Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gupta Et Al - 2021 - Reconciling Safe Planetary Targets and Planetary Justice
Gupta Et Al - 2021 - Reconciling Safe Planetary Targets and Planetary Justice
Reconciling safe planetary targets and planetary justice: Why should social
scientists engage with planetary targets?
J. Gupta a, *, D. Liverman b, X. Bai c, C. Gordon d, M. Hurlbert e, C.Y.A. Inoue f, L. Jacobson g,
N. Kanie h, T.M. Lenton i, D. Obura j, I.M. Otto k, C. Okereke l, L. Pereira m, n, K. Prodani a,
C. Rammelt a, J. Scholtens a, J.D. Tàbara o, P.H. Verburg p, q, L. Gifford b, D. Ciobanu a
a
Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
b
School of Geography, Development and Environment, University of Arizona, USA
c
Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University, Australia
d
CDKN-CEL-GH, Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies, University of Ghana, Ghana
e
Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
f
Center for Global Studies, Institute of International Relations, University of Brasília, Brazil
g
Future Earth, c/o Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden
h
Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University, Japan
i
Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, UK
j
CORDIO - East Africa - Coastal Oceans Research and Development in the Indian Ocean - East Africa, Kenya
k
Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change, University of Graz, Austria
l
Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike, Nigeria
m
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden
n
Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
o
Global Climate Forum, Germany and Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain
p
Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands
q
Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf, Switzerland
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords As human activity threatens to make the planet unsafe for humanity and other life forms, scholars are identifying
Planetary justice planetary targets set at a safe distance from biophysical thresholds beyond which critical Earth systems may
Planetary boundaries collapse. Yet despite the profound implications that both meeting and transgressing such targets may have for
Safe planetary targets
human wellbeing, including the potential for negative trade-offs, there is limited social science analysis that
Just targets
systematically considers the justice dimensions of such targets. Here we assess a range of views on planetary
justice and present three arguments associated with why social scientists should engage with the scholarship on
safe targets. We argue that complementing safe targets with just targets offers a fruitful approach for considering
synergies and trade-offs between environmental and social aspirations and can inform inclusive deliberation on
these important issues.
1. Introduction Kim, 2020), (b) modified to reflect new or alternative scientific under
standing (Running, 2012; Nash et al., 2017), and (c) complemented by
As human activities threaten to make the planet unsafe for humanity adding social floors (e.g. in one instance popularized as the doughnut
and other life forms, scholars are identifying planetary boundaries approach) (Raworth, 2012, 2017; Spangenberg, 2014; Ensor and Hoddy,
(Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015) and safe planetary targets 2021). The Earth Commission, an initiative of Future Earth and the
set at a distance from thresholds beyond which critical Earth systems Global Commons Alliance, has set out to combine safe biophysical tar
may collapse. Such planetary boundaries have generated considerable gets with just targets that attempt to minimize harm to humans while
debate. They have been (a) rejected as lacking legitimacy (Biermann and ensuring minimum access to critical resources and services for the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Gupta).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2021.100122
Received 15 October 2021; Received in revised form 5 November 2021; Accepted 10 November 2021
Available online 23 November 2021
2589-8116/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Gupta et al. Earth System Governance 10 (2021) 100122
wellbeing of the global population (Rockström et al., 2021a, 2021b). transformative justice (aimed at generating the necessary systemic
This paper is based on research within the Transformations working change to ensure long-term equitable redistribution and allocation of
group of the Earth Commission. This group includes researchers from resources, risks (harm) and responsibilities). This leads to four quadrants
the Global North and South, including Africa, South America and of justice: (Q1) recognizes the need for planetary targets and addresses
emerging economies in Europe, representing different social science, global social-ecological systems’ transformation challenges as well as
law and natural science disciplines. Our analysis builds on literature local challenges contextualized in their broader planetary dimensions;
reviews, workshops of invited speakers, and feedback on presentations (Q2) recognizes planetary targets and addresses the aim of fulfilling
at several international conferences. This group guides the Earth Com some minimum needs without major systemic transformations; (Q3)
mission and partners in the Global Commons Alliance including the focuses exclusively on contextual, inclusive economic growth within
Science Based Targets Network of cities and businesses on how to local ecological limits; and (Q4) focuses exclusively on transforming
integrate justice in the setting of biophysical targets and transformation. contextual well-being conditions through local redistributive policy
Both crossing planetary boundaries and setting safe targets has while living within local limits.
profound implications for human wellbeing. Yet, social science analysis The concept of planetary justice moves beyond global justice in that
that systematically considers the justice dimensions of such targets (e.g. it draws attention to the inseparability of social-ecological systems in the
Hickel, 2019; Pasgaard & Dawson, 2019; Leach et al., 2018; O’Neill Anthropocene and the resulting obligations across geography, time, and
et al., 2018; Häyhä et al., 2016) is limited. To encourage productive and species. It also discusses justice issues at a planetary scale or, if discus
systematic engagement between the social and natural sciences on safe sing local justice concerns, it contextualizes them in the broader Earth
planetary targets, we cluster justice perspectives in relation to safe tar system (Biermann et al., 2020; Biermann and Kalfagianni, 2020).
gets; explore three arguments for why social scientists should engage Therefore, our approach to engaging with safe targets builds on ideas of
with biophysical targets from a justice perspective; and briefly discuss multi-scale planetary justice spanning Q1 to Q4, which allows for uni
how this can be done. versal values as well as contextual interpretations but takes a trans
formative angle. We suggest that there is enough evidence that
2. Clustering justice perspectives with respect to safe planetary incremental reformist justice is inadequate to meet both the social goals
targets in Agenda (2030) as well as the environmental ones (e.g. meeting the
food security goals can lead to crossing planetary boundaries (Willett
Scholarship on justice is extensive and derives from several schools et al., 2019) and without an equitable approach it will be impossible to
of thought. Scholarship on global justice (Cimadamore, 2016) and convince developing countries not to use their fossil fuels). Hence
planetary justice (Biermann and Kalfagianni, 2020; Hickey and meeting these goals sustainably requires transformative justice.
Robeyns, 2020; Kashwan et al., 2020; Dryzek and Pickering, 2019) is
growing and complements the accumulated work on access and allo 3. Why social scientists should engage with the scholarship on
cation within the Earth System Governance network (Gupta & Lebel safe targets to include justice perspectives
(eds.) 2020; Gupta and Lebel, 2020). While acknowledging the com
plexities and nuances in the justice literature (Dirth et al., 2020), we Despite repeated calls for stronger collaboration across social and
cluster justice approaches with respect to safe planetary targets into four natural sciences and for an integrative approach in exploring plausible
ideal-types (cf. Tàbara and Chabay, 2013) (see Fig. 1) that range along and desirable futures in the Anthropocene (Brondizio et al., 2016; Bai
one axis from worldviews promoting the existence of universal values (e. et al., 2016), the engagement of social scientists is somewhat limited.
g. human rights as captured by international laws) to those only Hence, and building on the above justice framing, we advance three
accepting contextual values (e.g. local justice issues as promoted by arguments for why social scientists should engage with the scholarship
diverse communities); and along the other axis, from those advocating on setting safe targets from a justice perspective.
for reformist justice (e.g. including some pro-poor measures) to First, we argue that setting safe planetary targets is necessary
2
J. Gupta et al. Earth System Governance 10 (2021) 100122
from a justice perspective. We note that some scientists argue that safe legitimate. Democratic deliberation can and should occur in defining,
planetary targets are of minor importance for social justice compared to refining and implementing such proposed targets. In addition, inte
more urgent global socio-economic issues; that local socio-economic grated assessment models have been fairly accurate with hindsight and
justice issues are not well connected to global biophysical issues in the have become more inclusive over time (Pedersen et al., 2021). While
short-term; and that designing and reaching safe global targets that work setting safe targets without accounting for justice in scenarios may
to everyone’s benefit is an illusion that must be abandoned (Hulme, reproduce inequalities (Parikh, 1992), complementing them with just
2020). targets can expose potential trade-offs between safety and justice in a
However, we argue that biophysical targets that reduce risks of scientifically and ethically transparent manner.
crossing planetary boundaries can decrease harm to humans and thus
increase social justice. Moreover, social-ecological issues are interwoven 4. How social scientists could engage with the scholarship on
and have to be addressed synergistically (Roseland, 2000). For example, safe targets
70% of the world’s poor depend directly on nature’s contributions to
people (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). If Academic efforts to complement and contrast safe targets with con
we only focus on local socio-economic justice, and do so in a reformist siderations of justice are challenging but useful. A key challenge is that
mode, we will fail to solve cumulative and long-term international, the biophysical targets for the Earth system are usually quantitative (e.g.
intra- and intergenerational planetary threats or the structural, trans 2 ◦ C of warming) whereas social justice is often measured more quali
boundary injustices that emerge in a globalized world. tatively with social scientists often using narratives and qualitative ar
Second, we submit that safe planetary targets need to be modified guments. While there are a plethora of social and development
to ensure transformative, planetary justice. While some scholars indicators that are used to assess poverty, inequality or harm to humans,
imply that safe targets are inherently just as they aim to preserve Earth many are measured infrequently or are only proxies (Liverman 2018).
system stability for the survival of humanity (Rockström et al., 2009), we We combine a narrative and quantitative approach in proposing how
argue that Earth system stability for the survival or even wellbeing of justice can be used in target setting using two concepts - harm and access
humanity is not necessarily just for all humans and that safe targets may (Rockström et al., 2021b). Quantifying justice is reductionist but enables
even make things worse for some. Biophysically ‘safe’ targets may be inclusion of some justice aspects in discussing biophysical targets.
incompatible with goals for achieving social justice and human devel While some Earth system scientists want to identify safe targets that
opment (Biermann, 2012) and may negatively impact on the world’s will ensure the functioning of the Earth system for humanity, we argue
poor (Kashwan et al., 2020). For example, setting aside large areas (as that a justice perspective requires that, for each biophysical domain,
much as half the Earth; Wilson, 2016) from human use for biodiversity these targets also avoid significant (irreversible and existential) harm to
protection, without addressing systemic issues, such as inequality in humans.1 For example, a 1.5 ◦ C target may still cause widespread harm
land tenure and the food consumption habits of the rich, could have to present and future humans. This suggests that a just target would be
potentially devastating impacts on the world’s poor and food security more stringent in some cases than the safe planetary targets. At the same
(Mehrabi et al., 2018; Obura et al., 2021; Büscher et al., 2017; Kopnina, time, human rights and Agenda 2030 require us to meet several social
2016; Schleicher et al., 2019), and potentially ignore relational values goals. Hence, we will also examine the Earth system implications of
for nature (Wyborn et al., 2021). For climate, the 1.5 ◦ C and 2 ◦ C global ensuring access to energy, food, water and infrastructure (housing and
warming limits, while avoiding the most extreme climate impacts, still transport) for those who currently lack such access, in a business-as-
result in considerable harm to the most vulnerable (Masson-Delmotte usual scenario (i.e. a situation without substantial institutional,
et al., 2018). Moreover, evaluating and implementing safe targets from a including technological and distributive, transformations). These im
broad transformations-oriented justice perspective and criteria (Grasso plications will be measured as additional pressure on biophysical vari
and Tàbara, 2019) can increase the chances of their implementation. ables such as greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient use, water use, land
Behavioural experiments show that integrating justice may mobilize use, etc.
people to change their behaviour (Gampfer et al., 2014; Liebrand et al., We anticipate that a safe target may still cause significant harm to
1986) while lack of collaboration and income inequalities will only people and that we may therefore need much more stringent global
exacerbate resource overexploitation and scarcity (Owusu et al., 2019). biophysical targets from a just (no significant harm) perspective; how
Third, it can be legitimate for scholars to qualify safe planetary ever, achieving minimum access without transformation may increase
targets by proposing that they also be just. Some object to setting pressures on the Earth system. The gap between the just (access) targets
targets on behalf of ‘humanity’ because no legitimate authority and the just (no harm) targets will need to be bridged through just and
commissioned the scientists to do so (Biermann and Kim, 2020) and transformative governance. Hence, if we are serious about the Sustain
argue that it is illegitimate for scientists and policymakers to undertake able Development Goals, the existing distribution of resources, risks and
such an exercise (Boelens et al., 2018). In addition, it has been argued responsibilities will have to be revisited.
that solutions-oriented research risks creating post-political narratives We recognize that quantifying justice may be seen as problematic
that promote techno-managerial planning and administration at the because of its reductionism and the lack of focus on procedural justice.
expense of democratic contestation (Lövbrand et al., 2015). Others are However, we see such preliminary quantification as a first step towards
concerned that targets are often based on simulation or integrated strengthening the justice narrative in relation to biophysical targets.
assessment models which use assumptions that may be inappropriate
(Grubler et al., 2018), inaccurate (Castles and Henderson, 2003; Ped 5. Conclusion
ersen et al., 2020) unrealistic (Rosen, 2016), reductionist, power blind,
‘dehumanized’, decontextualized (Carton, 2020), disembodied (Porter, In this perspective we have introduced a framework that clusters
1995), and may disregard ethical (Lenzi, 2018) and historical re justice perspectives with respect to safe planetary targets into four ideal-
sponsibility (Parikh, 1992; Lenzi, 2018) or homogenize knowledge types. These range along one axis from worldviews promoting the ex
(Rosen, 2016; Ford et al., 2016). istence of universal values to those only accepting contextual values;
We counter these arguments by proposing that it is a legitimate and
useful research activity to study and suggest possible just targets and
assess their implications, and to transparently grapple with the 1
We acknowledge that planetary justice goes beyond anthropocentrism but
complexity of these issues in order to help decision-makers in their de the human-nature relationships are being explored by a working group on
liberations to set a path towards a better future for people and the biodiversity within the Earth Commission and are thus outside the purview of
planet. Extended peer review processes can make the targets more this paper.
3
J. Gupta et al. Earth System Governance 10 (2021) 100122
and along the second axis from those advocating for reformist justice to Come to This? the Promises and Perils of Geoengineering on the Brink. Rutgers
University Press.
those promoting transformative justice. We then suggested that taking a
Castles, I., Henderson, D., 2003. The IPCC emission scenarios: an economic-statistical
multi-scale, transformative planetary justice approach can allow for justice critique. Energy Environ. 14, 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1260/
considerations to be integrated into proposals for safe planetary targets. 095830503765184583.
Such an integration can lead to redefining targets focused on Earth Cimadamore, A.D., 2016. Global justice, international relations and the Sustainable
Development Goals’ quest for poverty eradication. Journal of International and
system stability and safety to also minimize harm to humans and ensure Comparative Social Policy 32 (2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/
access to the resources needed for a minimum level for all and can 21699763.2016.1198267.
highlight the scale and speed of the global transformations needed. We Dirth, E., Biermann, F., Kalfagianni, A., 2020. What do researchers mean when talking
about justice? An empirical review of justice narratives in global change research.
do not wish to suggest that justice can be reduced to a calculus. Rather, Earth Syst. Govern. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100042, 100042.
given the ‘trust in numbers’ (Porter, 1996) prevalent in our societies and Dryzek, J.S., Pickering, J., 2019. The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford University
the impact of the scholarly work on safe targets on policymaking and Press.
Ensor, J., Hoddy, E., 2021. Securing the social foundation: a rights-based approach to
human wellbeing, we find it important to examine the justice implica planetary boundaries. Earth Syst. Govern. 7, 100086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tions of such targets. By juxtaposing safe targets with harm and access esg.2020.100086.
concerns, we hope to make it more difficult for justice and equity con Ford, J., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., Maillet, M., Nakashima, D., Cunsolo Willox, A.,
Pearce, T., 2016. Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC
cerns to be ignored. assessment reports. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1038/
Foregrounding the SDGs by way of harm and access targets places nclimate2954.
social concerns on the same footing as environmental ones. It also en Gampfer, R., Maule, A.G., Waste, S.M., 2014. Do individuals care about fairness in
burden sharing for climate change mitigation? Evidence from a lab experiment.
ables synergies and trade-offs between environmental and social aspi
Climatic Change 124 (1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1091-6.
rations to be transparently investigated and facilitates democratic Grasso, M., Tàbara, J.D., 2019. Towards a moral compass to guide sustainability
deliberation on these important issues. transformations in a high-end climate change world. Sustainability 11 (10), 2971.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102971.
Grubler, A., Wilson, C., Bento, N., Boza-Kiss, B., Krey, V., McCollum, D.L., Rao, N.D.,
Funding Riahi, K., Rogelj, J., De Stercke, S., Cullen, J., Frank, S., Fricko, O., Guo, F.,
Gidden, M., Havlik, P., Huppmann, D., Kiesewetter, G., Rafaj, P., Schoepp, W.,
Valin, H., 2018. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5◦ Ctarget and
This work was supported by the Global Challenges Foundation and
sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy
the Global Commons Alliance, a sponsored project of Rockefeller Phi 3, 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6.
lanthropy Advisors (with support from Oak Foundation, MAVA, Porti Special issue: access and allocation in earth system governance. In: Gupta, J., Lebel, L.
cus, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Herlin Foundation and the (Eds.), Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 20.
Gupta, J., Lebel, L., 2020b. Access and allocation in earth system governance: lessons
Global Environment Facility). learnt in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, 20, 393–410. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09486-4.
Author contributions Häyhä, T., Lucas, P.L., van Vuuren, D.P., Cornell, S.E., Hoff, H., 2016. From planetary
boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space - how can the
scales be bridged? Global Environ. Change 40, 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
This perspective emerged from the first workshop (held on gloenvcha.2016.06.008.
November 12, 2020) among the Earth Commission Working Group 4 Hickel, Jason, 2019. Is it possible to achieve a good life for all within planetary
boundaries? Third World Q. 40 (1), 18–35.
members as well as many brainstorming sessions between senior and Hickey, C., Robeyns, I., 2020. Planetary justice: what can we learn from ethics and
junior scholars within the Earth Commission. The first two authors led political philosophy? Earth Syst. Govern. 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the process and others contributed to it. esg.2020.100045.
Hulme, M., 2020. One earth, many futures, No destination. One Earth 2 (4), 309–311.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.03.005.
Declaration of competing interest Kashwan, P., Biermann, F., Gupta, A., Okereke, C., 2020. Planetary justice: prioritizing
the poor in earth system governance. Earth Syst. Govern. 6, 1–5. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.esg.2020.100075.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Kopnina, H., 2016. Half the earth for people (or more)? Addressing ethical questions in
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence conservation. Biol. Conserv. 203, 176–185.
Leach, M., Reyers, B., Bai, X., Brondizio, E.S., Cook, C., Díaz, S., Espindola, G.,
the work reported in this paper. Scobie, M., Stafford-Smith, M., Subramanian, S.M., 2018. Equity and sustainability
in the Anthropocene: a social–ecological systems perspective on their intertwined
References futures. Global Sustainability 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.12.
Lenzi, D., 2018. The ethics of negative emissions. Global Sustainability 1, E7. https://doi.
org/10.1017/sus.2018.5.
Bai, X., van der Leeuw, S., O’Brien, K., Berkhout, F., Biermann, F., Brondizio, E.S.,
Liebrand, W.B., Jansen, R.W., Rijken, V.M., Suhre, C.J., 1986. Might over morality: social
Cudennec, C., Dearing, J., Duraiappah, A., Glaser, M., Revkin, A., Steffen, W.,
values and the perception of other players in experimental games. J. Exp. Soc.
Syvitski, J., 2016. Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: a new
Psychol. 22 (3), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90024-7.
research agenda. Global Environ. Change 39, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Liverman, D.M., 2018. Geographic perspectives on development goals: constructive
gloenvcha.2015.09.017.
engagements and critical perspectives on the MDGs and the SDGs. Dialogues in
Biermann, F., 2012. Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: exploring the
Human Geography 8 (2), 168–185.
links. Ecol. Econ. 81, 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.016.
Lövbrand, E., Beck, S., Chilvers, J., Forsyth, T., Hedrén, J., Hulme, M., Lidskog, R.,
Biermann, F., Dirth, E., Kalfagianni, A., 2020. Planetary justice as a challenge for earth
Vasileiadou, E., 2015. Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science
system governance: Editorial. Earth Syst. Govern. 6, 100085. https://doi.org/
can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environ. Change 32,
10.1016/j.esg.2020.100085.
211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012.
Biermann, F., Kalfagianni, A., 2020. Planetary justice: a research framework. Earth Syst.
Masson-Delmotte, Valérie, Zhai, Panmao, Hans-Otto Pörtner, Roberts, Debra, Jim Skea,
Govern. 6, 100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.10004.
Shukla, Priyadarshi R., Anna, Pirani, et al., 2018. Global warming of 1.5 C. An IPCC
Biermann, F., Kim, R.E., 2020. The boundaries of the planetary boundary framework: a
Special Report On the Impacts of Global Warming of 1, p. 5C.
critical appraisal of approaches to define a “safe operating space” for humanity.
Mehrabi, Z., Ellis, E.C., Ramankutty, N., 2018. The challenge of feeding the world while
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45, 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
conserving half the planet. Nature Sustainability 1 (8), 409–412. https://doi.org/
environ-012320-080337.
10.1038/s41893-018-0119-8.
Boelens, R., Perreault, T., Vos, J. (Eds.), 2018. Water Justice. Cambridge University
Nash, Kirsty L., Christopher Cvitanovic, Elizabeth A., Fulton, Benjamin S., Halpern, E.J.,
Press.
Milner-Gulland, Watson, Reg A., Blanchard, Julia L., 2017. Planetary boundaries for
Brondizio, E.S., O’Brien, K., Bai, X., Biermann, F., Steffen, W., Berkhout, F., Cudennec, C.,
a blue planet. Nature ecology & evolution 1, 1625–1634.
Lemos, M.C., Wolfe, A., Palma-Oliveira, J., Chen, C.-T.A., 2016. Re-conceptualizing
Obura, D.O., Katerere, Y., Mayet, M., Kaelo, D., Msweli, S., Mather, K., Harris, J.,
the Anthropocene: a call for collaboration. Global Environ. Change 39, 318–327.
Louis, M., Kramer, R., Teferi, T., Samoilys, M., Lewis, L., Bennie, A., Kumah, F.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.006.
Isaacs, M., Nantongo, P., 2021. Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global
Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., Brockington, D., Sandbrook, C., Adams, W.M., Campbell, L.,
levels. Science 373 (6556), 746–748. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh2234.
Corson, C., Dressler, W., Duffy, R., Gray, N., Holmes, G., 2017. Half-Earth or Whole
O’Neill, D.W., Fanning, A.L., Lamb, W.F., Steinberger, J.K., 2018. A good life for all
Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications. Oryx 51 (3), 407–410.
within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability 1 (2), 88–95. https://doi.org/
Carton, W., 2020. Carbon unicorns and fossil futures. Whose emission reduction
10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4. Scopus.
pathways is the IPCC performing? In: Sapinski, J.P., Buck, H., Malm, A. (Eds.), Has it
4
J. Gupta et al. Earth System Governance 10 (2021) 100122
Owusu, K.A., Kulesz, M.M., Merico, A., 2019. Extraction behaviour and income Roseland, M., 2000. Sustainable community development: integrating environmental,
inequalities resulting from a common pool resource exploitation. Sustainability 1 economic, and social objectives. Prog. Plann. 54 (2), 73–132. https://doi.org/
(2), 536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020536. 10.1016/S0305-9006(00)00003-9.
Parikh, J.K., 1992. IPCC strategies unfair to the South. Nature 360, 507–508. https://doi. Rosen, R.A., 2016. Is the IPCC’s 5th assessment a denier of possible macroeconomic
org/10.1038/360507a0. benefits from mitigating climate change? Clim. Change Econ. 7 https://doi.org/
Pedersen, J.S.T., Santos, F.D., van Vuuren, D.P., Gupta, J., Coelho, R.E., Aparício, B.A., 10.1142/S2010007816400030, 16040003-1-1640003-30.
Swart, R., 2021. An assessment of the performance of scenarios against historical Running, S.W., 2012. A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. science 337
global emissions for IPCC reports. Global Environ. Change 66, 1–14. https://doi.org/ (6101), 1458–1459.
10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.001. Schleicher, J., Zaehringer, J.G., Fastré, C., Vira, B., Visconti, P., Sandbrook, C., 2019.
Pedersen, J.S.T., van Vuuren, D.P., Aparício, B.A., Swart, R., Gupta, J., Santos, F.D., Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nature
2020. Variability in historical emissions trends suggests a need for a wide range of Sustainability 2 (12), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0423-y.
global scenarios and regional analyses. Communications Earth & Environment 1, 41. Spangenberg, J.H., 2014. Institutional change for strong sustainable consumption:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00045-y. sustainable consumption and the degrowth economy. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 10 (1),
Porter, T.M., 1995. Trust in Numbers: the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public 62–77.
Life. Princeton University Press. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M.,
Raworth, K., 2012. A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can We Live within the Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J.,
Doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Papers. Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sorlin, S., 2015. Planetary
Raworth, K., 2017. A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347. https://
century. Lancet: Planetary Health 1 (2) e-48-e-49. doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855, 1259855–1259855.
Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Lenton, T.M., Qin, D., Lade, S.J., Abrams, J.F., Rocha, J.C., Tàbara, J.D., Chabay, I., 2013. Coupling Human Information and Knowledge Systems
Bai, X., Bala, G., Bringezu, S., Broadgate, W., Bunn, S.E., DeClerck, F., Ebi, K.L., with social–ecological systems change: reframing research, education, and policy for
Gong, P., Gordon, C., Halpern, B.S., Kanie, N., Liverman, D.M., Nakicenovic, N., sustainability. Environ. Sci. Pol. 28, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Obura, D., Ramanathan, V., Verburg, P.H., van Vuuren, D.P., Winkelmann, R., envsci.2012.11.005.
2021a. A safe and just corridor for people and the planet. Earth’s Future 9. https:// Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., et al.,
doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001866. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from
Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., Pedde, S., Broadgate, W., Warszawski, L., 2021b. sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 (10170), 447–492.
Stockholm to Stockholm: achieving a safe Earth requires goals that incorporate a just Wilson, E.O., 2016. Half-earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, first ed. Liveright Publishing
approach. One Earth 4 (9), 1209–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Corporation, a division of W.W. Norton & Company.
oneear.2021.08.012. Wyborn, C., Montana, J., Kalas, N., Clement, S., Davila, F., Knowles, N., Louder, E.,
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T. Balan, M., Chambers, J., Christel, L., Forsyth, T., Henderson, G., Izquierdo Tort, S.,
M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., Lim, M., Martinez-Harms, M.J., Merçon, J., Nuesiri, E., Pereira, L., Pilbeam, V.,
van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Ryan, M., 2021. An agenda for research and action toward diverse and just futures
Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., for life on Earth. Conserv. Biol. 35 (4), 1086–1097. https://doi.org/10.1111/
Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. cobi.13671.
Nature 461, 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.