|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Jan24/05) Concept of planetary boundaries modified to incorporate justice considerations The concept of planetary boundaries has been extremely influential since its launch in 2009. The planetary boundaries are understood as the limits of key global systems – such as climate, water and biodiversity – beyond which their ability to maintain a healthy planet is in danger of failing. The most recent status update in September 2023 shows that six of the nine boundaries are now transgressed, compared to three out of seven that were transgressed in 2009 when the planetary boundaries were calculated for the first time. This suggests that the Earth is now well outside of the safe operating space for humanity. An important gap, however, is that the concept lacks considerations of environmental justice and equity, failing to take into account the right of everyone, especially the most vulnerable, to water, food, energy, and a healthy environment. Recent research by the team that developed the planetary boundaries framework plus scientists from different nations incorporates justice considerations into the concept. Their research builds upon and advances previous research and science-based political consensus, such as doughnut economics, and the Sustainable Development Goals. The outcomes of this research have been published in the journal Nature, where the authors quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) that would minimize human exposure to significant harm from changes in the Earth system. ESBs are determined for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. The findings show that seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of the global land area are already exceeded. Moreover, the research shows that two or more safe and just ESBs are transgressed for 52% of the world’s land surface, but affected 86% of the global population. Some communities face the impacts of several ESB transgressions at a time, with four or more ESBs transgressed for 28% of the global population living in only 5% of the global land surface. Therefore, these spatial hotspot transgressions are concentrated in regions of higher population density, creating a major concern of intragenerational justice. In two cases, aerosols and climate, the just boundaries are more stringent than the safe boundaries, which indicates that people experience significant harm even before that Earth system domain is destabilized. In December 2023, a commentary piece published in the Social and Environmental Accountability Journal further explored current accounting research relating to planetary boundaries and emphasized the need for a broader range of interdisciplinary, inclusive, and holistic approaches toward accounting for ecological limits. Scientists have taken some first steps to integrate justice considerations into the concept of planetary boundaries and ecological accounting. It will be up to the governments to translate these updated concepts and frameworks into policies, as clearly, basing policy on scientific considerations alone is not enough; justice needs to be considered in analyses and policy recommendations. With best wishes, Third World Network Safe and just Earth system boundaries Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D. et al. (2023) Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature 619, 102–111 Available at: nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8#citeas Abstract The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked1,2,3, yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently4,5. Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. We propose ESBs for maintaining the resilience and stability of the Earth system (safe ESBs) and minimizing exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change (a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice)4. The stricter of the safe or just boundaries sets the integrated safe and just ESB. Our findings show that justice considerations constrain the integrated ESBs more than safety considerations for climate and atmospheric aerosol loading. Seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of global land area are already exceeded. We propose that our assessment provides a quantitative foundation for safeguarding the global commons for all people now and into the future.
|
||
