Search for: All records

Abstract Cities and companies have great potential to reduce pressures on Earth system boundaries. Science-based target setting has emerged as a powerful tool to help achieve the potential, but its uptake has been limited. Moreover, cities and companies usually develop their targets separately, even though many are co-located. Focusing on the top 200 cities and 500 companies by greenhouse gas emissions, we analyse the current state and potential of adopting science-based targets for climate. Of these key actors, 110 cities with existing net-zero targets and 22 companies with existing science-based targets could together eliminate up to 3.41 GtCO₂e of annual emissions. We argue that this reduction potential could increase by as much as 67% (to 5.70 GtCO₂e) if the cities and companies that already have targets bring their co-located counterparts on board to keep abreast of their ambitions. Using freshwater as another example, we discuss entry points for addressing interrelated Earth system boundaries through city–company collaborations. Our findings elucidate previously untapped potentials that could accelerate transformations for operating within Earth system boundaries. 

Operating within safe and just Earth system boundaries requires mobilizing key actors across scale to set targets and take actions accordingly. Robust, transparent and fair cross-scale translation methods are essential to help navigate through the multiple steps of scientific and normative judgements in translation, with clear awareness of associated assumptions, bias and uncertainties. Here, through literature review and expert elicitation, we identify commonly used sharing approaches, illustrate ten principles of translation and present a protocol involving key building blocks and control steps in translation. We pay particular attention to businesses and cities, two understudied but critical actors to bring on board. 

Abstract There is a growing recognition that responding to climate change necessitates urban adaptation. We sketch a transdisciplinary research effort, arguing that actionable research on urban adaptation needs to recognize the nature of cities as social networks embedded in physical space. Given the pace, scale and socioeconomic outcomes of urbanization in the Global South, the specificities and history of its cities must be central to the study of how well-known agglomeration effects can facilitate adaptation. The proposed effort calls for the co-creation of knowledge involving scientists and stakeholders, especially those historically excluded from the design and implementation of urban development policies. 

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. 

Great claims have been made about the benefits of dematerialization in a digital service economy. However, digitalization has historically increased environmental impacts at local and planetary scales, affecting labor markets, resource use, governance, and power relationships. Here we study the past, present, and future of digitalization through the lens of three interdependent elements of the Anthropocene: ( a) planetary boundaries and stability, ( b) equity within and between countries, and ( c) human agency and governance, mediated via ( i) increasing resource efficiency, ( ii) accelerating consumption and scale effects, ( iii) expanding political and economic control, and ( iv) deteriorating social cohesion. While direct environmental impacts matter, the indirect and systemic effects of digitalization are more profoundly reshaping the relationship between humans, technosphere and planet. We develop three scenarios: planetary instability, green but inhumane, and deliberate for the good. We conclude with identifying leverage points that shift human–digital–Earth interactions toward sustainability. 

Abstract Transformative governance is key to addressing the global environmental crisis. We explore how transformative governance of complex biodiversity–climate–society interactions can be achieved, drawing on the first joint report between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to reflect on the current opportunities, barriers, and challenges for transformative governance. We identify principles for transformative governance under a biodiversity–climate–society nexus frame using four case studies: forest ecosystems, marine ecosystems, urban environments, and the Arctic. The principles are focused on creating conditions to build multifunctional interventions, integration, and innovation across scales; coalitions of support; equitable approaches; and positive social tipping dynamics. We posit that building on such transformative governance principles is not only possible but essential to effectively keep climate change within the desired 1.5 degrees Celsius global mean temperature increase, halt the ongoing accelerated decline of global biodiversity, and promote human well-being. 

Abstract The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked^1–3, yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently^4,5. 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. 

Technical summary Cities have an increasingly integral role in addressing climate change. To gain a common understanding of solutions, we require adequate and representative data of urban areas, including data on related greenhouse gas emissions, climate threats and of socio-economic contexts. Here, we review the current state of urban data science in the context of climate change, investigating the contribution of urban metabolism studies, remote sensing, big data approaches, urban economics, urban climate and weather studies. We outline three routes for upscaling urban data science for global climate solutions: 1) Mainstreaming and harmonizing data collection in cities worldwide; 2) Exploiting big data and machine learning to scale solutions while maintaining privacy; 3) Applying computational techniques and data science methods to analyse published qualitative information for the systematization and understanding of first-order climate effects and solutions. Collaborative efforts towards a joint data platform and integrated urban services would provide the quantitative foundations of the emerging global urban sustainability science.