tipping point and in this term to something better.

Lars Rinnan (23:11)
Yeah, yeah. So it's interesting to see how connected these systems are and also how complex it must be to research these systems, analyze the data, because everything influences everything else and it's so interconnected. So.

Dag H (23:33)
Yeah, so this

is not simple science, of course, that's the reason why our center also holds atmospheric modelers, people delivering improved models to IPCC, to geologists that work with, for instance, permafrost melting or permafrost thaw, and biologists that study carbon uptake and release. so ⁓ a point here is that also nature

The nature crisis and climate crisis are so tightly interwoven. There are actually two sides of the same coin. So that's at least a key reason for preserving and preventing loss of nature. But yeah, it's utterly complex. it's hard to come down with exact numbers, but still it's pretty interesting to work with.

Lars Rinnan (24:17)
Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, of course, there's a tangent there that we could go into about how much of this does politicians actually understand and know. And if they don't understand it, how will they act on it? But maybe we'll save that one and we'll come back to it. Yeah, we can do that.

Dag H (24:47)
Yeah, but there is a kind

of tipping point, I think, also in public awareness about this and also among politicians. is less of Machiavellian talk now and more real talk and ⁓ probably even more among in the business segment and also among investors because they realized that these tipping points also come with huge risk for, well, human health and of course, economic tipping points.

Lars Rinnan (25:16)
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So if we, if we move on, then I also hear a lot of, let's say, ⁓ fears around futility. You know, what if everything we're doing is too small to matter? I mean, we're told to recycle, you know, we all do that. We bike to work. know that you bike to work just about every day. ⁓ We're sorting our waste, you know,

Dag H (25:34)
Hmm.

Yeah.

Lars Rinnan (25:46)
But I I heard one scientist say that, well, we can't compost our way out of the climate crisis. So how much do these small personal actions really move the global carbon dial, if anything at all?

Dag H (26:02)
Yeah, well, I often end my lecture on these topics with a wallpaper I once saw and took a photo of and often show which states that the largest threat to the planet is the belief that someone else will save it. I think that's wonderfully phrased because, I mean, we all feel that there is really nothing we can do or at least not much we can do and whatever I do, it...

doesn't count in the global carbon budget or climate. But of course, when everyone thinks like that, nothing would happen. This is the tragedy of a common. And if everyone thinks that it doesn't really matter if I take this trip by the plane or continue to eat my meat or use my fossil car and things we know we should try to avoid or at least reduce, then of course nothing happens.

So I think it's immensely important to convince people that there are actually things we can do. And the sum of what we do as individual or in the local community or wherever we are employed actually in cumulative terms make a huge difference. And also we that are happy to live in a democracy, can do by voting, of course, we can also.

do quite a bit and we should do. So I think again, feeling of apathy and feeling that it doesn't really matter can be turned the other way around. And the sum of what we all do matters. And this is important because it's not only the politicians, of course, those they need to be brave and show the right way. unless we as voters and consumers are part of that.

It doesn't really help. that's of course a very important take home message. And it's not only on the personal level, it's also on the national level. We often hear in Norway that it doesn't really matter what Norway do. We can continue drilling oil because it's what China do and US and India and of course the huge emitters that

Lars Rinnan (28:00)
Hmm, exactly.

Dag H (28:25)
that really makes a difference, which is true, of course, in one sense, it might sure matter, of course, incredibly much more what China do than what Norway do. on the other hand, all nations should contribute and of course, especially a wealthy nation and with high level of education and awareness of these problems like Norway. So I think this wallpaper holds for all organizational levels from the individual up to nations.

Lars Rinnan (28:45)
Mm.

Yeah, it's a good one. So, but if the world must halve its emissions by 2030 and hit net zero by 2050, what actually gets us there? I mean, for, let's say people who don't research this topic on a daily basis, it's really hard to kind of...

prioritize the different initiatives? Does it contribute a lot? Does it contribute a little bit? Could they be actually sorted? So is it possible to rank the real levers of change? Energy, transition, agriculture, industry, transport. Which ones hold the biggest potential for, let's say, positive tipping points then?

Dag H (29:36)
Yeah.

Yeah, think well, aside from the purely technological tipping points, which clearly will be important, but in my mind, not sufficient, at least with the timeframe we have. Much of this can be summarized to consumption. both IPCC and the National Panel Report, IPBS, point to over consumption in the wealthy part of the world. So this has to do also with

with how the wealth is distributed and spent. So we have this term, the world overshoot day. Actually, that's the day of the year. And again, this is not an exact calculation, of course, but as far as it's possible to calculate, that's the day of the year where we have used the available renewable resources for that year. And also the kind of emissions that the atmosphere and the oceans can tolerate.

Lars Rinnan (30:21)
Hmm.

Dag H (30:42)
That overspending or overuse day comes by end of July, meaning that for the rest of the year, we not borrowing but stealing from those that are not yet born. Of course, that's a huge moral issue as well. But then it comes as...

Lars Rinnan (31:00)
Yeah, so we're actually spending

seven months to actually use up all the resources for that year.

Dag H (31:08)
Yeah, true. So of course, the account is empty by late July, and then we borrow from those that are not yet born, or actually, I would say, stealing. so of course, that's a huge moral issue. We are discounting the future in economic terms. And some discount rate is probably plausible, but not the kind of discount rate that we have currently.

And the other side of that is that of course this is the global average Earth overshoot day. If everyone had the same lifestyle as in Norway, that day would arrive in mid April. If everyone lived as think Qatar is on the top, it would come sometimes in January. And then there are some nations that are almost in balance. Probably not because they want to be so, but because they are poor.

Lars Rinnan (32:06)
Yeah.

Dag H (32:06)
Of course,

is a huge inequality here. We also know that the richest 1 % of the population releases much CO2 and likely overuses much nature as the poorest half of the population.

Lars Rinnan (32:29)
Yeah, so is that due

to super yachts and private jets?

Dag H (32:33)
Exactly, things like that. And of course, many people look up to these overspenders as well. I would say that much of this boils down to overconsumption. And I think increase in wealth and prosperity was probably good for the Western world up to, let's say, 1960 or 70. That was the right recipe to.

to get a decent life because clearly we have better lives today than we had when my grandfather lived. ⁓ But then the flip side of this medal is more and more obvious and that comes with loss of nature and we are not alone on this planet. We share it with around five million other species likely that mostly suffer from ⁓ our prosperity.

And also of course, this point that we are borrowing from the future. we're stealing again. So again, from 60s or 70s, increased wealth, economic wealth or material use has probably not made our life happier or better. At the same time, there are clearly parts of the world, large parts.

Lars Rinnan (33:54)
Hmm.

Dag H (33:57)
world that deserves an improved quality of life, which they should have, but not follow our CO2 emission trajectories. They should be given another way. So these are, of course, the huge debates these days. Can we continue with economic growth? How should it be? Where should it be? And again, as you said, we are still ⁓

Lars Rinnan (34:10)
Yeah.

Dag H (34:25)
barely in the start of the circular economy because that would likely make things a bit more expensive and God forbid. So, yeah, I think that that's the main challenges I see that how to cope with this ideal that's still there with continued economic and material growth in an era where we still are not very clever at recycling.

Lars Rinnan (34:51)
Yeah, so growth and consumption. Yeah, I think I saw somewhere in an article that ⁓ transportation, energy production and agriculture together amounted for about 66 % of all CO2 emissions. I'm not quite sure if that was a very recent report or if it's accurate at all, but...

in large numbers, is that about correct?

Dag H (35:26)
Yeah, I think so. That seems reasonable numbers. And of course, the agriculture also consumes lots of land areas, remaining rainforest, remaining wetlands, and so forth. And it's also huge. There are also huge emitters of not only CO2, but there are emitters of methane and nitrous oxide, the two other greenhouse gases.

So again, we should try to change agriculture to something that's less area and water demanding. And again, this has to do with us. I'm not a vegetarian myself, but I try to eat as little meat as possible. But on the other hand, I try to eat as much fish as possible. As long as there is sustainable harvest, of course, that's an issue as well.

Lars Rinnan (36:18)
Yep,

Yeah, I think I'm basically the same actually. So do you think that this, let's say the public focus on individual virtue, know, eat ⁓ more, let's say less meat, more vegetable, more fish, sustainable fishing. Do you think this kind of lets governments and corporations off the hook for doing the right thing and doing the structural change? Is there an element of that?

Dag H (36:50)
Yup.

I think there's an element of that. And this is also something that's frequently discussed. If you ask people to do this and that and behave in a sustainable way, is that, as you say, letting politicians off the hook. So it has to be, I often see this as a kind of circle where it has to start with political goals.

And actually, think politicians should take a step back and ask what you really want with the society. What's a good society? What creates good life for habitants? I'm personally ⁓ much fond of continued development. Of course, we should not go back to where we came from. I do not want to go back to my grandfather's type of life. ⁓ So we should continue development, but not the kind of development.

we have today. so this, I think so far, it's only Bhutan that has changed GDP with some kind of gross happiness measure. I don't know if that's something that can be done, but at least it's interesting because it's a different mindset. And I think that's kind of, or one of the type of tipping point we can foresee that it's not only technology, but also ways of living and social norms, et cetera.

Lars Rinnan (38:18)
Yeah.

Dag H (38:19)
But I started to say, think this is a triangle. It starts with political goals and courage. Of course, it has to be followed up by voters and consumers. That's you and me. That's everybody. And then, of course, you have the business segment. Everyone from the industrial part of this to investors ⁓ that have to secure that money flow goes in the right

Lars Rinnan (38:31)
Mm.

Dag H (38:48)
right direction. And of course, this is again related to the kind of sticks and carrots that is provided by political decisions. my experience is that the business segment is really keen on the green transition. At least those I meet, I probably meet the most positive ones, but I see lots of interest and lots of energy and I mean,

Lars Rinnan (39:11)
Hey.

Dag H (39:16)
These are smart people and they of course do not want to be part of the negative story and ruin the world for the grandchildren. So, but all these things need to be linked together.

Lars Rinnan (39:25)
Yeah, exactly.

Yes, of course. And maybe this has to do with the level of idealism you find in the world. Again, I think I read somewhere that 12 % of the global population are idealists. And that's probably too little to change the world for the better. I mean, it's good. It's good that we have the 12 % like Greta Thunberg and the likes.

Dag H (39:50)
Mm. Yeah.

Lars Rinnan (39:58)
but it's not enough to change the world. And then you definitely need some kind of incentive. And we human beings are quite selfish. we, yeah, what's in it for us? Yeah, that's just about the first thing we say or at least think. And I think the same thing also goes for corporations.

So when you say that corporations are really eager to, let's say, join the green shift and invest in green technology and climate tech, et cetera, I think that's true. I think it's definitely happening. But I also think it has very little to do with idealism. I think they see that this is a business opportunity. So we're doing good for the planet while we'll also get the profits from it. think that's, and maybe it needs to be that way.

Dag H (40:53)
Yeah, think, well, first of all, fortunately, humans are not only selfish and greedy. I started off as an evolutionary biologist. And of course, I agree with Charles Darwin that the success of humans to a large extent are based on cooperation, that we do things together and that have also equipped us with a kind of moral compass.

empathy and things like that. So there are good things to say about humans as well. But you're right, there's often a kind of what's in it for me perspective. when it comes to business, of course, you need to have pretty fast returns. cannot invest in something that's a good hundred years down the line if you lose money in between. And I think that's also a critical point. How can you get fast returns or sufficiently fast return by

by ⁓ green economy.

Lars Rinnan (41:57)
Yeah, exactly. And of course I'm a technology optimist. That's been my business day for like 30 years now. So I think I'm optimistic, maybe too optimistic sometimes. So trying to take the other perspective. ⁓ So what if technology makes things worse, not better?

I mean, industrialization gave us prosperity, of course, but also pollution, plastic, planetary instability. So why should we trust technology again? Yeah, what climate technologies actually work and which are still smoke and mirrors?

Dag H (42:39)
Yeah, we shouldn't.

Yeah, things that have served us well up to now, of course, is also the root for the problems we are facing. And that's true, of course. And I think I often say, and again, this is my quote, but I borrowed from somewhere that the market is a dangerous Lord, but could be a good servant. So if you can use market forces to agree in transition, of course, that

That's like sailing with headwinds that gives the hope for a massive change. again, the market forces could also of course, that's short-sighted and have no necessarily moral obligations. So, and some things that I think there are things that have been proposed like massive geoengineering. ⁓

putting large closer aerosols up to the sky to dampen the solar radiation, which I think is an incredibly bad idea. it's that kind of idea that should allow us to continue as before, just use technology, quick fixes to sort these things out. Of course, that's dangerous technology and hopefully it will never be deployed at large scale.

So the point again is that we need to guide the market here. And again, that's a good thing with green technology that we know that it's of course you can earn money on it and you should do, but it also good for the climate. again, I think the electric cars of Norway is good example how this has to be aided by political

against sticks and carrots mean, the first type of electric cars that was for the 12 % that were really green or probably less than 12, I would say. These were small, uncomfortable, not really cool cars that were just for the few and could never make a tipping point in terms of technology. But then came the cool cars like Tesla and suddenly everyone or lots of people.

Lars Rinnan (44:50)
Yeah. ⁓

Dag H (45:12)
would like to be seen in such a car because it gave a kind of green aura. And also the government made the taxes lower for these type of cars and there were lots of incentives to buy that car. And that was what made the shift. So I think all kinds of technology that should be green need to be aided by that.

Lars Rinnan (45:18)
Yeah.

Dag H (45:37)
sorts of it has to be something in it right it has to be either cool or beneficial or economically beneficial to to switch to it we cannot just trust those that are really green in their heart.

Lars Rinnan (45:54)
No, I don't think so. But the electric cards, yeah.

Dag H (45:56)
So, but again,

I think technology is part of the solution, but not all of it. And of course, there are some type of technologies that are clearly either or. We can probably come back to AI at some point, which is good for something, but also dangerous. And we do not really know where it's taking us.

Lars Rinnan (46:12)
Yes.

Yeah, yeah. So let's jump into AI soon. But just elaborating a little bit on the electric vehicles, because making them electric instead of fossil fueled, of course, helps a lot. But what about making them autonomous as well? I mean, this has, of course, been a goal for probably like 12, 13 years, I think.

Dag H (46:41)
Hmm.

Lars Rinnan (46:48)
going back and of course Elon Musk has promised that it's just around the corner. He's done that now for many years, but that's Musk time. He has his own ⁓ time. ⁓ But it is just around the corner. And of course you have a lot of autonomous cars being driven already like the Waymos in San Francisco. And it's now expanding this year actually to

5 other cities in the US. You have the same in China and Shenzhen with a lot of autonomous cars. Of course, this is just the beginning. But if you have large scale autonomous vehicles, know, cars, buses, et cetera, especially in the cities, you would probably need less cars because these cars, you know, they drive all the time.

Whereas you and I, we use our car like 4 % of the time and the rest of the time is just standing there, you know, losing value every day. And, but it takes resources to produce them, of course, to ship them from wherever you buy them, if it's the US or if it's China or whatever. So I think that probably also making them autonomous would actually have a really positive impact on the climate. But I don't know how much, how big would that impact be?

you know, in a global scale. ⁓ Have you any thoughts on this?

Dag H (48:21)
Yeah, of course, there are downsides with electric cars as well. come with cost, as you say, lots of the green shift is dependent, of course, on a number of minerals and elements and some of them are quite rare. And if you need to do mining on the seafloor, as we discussed in Norway these days.

mean, all kinds of mining has huge implications besides the geopolitical issue here that some nations are sitting on many of these key resources and resources like everything from lithium to phosphorus enters this car and we are really on recycling that. Besides, they are heavy. And I mean, after all, we should not forget that the electricity that they use

could in principle be used to export it to Germany to replace coal-fired or coal-generated energy. it's not a free lunch either, but let's agree that it still is a step in the right direction. And I think that with lots of things and especially cars, we need more shared economy. Just as you say, it's ridiculous that we have all these. I have a large electric car myself that I

not used often because it's much more convenient to cycle. It's good for the health as well. And we should have more shared economy and with autonomous cars that could be a solution. I agree on that. think another flip side of autonomous cars that also relates to all other aspects of AI is that it makes ourselves intellectually lazy.

Lars Rinnan (49:53)
Mm.

Mm.

Dag H (50:13)
We outsource anything that has to do not only with labor, but physical labor, but also intellectual labor to the machines. And I fear that this will make us so intellectually lazy that we are undermining what is really the true nature of humans to be smart and creative and curious.

Lars Rinnan (50:38)
Yeah, so you mean that not driving your car makes you less aware of where you're going or directions or navigating?

Dag H (50:44)
Yeah.

Now, I mean,

you can sit in the back seat and read a good book. that's not my main worry. think actually, I think that that could be a good way out, especially if it leads to fewer cars and more shared cars that by all means. So there are other sides of intellectual laziness that is more worrisome.

Lars Rinnan (50:53)
Yeah.

Mm-mm. ⁓

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. But I think you have a point. ⁓ This is probably not the topic of this podcast, but I do believe you will see a polarization of the population. Some people will go the easy path. Others will ⁓ use AI automation robots to free up more time to maybe dive deeper into some kind of intellectual

task or adventure. But you'll probably see both sides, I think.

Dag H (51:44)
Yeah.

I mean, professionally, use AI already quite substantially when it comes to well, understanding the protein structures. I mean, you can do that with AI. When it comes to understanding genetic pathways. Well, also, we are working with AI when it comes to understanding the all the aspects of the carbon cycling. So and of course, in medical

disciplines. It's a huge aid already, everything from images to diagnosis. So by all means, it has a huge upside, but then it has this downside that comes with it as well. Plus that it of course consumes incredibly amounts of energy. That's another side that that's often not communicated so much that

Lars Rinnan (52:40)
Etas.

Dag H (52:45)
Especially with the sense of ChatGPT and the training, it takes incredibly lots of energy, the way we do it today at least.

Lars Rinnan (52:56)
Yeah, that's a huge issue, actually. I know that there's lots of research going on, making the algorithms more efficient, making the hardware, actually, even more efficient as well. And also using AI actually to optimize the hardware design and the chip design, which is really interesting, a mind experiment. So I think there's a lot of things.

Dag H (53:17)
Yeah, exactly.

Lars Rinnan (53:24)
happening on that side to address that issue. But you also have this paradox that the more efficient it gets, the more we use it. So all the efficiency gains are actually spent because consumption goes up. I think it's called something paradox. I can't remember the name.

Dag H (53:37)
Hmm.

Lars Rinnan (53:53)
It's definitely happening. But that... ⁓

Dag H (53:56)
Yeah, I think that holds for many things.

airplane or a fossil fuel car and well, everything consumes of course, much less energy per driven kilometer or whatever. the efficiency have increased incredibly, but as you say, it's overcompensated by the increase in volume.

Lars Rinnan (54:20)
Yeah, yeah. But the huge question then maybe becomes, what should AI data centers, because they are going to grow. mean, we're getting one now in Narvik in northern Norway. So what should these AI data centers be powered by? I mean, we need to actually to expand energy production, but it needs to be renewable, of course.

⁓ And I think that solar panels are probably one of the ⁓ highest priority energy production ⁓ units. Solar panels are actually an exponential technology. efficiency in solar panels increases exponentially and also prices fall exponentially. ⁓

Any thoughts on solar energy and the future?

Dag H (55:23)
Yeah, think it's definitely, I mean, every energy analyst point to solar as and of course, accompanied by wind energy, but first and foremost, solar as the key player today. And of course, down the line, we might also see downscaled smart nuclear energy facilities. I mean, in northern Norway, is for obvious reasons, not that much solar energy, at least unless you have

the improved battery capacity to store the solar energy delivered in summertime. So I think, yeah, it is absolutely so that's.

Lars Rinnan (56:01)
Yeah, I think that's happening as well, you know, in terms of battery storage, know,

yeah, but maybe in China, not so much in Norway, I think, or, you know, Northern Europe.

Dag H (56:12)
Now Norway and Sweden have not

been, we have not had successful stories so far, but clearly the battery technology is also increasing, although that also takes a huge toll on the rare earth minerals and so forth. nuclear power could be something. And I also actually personally think that in the future we will see things like fusion energy. We will also...

probably as NASA have started working with, be able, and that's something I've been pondering on for long time, if you could harvest the solar energy more directly. mean, the incredible flow of photons that does not need to pass through a solar panel, but could be harvested directly, not by physical antenna, but other means that would in principle deliver as long as the sun is there, it would deliver an endless amount of...

Lars Rinnan (56:57)
Mmm.

Dag H (57:10)
CO2 free, non problematic energy. I think within the foreseeable future, think we will be there. The of course problem is that still will be shortage of other resources and element and land surface. so, but at least when it comes to the climate problem, think, well, we are hitting

towards hard times and likely it will be a kind of bottleneck. Perhaps also in the worst case, will see that CO2 emissions will decrease because some of the productions collapse in a race with the due to storms, sea level rise, heat waves, things like that, will force the CO2 to go down. But in a longer time horizon, I think that the energy problem

actually will be solved.

Lars Rinnan (58:10)
Yeah, I think so as well. There's a lot of research going on in terms of energy production, especially in terms of solar. I know that China also have a project now harvesting solar energy from space, which is quite interesting. Yeah, it's really cool. And if you talk to some physicists, maybe especially astrophysicists, they are really keen on this ⁓ Dyson sphere.

Dag H (58:26)
Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's quite cool here.

Lars Rinnan (58:39)
I don't know if you've looked into that, that sounds like science fiction even to me. It's like building solar panels around the sun ⁓ to harvest energy. yeah, think it's not going to happen today or this year. It's probably some decades out. But there's a lot of things happening. And ⁓ the hard part is deciding

Dag H (58:53)
Mm.

Lars Rinnan (59:09)
which of these kind of technologies are actually useful or are going to materialize, and which of these projects are just ⁓ crazy ideas. So maybe it could be interesting to get ⁓ your perspective on a few of them, just very short. Because I know that there's a company, or several companies actually,

Dag H (59:22)
Mm.

Lars Rinnan (59:38)
doing reforestation using drones, planting one million trees in two days, which is about, I think it's about 50 times as fast as a human tree planter would work. So they're using drones, they're using AI to optimize where to plant the tree seed. And these are like pods with tree seeds covered in some kind of nutrients.

I think it's actually partly based on bird poop, which is highly nutritious, of course. And it shoots it down into the ground. goes exactly how far down it should go, like maybe three centimeters. I don't know. So what do you think about this? Is this something that looks cool or could it actually help in reforestation where maybe there's been wildfires or loss of forests?

Dag H (1:00:12)
Mm-hmm.

Yeah, likely. First of all, I think it's incredibly cool. I absolutely applaud that. Also because when you restore the forest, of course you restore biotopes, it will be increased by diversity, you can restore the hydrological cycle, and this will be a kind of positive feedback. So absolutely, there are all reasons to applaud this. It's not the solution.

doesn't really matter that much in terms of how much CO2 that can be drawn down, then it's better to preserve the kind of nature we already have. But of course, as an add-on, I think, just like carbon captures and storage, it could be a helpful supplement. But I see technological evolution just as I see evolution in biology, that evolution try out

different solutions and some does fail, some fails, some are what you call hopeless monsters. But some, it's some time in between, there are really smart solutions. Often we see that there are huge genetic alterations and many of these are never going to work and they are doomed. But some of these really turns out to be improvement and sets a new direction for evolution. And I think it's the same when it comes to technology and

is kind of really apparently far-fetched and science, ⁓ not really at least very far from mature technology, more like science fiction today than science can turn into science before we know it. We have seen many of these examples before. So these bold ideas, these really disruptive technologies are what we need.

Lars Rinnan (1:02:27)
Yeah, exactly.

Dag H (1:02:36)
And again, these are the real tipping point we can hope for. Again, of course, number one priority should be to cut the emissions. That's something we cannot avoid, especially because the timeframe now is so brief. We need to cut the emissions almost immediately. ⁓ But of course, we will be aided.

Lars Rinnan (1:02:41)
Mm.

Dag H (1:03:03)
by these technological innovations and also forest planting in the long run. ⁓

Lars Rinnan (1:03:08)
Yeah, so it's not just

one big solution to solve everything. It's more like a combination of numerous solutions, probably. Some big ones, some smaller ones, perhaps, but they all contribute in their own way.

Dag H (1:03:18)
Exactly.

Exactly. And that boils down to the same saying that the greatest threat to the planet, et cetera. So the point is that all small contributions would pull in the right direction here. And the cumulative impact on this can be massive and hopefully widen the bottleneck at some point in the future. we enter a new and hopefully improve the world.

Lars Rinnan (1:03:52)
Yeah, I also saw some startups, I think this was one in New Zealand, ⁓ doing coral reef restoration, ⁓ farming ⁓ reef larvae and then planting them out using underwater robots so they could actually plant a lot of them in a short amount of time. ⁓

Dag H (1:04:11)
Hmm?

Yeah, can select the temperature

tolerant corals and also gene manipulation can in some cases aid this.

Lars Rinnan (1:04:27)
Yeah, so that means that the coral reef actually can survive even if the ocean increases by two degrees.

Dag H (1:04:37)
some types of coral reefs, but of course, this is huge and complex ecosystems. again, it can help some corals, but it would not in the foreseeable future restore the kind of reef we know today with the plethora of life and fishes and yeah.

Lars Rinnan (1:04:39)
Mm.

Yeah,

that probably takes some time. Yeah. Yeah. So there are so many of these technologies, but you know, at the end of the day, it's really hard to see if they will move the needle or if it's just cool technology because that doesn't help.

Dag H (1:04:59)
It does.

No, can be both actually and human innovation should never be underestimated.

Lars Rinnan (1:05:22)
I think that's a really good point. yeah, maybe biology should be teaching technology or biologists should be teaching technologists more. I think that would be a good combination really. So yeah.

Dag H (1:05:40)
Yeah, and

there are actually quite some collaborations going on there to use DNA based technologies, etc. mean, IE, AI started with a kind of neural network approaches that originated in biology thinking. So yeah, at least we can and should contribute.

Lars Rinnan (1:06:00)
Exactly. Exactly. And

you definitely, definitely do. So what about the psychological aspect of all this? mean, what if people just stop believing we can fix it? You mentioned this earlier, that young people are reluctant to have children because they don't think they're going to have a future.

I also hear this, but you're working with young scientists every day, you teach, you get lot of input. Do you see more hope or more exhaustion?

Dag H (1:06:40)
Yeah, well, I don't meet that many depressed students. Well, they might be depressed, but for all the reasons, it's the hard labor and deadlines and all that. ⁓ But of course, very much of this boils down to psychology, not only in the context of being optimist or pessimist or giving up. But also because

People use excuses which are well known in psychology that, well, we agree that something should be done, but I should continue as I do because I have my good reasons, et cetera. to a large extent, much of this is psychology and it has also to do with belief in future and the time of time horizon we have. If everything that matters is

Lars Rinnan (1:07:33)
Mm.

Dag H (1:07:37)
me and my well-being today and tomorrow, of course, you don't really have the incentives. But if you have the goal, or at least to me, meaning, and I mean, meaning for humans is immensely important. We need to have some kind of hope related to meaning. And if I believe that humanity will disappear a hundred or even a thousand years from now, I would be really depressed as well. I would, yeah, probably wouldn't have.

Lars Rinnan (1:08:04)
Yeah, yeah, but you don't

think that you are actually positive.

Dag H (1:08:07)
I don't think that and

I'm actually I think humanity, at least homo sapiens have existed for some 300,000 years. I think it's a reasonable goal to think that we shall continue as least as long as that perhaps even more. So I think that kind of time horizons is also very important. I think if you can turn all this into some kind of not only hope, because hope is something we create overselves.

into something that also creates meaning in life. I mean, to me personally, I think it gives me a kind of purpose and meaning as scientist and disseminator of science that hopefully this can be a tiny, tiny contribution to something that is a better future. And if people can be convinced that they can contribute in that way, it doesn't only give hope.

but it also give on a good day a sense of meaning, which of course is what we all are hoping for.

Lars Rinnan (1:09:12)
Yeah, yeah, exactly. And also, you know, all of these technologies that we just talked about reforestation or building up coral reefs again, you know, hydroponic farming, or whatever, you know, that is also what gives me, you know, both meaning but also hope going forward. Being optimistic. Absolutely. So

Dag H (1:09:38)
Mm.

Lars Rinnan (1:09:39)
Dag, this podcast is called The World in 2029, of course. And every podcast episode kind of leads into a sub-chapter to an upcoming book on The World in 2029. So when you are looking ahead, of course, I know that going to 2029 is very short for you because you are looking at epochs. But...

If you could paint us two futures, one if we continue as now and one if we act decisively, could we see a world where emissions are finally falling, positive tipping points like mass EV adoption that you mentioned or global reforestation are actually compounding progress? Is that possible?

Dag H (1:10:30)
Mm Yeah, I think if to take the bad scenario first, well, as you say, 2029 is just around the corner. So it will not be that dramatically different from now, except that we will see more of the storms and forest fires and droughts and disasters and yeah, massive deaths due to heat waves, etc. We will see even more of that.

in the years to come, even up to 2029. But honestly, I believe that 2029 could actually be the tipping point. I mean, we already see that many nations have reduced emissions, many industries have reduced emissions, all responsible industries have zero emission aims for the foreseeable future. I think that emissions will have hit their top

around 29. I think China says something around 2030, they will turn down the remissions seriously. I think that could be that sort of tipping point. Then we know that the situation in 2029 will worsen even if we get reduced emissions. So we have still to be prepared for harsh times to come. But at least then we see light in the

opening of the tunnel and the end of the tunnel. And so my fear is that if we by then have stressed ecosystems so much that they take up less CO2, it will counteract the human curbs and cuts in emissions. But again, to stay on the positive side, I honestly believe that by 29, we have seen the top, we are at the peak of human

emissions of greenhouse gases.

Lars Rinnan (1:12:28)
Yeah. And from there on it,

yeah, it will be reduced from there on. Is that what you mean?

Dag H (1:12:33)
Yeah, and I think by

then we also seriously start to restore and preserve nature. We realize by then that nature is incredibly important also for climate. So I think by then we really have started taking nature conservation and restoration seriously. and I don't just say this as a kind of fake positive.

I honestly believe that. But still, I think we will have serious problems in the next ⁓ couple of centuries despite of that. But then it will not worsen even more.

Lars Rinnan (1:13:16)
Exactly. Well, that's really good to hear. ⁓ And when I think of 2029, I don't see doom or salvation. I see choice, really. And of course, we talked about AI, AI is developing exponentially. And by 2029, we will probably ⁓ be at point of artificial general intelligence.

Dag H (1:13:28)
Yeah, I agree.

Lars Rinnan (1:13:45)
meaning that AI is smarter than all human beings in all cognitive areas, which is on one side a frightening thought, but also we get access to a lot more intelligence that might actually help us find even better areas to address these issues. ⁓

Dag H (1:14:08)
Absolutely. Yeah, it's a dangerous thought. It's scary to be outsmarted by the AI. think so. And especially if this means that we lose control, which could be. But I agree that the kind of new complex solutions that we really don't foresee today could clearly be aided by AI. And again,

I'm part in some initiatives where we try to do that, to use AI in this constructive way. yeah, let's hope for that.

Lars Rinnan (1:14:45)
Yeah, absolutely. I think that's a great way to end this episode ⁓ on a positive note, but also realistic. So Dag, thank you so much for reminding us that ⁓ science is both warning and guide. ⁓ The harsh reality is that climate change is here, ⁓ but of course the same intelligence that caused it can also help us undo it if we use it wisely.

So this has been The World in 2029. Please follow, share, stay tuned as we keep exploring how exponential technologies might just save our planet after all. And remember, the future is better than you think.