The Planetary Health Check 2025 updates the status of Johan Rockstrom’s “planetary boundaries” using new data. I’ve pointed out that the indicators chosen are a sort of muddle of stocks and flows from a systems perspective, but nonetheless I think it is a good attempt at scientific communication. It distills complex underlying data into a set of indicators ordinary busy/distracted (I try to avoid words like “ignorant”, but the result is the same whether we can’t or won’t educate our selves) people can understand. I still like the “ecological footprint” concept personally because it is a single system-based metric, and you can drill down a level into its individual components if you want to. Nonetheless, it seems to be out of fashion and replaced by this. Anyway, 6 of 10 planetary boundaries were already previously outside the “safe space”, and this time ocean acidification is added to the list. Only ozone and stratospheric aerosol loading are in the safe space, and paradoxically the latter exacerbates global warming somewhat. There is some nuance, with indicators like nitrogen pollution and biodiversity loss in the “high risk zone” and others like land use and carbon dioxide in the increasing risk zone and headed in the wrong direction.