An official website of the United States government
Abstract The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked1–3, 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.
more »
« less
A just world on a safe planet: a Lancet Planetary Health–Earth Commission report on Earth-system boundaries, translations, and transformations
The health of the planet and its people are at risk. The deterioration of the global commons—ie, the natural systems that support life on Earth—is exacerbating energy, food, and water insecurity, and increasing the risk of disease, disaster, displacement, and conflict. In this Commission, we quantify safe and just Earth-system boundaries (ESBs) and assess minimum access to natural resources required for human dignity and to enable escape from poverty. Collectively, these describe a safe and just corridor that is essential to ensuring sustainable and resilient human and planetary health and thriving in the Anthropocene. We then discuss the need for translation of ESBs across scales to inform science-based targets for action by key actors (and the challenges in doing so), and conclude by identifying the system transformations necessary to bring about a safe and just future. Our concept of the safe and just corridor advances research on planetary boundaries and the justice and Earth-system aspects of the Sustainable Development Goals. We define safe as ensuring the biophysical stability of the Earth system, and our justice principles include minimising harm, meeting minimum access needs, and redistributing resources and responsibilities to enhance human health and wellbeing. The ceiling of the safe and just corridor is defined by the more stringent of the safe and just ESBs to minimise significant harm and ensure Earth-system stability. The base of the corridor is defined by the impacts of minimum global access to food, water, energy, and infrastructure for the global population, in the domains of the variables for which we defined the ESBs. Living within the corridor is necessary, because exceeding the ESBs and not meeting basic needs threatens human health and life on Earth. However, simply staying within the corridor does not guarantee justice because within the corridor resources can also be inequitably distributed, aggravating human health and causing environmental damage. Procedural and substantive justice are necessary to ensure that the space within the corridor is justly shared. We define eight safe and just ESBs for five domains—the biosphere (functional integrity and natural ecosystem area), climate, nutrient cycles (phosphorus and nitrogen), freshwater (surface and groundwater), and aerosols—to reduce the risk of degrading biophysical life-support systems and avoid tipping points. Seven of the ESBs have already been transgressed: functional integrity, natural ecosystem area, climate, phosphorus, nitrogen, surface water, and groundwater. The eighth ESB, air pollution, has been transgressed at the local level in many parts of the world. Although safe boundaries would ensure Earth-system stability and thus safeguard the overall biophysical conditions that have enabled humans to flourish, they do not necessarily safeguard everyone against harm or allow for minimum access to resources for all. We use the concept of Earth-system justice—which seeks to ensure wellbeing and reduce harm within and across generations, nations, and communities, and between humans and other species, through procedural and distributive justice—to assess safe boundaries. Earth-system justice recognises unequal responsibility for, and unequal exposure and vulnerability to, Earth-system changes, and also recognises unequal capacities to respond and unequal access to resources. We also assess the extent to which safe ESBs could minimise irreversible, existential, and other major harms to human health and wellbeing through a review of who is affected at each boundary. Not all safe ESBs are just, in that they do not minimise all significant harm (eg, that associated with the climate change, aerosol, or nitrogen ESBs). Billions of people globally do not have sufficient access to energy, clean water, food, and other resources. For climate change, for example, tens of millions of people are harmed at lower levels of warming than that defined in the safe ESB, and thus to avoid significant harm would require a more stringent ESB. In other domains, the safe ESBs align with the just ESBs, although some need to be modified, or complemented with local standards, to prevent significant harm (eg, the aerosols ESB). We examine the implications of achieving the social SDGs in 2018 through an impact modelling exercise, and quantify the minimum access to resources required for basic human dignity (level 1) as well as the minimum resources required to enable escape from poverty (level 2). We conclude that without social transformation and redistribution of natural resource use (eg, from top consumers of natural resources to those who currently do not have minimum access to these resources), meeting minimum-access levels for people living below the minimum level would increase pressures on the Earth system and the risks of further transgressions of the ESBs. We also estimate resource-access needs for human populations in 2050 and the associated Earth-system impacts these could have. We project that the safe and just climate ESB will be overshot by 2050, even if everybody in the world lives with only the minimum required access to resources (no more, no less), unless there are transformations of, for example, the energy and food systems. Thus, a safe and just corridor will only be possible with radical societal transformations and technological changes. Living within the safe and just corridor requires operationalisation of ESBs by key actors across all levels, which can be achieved via cross-scale translation (whereby resources and responsibilities for impact reductions are equitably shared among actors). We focus on cities and businesses because of the magnitude of their impacts on the Earth system, and their potential to take swift action and act as agents of change. We explore possible approaches for translating each ESB to cities and businesses via the sequential steps of transcription, allocation, and adjustment. We highlight how different elements of Earth-system justice can be reflected in the allocation and adjustment steps by choosing appropriate sharing approaches, informed by the governance context and broader enabling conditions. Finally we discuss system transformations that could move humanity into a safe and just corridor and reduce risks of instability, injustice, and harm to human health. These transformations aim to minimise harm and ensure access to essential resources, while addressing the drivers of Earth-system change and vulnerability and the institutional and social barriers to systemic transformations, and include reducing and reallocating consumption, changing economic systems, technology, and governance.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2047165
- PAR ID:
- 10570619
- Author(s) / Creator(s):
- ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; more »
- Publisher / Repository:
- Elsevier
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- The Lancet Planetary Health
- Volume:
- 8
- Issue:
- 10
- ISSN:
- 2542-5196
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e813 to e873
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Kokossis, Antonis; Georgiadis, Michael C.; Pistikopoulos, Efstratios N. (Ed.)Global goals like “Net-zero”, “Nature-positive”, and “Socially Just” require human activities to reduce emissions, restore nature, and be socially equitable. This work proposes an approach that includes ecological capacity and social justice requirements to guide engineering decisions and designs. We utilize the supply and demand of ecosystem services to identify the safe and just operating space1,2. The ecologically safe space is determined by the multiscale framework of Techno-Ecological Synergy (TES). The degree of overshoot quantifies the absolute environmental sustainability (AES) at the relevant spatial scale3,4. For the socially just space, we calculate a minimum threshold of necessary goods and services to meet basic food, energy, and water5 needs. We demonstrate this approach by a multiobjective supply chain design of Li-battery which minimizes the ecological and social overshoot simultaneously.more » « less
-
Sustainable urban systems and just FEW nexus transitions Water, food, and energy systems are providing fundamental services for human wellbeing. However, the current management of these systems is often wasteful, creating inefficiencies that need to be urgently addressed to reduce the over-consumption of our limited natural resources. Here, Jana Fried, Adina Paytan and Waste FEW ULL project participants look at lessons from the Waste FEW ULL project for reducing waste and increasing efficiency in the FEW nexus.more » « less
-
Lichtner, Valentina (Ed.)Human movement and population connectivity inform infectious disease management. Remote data, particularly mobile phone usage data, are frequently used to track mobility in outbreak response efforts without measuring representation in target populations. Using a detailed interview instrument, we measure population representation in phone ownership, mobility, and access to healthcare in a highly mobile population with low access to health care in Namibia, a middle-income country. We find that 1) phone ownership is both low and biased by gender, 2) phone ownership is correlated with differences in mobility and access to healthcare, and 3) reception is spatially unequal and scarce in non-urban areas. We demonstrate that mobile phone data do not represent the populations and locations that most need public health improvements. Finally, we show that relying on these data to inform public health decisions can be harmful with the potential to magnify health inequities rather than reducing them. To reduce health inequities, it is critical to integrate multiple data streams with measured, non-overlapping biases to ensure data representativeness for vulnerable populations.more » « less
-
Agricultural simplification continues to expand at the expense of more diverse forms of agriculture. This simplification, for example, in the form of intensively managed monocultures, poses a risk to keeping the world within safe and just Earth system boundaries. Here, we estimated how agricultural diversification simultaneously affects social and environmental outcomes. Drawing from 24 studies in 11 countries across 2655 farms, we show how five diversification strategies focusing on livestock, crops, soils, noncrop plantings, and water conservation benefit social (e.g., human well-being, yields, and food security) and environmental (e.g., biodiversity, ecosystem services, and reduced environmental externalities) outcomes. We found that applying multiple diversification strategies creates more positive outcomes than individual management strategies alone. To realize these benefits, well-designed policies are needed to incentivize the adoption of multiple diversification strategies in unison.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00042-1
