In this Q&A, Professor Alex Rogers, Deputy Director Strategic Science Programmes and Partnerships at the National Oceanography Centre, discusses the implications of climate change tipping points for ocean health in today’s global political environment. Professor Rogers also explains some of the more positive trends in ocean research and how to make progress.

The National Oceanography Centre (NOC) is a pioneering research organisation focused on ocean science and the most innovative technologies for advancing our understanding of the ocean. As deputy director of strategic science programmes and partnerships, Professor Alex Rogers has in-depth knowledge of the problems facing the ocean and the diverse stakeholders, researchers and organisations involved in addressing them. Partnerships rest at the heart of both the NOC and Back to Blue’s missions.

The ocean is facing a triple crisis. First, there’s climate change and its impacts on marine environments. Second, we’re dealing with a biodiversity crisis that stems from both direct human activities like habitat destruction and overexploitation, and indirect impacts like climate change. Third, there’s the issue of pollutants. These three major problems are compounded by the fact that we lack sufficient data in various areas—the ocean is generally under-observed.

Our predictions are changing almost constantly. Ten to fifteen years ago, climate deniers would point to increased snowfall in the Antarctic as evidence against climate change. Just in the past year, we’ve seen record-low Antarctic sea ice levels and are now predicting significant ice loss in the region, and we’ve already witnessed the collapse of several ice shelves. The goalposts are continuously changing in our understanding of climate change. There’s also a worrying trend in global politics, with the increasing dominance of non-democratic countries on the world scene, as well as democratic countries lurching to a right-wing attitude of deregulation of industry and cutting funding for environmental research. Taking action on climate change is becoming increasingly challenging.

The interesting thing is that we’ve already passed some tipping points. For instance, the shift in sea surface temperatures that led to mass coral bleaching in the 1970s and 1980s was a tipping point that passed and we didn’t recognise it at the time. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is particularly important at the moment, because it really shows us that we lack sufficient observations of the physical ocean to fully understand the risks around when and how the AMOC might significantly decline to the point where it severely affects the northern hemisphere’s weather. That’s illustrative of the broader problems around ocean tipping points. We simply do not have adequate measurements of ocean temperature, oxygen content, salinity and so on to accurately predict the timing and outcomes of these critical changes. More sustained observation of the ocean is crucial—in the UK, for example, we spend around 1% of GDP on research, but only 1% of that goes towards ocean research. We’ve got to be able to separate natural variability in the ocean from signs of climate change. We need more research on where marine life is most active, and how best we can manage human activities to prevent its decline. On the pollution side, we need to understand the ecosystem outcomes of the cocktail of chemicals being deposited into the ocean. Plastics are a good example: we know that microplastics and other debris are in the ocean now, but we’re unable to point the finger at their ecosystem-level impacts.

I think that is the case. Several European states have shifted to the right as well. It’s very noticeable that in the UK over the past 15 years, although there has been a lot of talk about environmental protection and biodiversity, the reality on the ground has been the opposite. The privatisation and deregulation of the UK water industry, combined with systematic underfunding of regulatory authorities, has led to widespread pollution of freshwater systems—lakes, streams and rivers—which ultimately affects ocean health as well. While governments have many competing priorities, the environment seems to get knocked down the agenda. The consequences of this deprioritisation are already impacting society and will become increasingly serious in the future.

I think there are several. Scientists have played a major role in some of the successes in the international environmental policy arena. In particular, I’d point to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement and the Kunming-Montreal 2030 biodiversity targets. Scientists were very involved in informing policymakers during those negotiations—I was also personally involved. These achievements have elevated the importance of science in meeting these targets, which is a major positive.

Second, rapid technological advancements are having a major impact on marine science. Robotics, in particular, have helped us fill some of the observation gaps, with moorings equipped with sophisticated environmental sensors, gliders, autonomous surface vehicles and underwater vehicles, satellites, remote sensing and more. We’re increasing our capacity to observe the oceans. These advances extend to biodiversity research through developments in meta-barcoding and environmental DNA. These new tools allow us to observe biodiversity across unprecedented geographic scales and temporal frequencies. Instead of the traditional method of collecting and manually sorting seafloor samples, we can now generate comprehensive biodiversity assessments more efficiently. Another trend is digitisation. The ability to digitise the enormous wave of data that’s starting to come in will be crucial to making it accessible to scientists, policymakers and ocean managers. It’s fine to do science, but if we can’t communicate that science to society, we’re wasting our time. The digital revolution is going to be critical because if we can’t get that information into the right hands, we’re not going to see the right decisions being made.

There’s also been a positive increase in marine science funding from philanthropy even as governments have stepped back—organisations like Schmidt Ocean Institute and Ocean X are providing research vessels to the marine science community, which has enabled some projects, like the exploration of deep ocean trenches, that wouldn’t have received government funding. The huge benefit of these private research vessels is that they enable scientists from low- and middle-income countries to access technology and platforms that their governments would be unable to afford. This democratisation of science is very encouraging.

Additionally, there’s been a move away from a ‘colonial’ approach to ocean science, where a big vessel turns up in the waters of a low-income country and recruits some token local people, but the scientists from the wealthy country do all the work and take the credit. We’re now seeing much more co-development of science projects between wealthy and lower-income countries—one example is the GEOMAR FUTURO project in Cape Verde, where a marine laboratory has been established to train local scientists and conduct research that directly benefits the country. We’re also moving away from purely curiosity-driven research, where scientists independently pursue their interests, towards a ‘science for society’ approach. This has been a huge change—there’s a growing understanding that we’re facing great challenges and scientific efforts need to contribute to meeting those challenges head-on.