Planetary boundaries

Planetary boundaries is a concept involving Earth system processes that contain environmental boundaries. It was proposed in 2009 by a group of Earth system and environmental scientists, led by Johan Rockström from the Stockholm Resilience Centre and Will Steffen from the Australian National University. The group wanted to define a "safe operating space for humanity" for the international community, including governments at all levels, international organizations, civil society, the scientific community and the private sector, as a precondition for sustainable development. The framework is based on scientific evidence that human actions since the Industrial Revolution have become the main driver of global environmental change.

Not to be confused with Planetary boundary layer.

Planetary boundaries diagram of 2009.

According to the paradigm, "transgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be deleterious or even catastrophic due to the risk of crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental- to planetary-scale systems."[1] The Earth system process boundaries mark the safe zone for the planet to the extent that they are not crossed. As of 2009, two boundaries have already been crossed, while others are in imminent danger of being crossed.[2][1]

History of the framework

In 2009, a group of Earth System and environmental scientists led by Johan Rockström from the Stockholm Resilience Centre and Will Steffen from the Australian National University collaborated with 26 leading academics, including Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies climate scientist James Hansen and the German Chancellor's chief climate adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and identified nine "planetary life support systems" essential for human survival, attempting to quantify how far seven of these systems had been pushed already. They estimated how much further humans can go before planetary habitability is threatened.[3] Estimates indicated that three of these boundaries—climate change, biodiversity loss, and the biogeochemical flow boundary—appear to have been crossed. The boundaries were "rough, first estimates only, surrounded by large uncertainties and knowledge gaps" which interact in complex ways that are not yet well understood. Boundaries were defined to help define a "safe space for human development", which was an improvement on approaches aiming at minimizing human impacts on the planet.[3] The 2009 report[3] was presented to the General Assembly of the Club of Rome in Amsterdam.[4] An edited summary of the report was published as the featured article in a special 2009 edition of Nature.[5] alongside invited critical commentary from leading academics like Nobel laureate Mario J. Molina and biologist Cristián Samper.[6]

In 2015, a second paper was published in Science to update the Planetary Boundaries concept[7] including regional boundaries and findings were presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos, January 2015.

A 2018 study, co-authored by Rockström, calls into question the international agreement to limit warming to 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures set forth in the Paris Agreement. The scientists raise the possibility that even if greenhouse gas emissions are substantially reduced to limit warming to 2 degrees, that might be the "threshold" at which self-reinforcing climate feedbacks add additional warming until the climate system stabilizes in a hothouse climate state. This would make parts of the world uninhabitable, raise sea levels by up to 60 metres (200 ft), and raise temperatures by 4–5 °C (7.2–9.0 °F) to levels that are higher than any interglacial period in the past 1.2 million years. Rockström notes that whether this would occur "is one of the most existential questions in science." Study author Katherine Richardson stresses, "We note that the Earth has never in its history had a quasi-stable state that is around 2 °C warmer than the preindustrial and suggest that there is substantial risk that the system, itself, will ‘want’ to continue warming because of all of these other processes – even if we stop emissions. This implies not only reducing emissions but much more.”[8][9]

Background
The planet Earth is a finite system, which means it has limits.

The idea

The idea that our planet has limits, including the burden placed upon it by human activities, has been around for some time. In 1972, The Limits to Growth was published. It presented a model in which five variables: world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resources depletion, are examined, and considered to grow exponentially, whereas the ability of technology to increase resources availability is only linear.[10] Subsequently, the report was widely dismissed, particularly by economists and businessmen,[11] and it has often been claimed that history has proved the projections to be incorrect.[12] In 2008, Graham Turner from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) published "A comparison of The Limits to Growth with thirty years of reality".[13] Turner found that the observed historical data from 1970 to 2000 closely matches the simulated results of the "standard run" limits of growth model for almost all the outputs reported. "The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time."[13] Turner also examined a number of reports, particularly by economists, which over the years have purported to discredit the limits-to-growth model. Turner says these reports are flawed, and reflect misunderstandings about the model.[13] In 2010, Nørgård, Peet and Ragnarsdóttir called the book a "pioneering report", and said that it "has withstood the test of time and, indeed, has only become more relevant."[14]

With few exceptions, economics as a discipline has been dominated by a perception of living in an unlimited world, where resource and pollution problems in one area were solved by moving resources or people to other parts. The very hint of any global limitation as suggested in the report The Limits to Growth was met with disbelief and rejection by businesses and most economists. However, this conclusion was mostly based on false premises.

– Meyer & Nørgård (2010).

Our Common Future[15] was published in 1987 by United Nations' World Commission on Environment and Development. It tried to recapture the spirit of the Stockholm Conference. Its aim was to interlock the concepts of development and environment for future political discussions. It introduced the famous definition for sustainable development:

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

— Brundtland Report 1987

Of a different kind is the approach made by James Lovelock. In the 1970s he and microbiologist Lynn Margulis presented the Gaia theory or hypothesis, that states that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are integrated into a single self-regulating system.[16] The system has the ability to react to perturbations or deviations, much like a living organism adjusts its regulation mechanisms to accommodate environmental changes such as temperature (homeostasis). Nevertheless, this capacity has limits. For instance, when a living organism is subjected to a temperature that is lower or higher than its living range, it can perish because its regulating mechanism cannot make the necessary adjustments. Similarly the Earth may not be able to react to large deviations in critical parameters. In his book The Revenge of Gaia, he affirms that the destruction of rainforests and biodiversity, compounded with the increase of greenhouse gases made by humans, is producing global warming.

From Holocene to Anthropocene
Main article: Anthropocene
Our planet’s ability to provide an accommodating environment for humanity is being challenged by our own activities. The environment—our life-support system—is changing rapidly from the stable Holocene state of the last 12,000 years, during which we developed agriculture, villages, cities, and contemporary civilizations, to an unknown future state of significantly different conditions.

– Steffen, Rockström & Costanza (2011)

The Holocene began about 10,000 years ago. It is the current interglacial period, and it has proven to be a relatively stable environment of the Earth. There have been natural environmental fluctuations during the Holocene, but the key atmospheric and biogeochemical parameters have been relatively stable.[17] This stability and resilience has allowed agriculture to develop and complex societies to thrive.[18] According to Rockström et al., we "have now become so dependent on those investments for our way of life, and how we have organized society, technologies, and economies around them, that we must take the range within which Earth System processes varied in the Holocene as a scientific reference point for a desirable planetary state."[3]

External image
The last glacial cycle of δ18O indicative of the stability of the Holocene over the last 10,000 years
– Adapted from Young & Steffen (2009)

Since the industrial revolution, according to Paul Crutzen, Will Steffen and others, the planet has entered a new epoch, the Anthropocene. In the Anthropocene, humans have become the main agents of not only change to the Earth System [19] but also the driver of Earth System rupture,[20] disruption of the Earth System's ability to be resilient and recover from that change. There have been well publicized scientific warnings about risks in the areas of climate change and stratospheric ozone.[21] However, other biophysical Earth System processes are also important and have limits which are being exceeded.[22] For example, since the advent of the Anthropocene, the rate at which species are being extinguished has increased over 100 times,[23] and humans are now the driving force altering global river flows[24] as well as water vapor flows from the land surface.[25] Continuing pressure on the Earth System from human activities raises the possibility that further pressure could be destabilizing, and precipitate sudden or irreversible responses by the Earth System, shunting it towards a variation or mode that is dangerous to life including to human society, for example a Hothouse Earth mode. According to Rockström et al., "Up to 30% of all mammal, bird, and amphibian species will be threatened with extinction this century."[26] It is difficult to restore a 'safe operating space' for humanity that is described by the planetary boundary concept, because the predominant paradigms of social and economic development are largely indifferent to the looming possibilities of large scale environmental disasters triggered by humans.[27][28] Legal boundaries can help keep human activities in check, but are only as effective as the political will to make and enforce them.[29]

Nine boundaries

Thresholds and boundaries

The threshold, or tipping point, is the value at which a very small increment for the control variable (like CO2) triggers a larger, possibly catastrophic, change in the response variable (global warming) through feedbacks in the natural Earth System itself.

The threshold points are difficult to locate, because the Earth System is very complex. Instead of defining the threshold value, the study establishes a range, and the threshold is supposed to lie inside it. The lower end of that range is defined as the boundary. Therefore, it defines a 'safe operating space', in the sense that as long as we are below the boundary, we are below the threshold value. If the boundary is crossed, we enter into a danger zone.[3]

Planetary Boundaries[30]
Earth-system processControl variable[31]Boundary
value		Current
value		Boundary crossedPreindustrial
value		Commentary
1. Climate changeAtmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (ppm by volume)[32]
350
412[33]
yes
280
[34]
Alternatively: Increase in radiative forcing (W/m2) since the start of the industrial revolution (~1750)
1.0
3.101
[35]
yes
0
[36]
2. Biodiversity lossExtinction rate (number of species per million per year)
10
> 100
yes
0.1–1
[37]
3. Biogeochemical(a) anthropogenic nitrogen removed from the atmosphere (millions of tonnes per year)
35
121
yes
0
[38]
(b) anthropogenic phosphorus going into the oceans (millions of tonnes per year)
11
8.5–9.5
no
−1
[39]
4. Ocean acidificationGlobal mean saturation state of calcium carbonate in surface seawater (omega units)
2.75
2.90
no
3.44
[40]
5. Land useLand surface converted to cropland (percent)
15
11.7
no
low
[41]
6. FreshwaterGlobal human consumption of water (km3/yr)
4000
2600
no
415
[42]
7. Ozone depletionStratospheric ozone concentration (Dobson units)
276
283
no
290
[43]
8. Atmospheric aerosolsOverall particulate concentration in the atmosphere, on a regional basis
not yet quantified
[44]
9. Chemical pollutionConcentration of toxic substances, plastics, endocrine disruptors, heavy metals, and radioactive contamination into the environment
not yet quantified
[45]

The proposed framework lays the groundwork for shifting approach to governance and management, away from the essentially sectoral analyses of limits to growth aimed at minimizing negative externalities, toward the estimation of the safe space for human development. Planetary boundaries define, as it were, the boundaries of the "planetary playing field" for humanity if major human-induced environmental change on a global scale is to be avoided

Transgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be highly damaging or even catastrophic, due to the risk of crossing thresholds that trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental- to planetary-scale systems. The 2009 study identified nine planetary boundaries and, drawing on current scientific understanding, the researchers proposed quantifications for seven of them. These seven are climate change (CO2 concentration in the atmosphere < 350 ppm and/or a maximum change of +1 W/m2 in radiative forcing); ocean acidification (mean surface seawater saturation state with respect to aragonite ≥ 80% of pre-industrial levels); stratospheric ozone (less than 5% reduction in total atmospheric O3 from a pre-industrial level of 290 Dobson Units); biogeochemical nitrogen (N) cycle (limit industrial and agricultural fixation of N2 to 35 Tg N/yr) and phosphorus (P) cycle (annual P inflow to oceans not to exceed 10 times the natural background weathering of P); global freshwater use (< 4000 km3/yr of consumptive use of runoff resources); land system change (< 15% of the ice-free land surface under cropland); and the rate at which biological diversity is lost (annual rate of < 10 extinctions per million species). The two additional planetary boundaries for which the group had not yet been able to determine a global boundary level are chemical pollution and atmospheric aerosol loading.

Subsequent work on planetary boundaries [7] begins to relate these thresholds at the regional scale.

Figures and data for the updated Planetary Boundaries can be found at the Stockholm Resilience Centre website.

Debate

On the framework
From the Stockholm Memorandum
Science indicates that we are transgressing planetary boundaries that have kept civilization safe for the past 10,000 years. Evidence is growing that human pressures are starting to overwhelm the Earth’s buffering capacity. Humans are now the most significant driver of global change, propelling the planet into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. We can no longer exclude the possibility that our collective actions will trigger tipping points, risking abrupt and irreversible consequences for human communities and ecological systems.

– Stockholm Memorandum (2011)

Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, is impressed: "This kind of work is critically important. Overall, this is an impressive attempt to define a safety zone."[46] But the conservation biologist Stuart Pimm is not impressed: "I don’t think this is in any way a useful way of thinking about things... The notion of a single boundary is just devoid of serious content. In what way is an extinction rate 10 times the background rate acceptable?"[46] and the environmental policy analyst Bill Clark thinks: "Tipping points in the earth system are dense, unpredictable... and unlikely to be avoidable through early warning indicators. It follows that... 'safe operating spaces' and 'planetary boundaries' are thus highly suspect and potentially the new 'opiates'."[47]

The biogeochemist William Schlesinger queries whether thresholds are a good idea for pollutions at all. He thinks waiting until we near some suggested limit will just permit us to continue to a point where it is too late. "Management based on thresholds, although attractive in its simplicity, allows pernicious, slow and diffuse degradation to persist nearly indefinitely."[48]

The hydrologist David Molden thinks planetary boundaries are a welcome new approach in the 'limits to growth' debate. "As a scientific organizing principle, the concept has many strengths ... the numbers are important because they provide targets for policymakers, giving a clear indication of the magnitude and direction of change. They also provide benchmarks and direction for science. As we improve our understanding of Earth processes and complex inter-relationships, these benchmarks can and will be updated ... we now have a tool we can use to help us think more deeply—and urgently—about planetary limits and the critical actions we have to take."[49]

The ocean chemist Peter Brewer queries whether it is "truly useful to create a list of environmental limits without serious plans for how they may be achieved ... they may become just another stick to beat citizens with. Disruption of the global nitrogen cycle is one clear example: it is likely that a large fraction of people on Earth would not be alive today without the artificial production of fertilizer. How can such ethical and economic issues be matched with a simple call to set limits? ... food is not optional."[50]

The environment advisor Steve Bass says the "description of planetary boundaries is a sound idea. We need to know how to live within the unusually stable conditions of our present Holocene period and not do anything that causes irreversible environmental change ... Their paper has profound implications for future governance systems, offering some of the 'wiring' needed to link governance of national and global economies with governance of the environment and natural resources. The planetary boundaries concept should enable policymakers to understand more clearly that, like human rights and representative government, environmental change knows no borders."[51]

The climate change policy advisor Adele Morris thinks that price-based policies are also needed to avoid political and economic thresholds. "Staying within a 'safe operating space' will require staying within all the relevant boundaries, including the electorate’s willingness to pay."[52]

In summary, the planetary boundary concept is a very important one, and its proposal should now be followed by discussions of the connections between the various boundaries and of their association with other concepts such as the 'limits to growth'. Importantly, this novel concept highlights the risk of reaching thresholds or tipping points for non-linear or abrupt changes in Earth-system processes. As such, it can help society to reach the agreements required for dealing effectively with existing global environmental threats, such as climate change.

– Nobel laureate Mario J. Molina[53]

In their report (2012) entitled "Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A future worth choosing", The High-level Panel on Global Sustainability called for bold global efforts, "including launching a major global scientific initiative, to strengthen the interface between science and policy. We must define, through science, what scientists refer to as "planetary boundaries", "environmental thresholds" and "tipping points"."[54]

In 2011, at their second meeting, the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability[55] of the United Nations had incorporated the concept of planetary boundaries into their framework, stating that their goal was: "To eradicate poverty and reduce inequality, make growth inclusive, and production and consumption more sustainable while combating climate change and respecting the range of other planetary boundaries."[56]

Elsewhere in their proceedings, panel members have expressed reservations about the political effectiveness of using the concept of "planetary boundaries": "Planetary boundaries are still an evolving concept that should be used with caution [...] The planetary boundaries question can be divisive as it can be perceived as a tool of the "North" to tell the "South" not to follow the resource intensive and environmentally destructive development pathway that rich countries took themselves... This language is unacceptable to most of the developing countries as they fear that an emphasis on boundaries would place unacceptable brakes on poor countries."[57]

However, the concept is routinely used in the proceedings of the United Nations,[58] and in the UN Daily News. For example, the UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner states that the challenge of agriculture is to "feed a growing global population without pushing humanity's footprint beyond planetary boundaries."[59] The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Yearbook 2010 also repeated Rockström's message, conceptually linking it with ecosystem management and environmental governance indicators.[60]

The planetary boundaries concept is also used in proceedings by the European Commission,[61] and was referred to in the European Environment Agency synthesis report The European environment – state and outlook 2010.[62]

Climate change
The black line shows the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for the period 1880–2008. Red bars show temperatures above and blue bars show temperatures below the average temperature. Year-to-year temperature fluctuations are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Niño, La Niña, and the eruption of large volcanoes.[63]

Radiative forcing is a measure of the difference between the incoming radiation energy and the outgoing radiation energy acting across the boundary of the earth. Positive radiative forcing results in warming. From the start of the industrial revolution in 1750 to 2005, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has led to a positive radiative forcing, averaging about 1.66 W/m².[64]

The climate scientist Myles Allen thinks setting "a limit on long-term atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations merely distracts from the much more immediate challenge of limiting warming to 2 °C." He says the concentration of carbon dioxide is not a control variable we can "meaningfully claim to control", and he questions whether keeping carbon dioxide levels below 350 ppm will avoid more than 2 °C of warming.[36]

Adele Morris, policy director, Climate and Energy Economics Project, Brookings Institution, makes a criticism from the economical-political point of view. She puts emphasis in choosing policies that minimize costs and preserve consensus. She favors a system of green-house gas emissions tax, and emissions trading, as ways to prevent global warming. She thinks that too-ambitious objectives, like the boundary limit on CO2, may discourage such actions.[52]

Biodiversity loss

According to the biologist Cristián Samper, a " boundary that expresses the probability of families of species disappearing over time would better reflect our potential impacts on the future of life on Earth."[65]

Nitrogen cycle

Nitrogen cycle

Since the industrial revolution, the Earth's nitrogen cycle has been disturbed even more than the carbon cycle. "Human activities now convert more nitrogen from the atmosphere into reactive forms than all of the Earth´s terrestrial processes combined. Much of this new reactive nitrogen pollutes waterways and coastal zones, is emitted back to the atmosphere in changed forms, or accumulates in the terrestrial biosphere."[66] Only a small part of the fertilizers applied in agriculture is used by plants. Most of the nitrogen and phosphorus ends up in rivers, lakes and the sea, where excess amounts stress aquatic ecosystems. For example, fertilizer which discharges from rivers into the Gulf of Mexico has damaged shrimp fisheries because of hypoxia.[66]

The biogeochemist William Schlesinger thinks waiting until we near some suggested limit for nitrogen deposition and other pollutions will just permit us to continue to a point where it is too late. He says the boundary suggested for phosphorus is not sustainable, and would exhaust the known phosphorus reserves in less than 200 years.[48]

Phosphorus
Further information: Peak phosphorus

Peak phosphorus is a concept to describe the point in time at which the maximum global phosphorus production rate is reached. Phosphorus is a scarce finite resource on earth and means of production other than mining are unavailable because of its non-gaseous environmental cycle.[67] According to some researchers, Earth's phosphorus reserves are expected to be completely depleted in 50–100 years and peak phosphorus to be reached in approximately 2030.[68][69]

Estimated change in sea surface pH from the pre-industrial period (1700s) to the present day (1990s). Δ pH is in standard pH units.[70]

Ocean acidification

Surface ocean acidity has increased thirty percent since the industrial revolution. About one quarter of the additional carbon dioxide generated by humans is dissolved in the oceans, where it forms carbonic acid. This acidity inhibits the ability of corals, shellfish and plankton to build shells and skeletons. Knock-on effects could have serious consequences for fish stocks. This boundary is clearly interconnected with the climate change boundaries, since the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also the underlying control variable for the ocean acidification boundary.[66]

The ocean chemist Peter Brewer thinks "ocean acidification has impacts other than simple changes in pH, and these may need boundaries too."[50]

Land use
Europe land use map. Human land uses include arable farmland (yellow) and pasture (light green)

Across the planet, forests, wetlands and other vegetation types are being converted to agricultural and other land uses, impacting freshwater, carbon and other cycles, and reducing biodiversity.[66]

The environment advisor Steve Bass says research tells us that "the sustainability of land use depends less on percentages and more on other factors. For example, the environmental impact of 15 per cent coverage by intensively farmed cropland in large blocks will be significantly different from that of 15 per cent of land farmed in more sustainable ways, integrated into the landscape. The boundary of 15 per cent land-use change is, in practice, a premature policy guideline that dilutes the authors' overall scientific proposition. Instead, the authors might want to consider a limit on soil degradation or soil loss. This would be a more valid and useful indicator of the state of terrestrial health."[71]

Freshwater
Overexploitation of groundwater from an aquifer can result in a peak water curve.[72]

Human pressures on global freshwater systems are having dramatic effects. The freshwater cycle is another boundary significantly affected by climate change.[66] Freshwater resources, such as lakes and aquifers, are usually renewable resources which naturally recharge (the term fossil water is sometimes used to describe aquifers which don't recharge). Overexploitation occurs if a water resource is mined or extracted at a rate that exceeds the recharge rate. Recharge usually comes from area streams, rivers and lakes. Forests enhance the recharge of aquifers in some locales, although generally forests are a major source of aquifer depletion.[73] Depleted aquifers can become polluted with contaminants such as nitrates, or permanently damaged through subsidence or through saline intrusion from the ocean. This turns much of the world's underground water and lakes into finite resources with peak usage debates similar to oil.[74] Though Hubbert's original analysis did not apply to renewable resources, their overexploitation can result in a Hubbert-like peak. A modified Hubbert curve applies to any resource that can be harvested faster than it can be replaced.[72]

The hydrologist David Molden says "a global limit on water consumption is necessary, but the suggested planetary boundary of 4,000 cubic kilometres per year is too generous."[49]

Ozone depletion
Main article: Ozone depletion
During 21–30 September 2006 the average area of the Antarctic ozone hole was the largest ever observed

The stratospheric ozone layer protectively filters ultraviolet radiation (UV) from the Sun, which would otherwise damage biological systems. The actions taken after the Montreal Protocol appeared to be keeping the planet within a safe boundary.[66] However, in 2011, according to a paper published in Nature, the boundary was unexpectedly pushed in the Arctic; "... the fraction of the Arctic vortex in March with total ozone less than 275 Dobson units (DU) is typically near zero, but reached nearly 45%".[75]

The Nobel laureate in chemistry, Mario Molina, says "five per cent is a reasonable limit for acceptable ozone depletion, but it doesn't represent a tipping point".[53]

Smog over southern China and Vietnam

Atmospheric aerosols

Aerosol particles in the atmosphere impact the health of humans and influence monsoon and global atmospheric circulation systems. Some aerosols produce clouds which cool the Earth by reflecting sunlight back to space, while others, like soot, produce thin clouds in the upper stratosphere which behave like a greenhouse, warming the Earth. On balance, anthropogenic aerosols probably produce a net negative radiative forcing (cooling influence).[76] Worldwide each year, aerosol particles result in about 800,000 premature deaths. Aerosol loading is sufficiently important to be included among the planetary boundaries, but it is not yet clear whether an appropriate safe threshold measure can be identified.[77]

Chemical pollution

Some chemicals, such as persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals and radionuclides, have potentially irreversible additive and synergic effects on biological organisms, reducing fertility and resulting in permanent genetic damage. Sublethal uptakes are drastically reducing marine bird and mammal populations. This boundary seems important, although it is hard to quantify.[66]

A Bayesian emulator for persistent organic pollutants has been developed which can potentially be used to quantify the boundaries for chemical pollution.[78] To date, critical exposure levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) above which mass mortality events of marine mammals are likely to occur, have been proposed as a chemical pollution planetary boundary.[79]

Interaction among boundaries

A planetary boundary may interact in a manner that changes the safe operating level of other boundaries. Rockström et al. 2009 did not analyze such interactions, but they suggested that many of these interactions will reduce rather than expand the proposed boundary levels.

For example, the land use boundary could shift downward if the freshwater boundary is breached, causing lands to become arid and unavailable for agriculture. At a regional level, water resources may decline in Asia if deforestation continues in the Amazon. Such considerations suggest the need for "extreme caution in approaching or transgressing any individual planetary boundaries."[3]

Another example has to do with coral reefs and marine ecosystems. In 2009, De'Ath, Lough & Fabricius (2009) showed that, since 1990, calcification in the reefs of the Great Barrier that they examined decreased at a rate unprecedented over the last 400 years (14% in less than 20 years). Their evidence suggests that the increasing temperature stress and the declining ocean saturation state of aragonite is making it difficult for reef corals to deposit calcium carbonate. Bellwood & others (2004) explored how multiple stressors, such as increased nutrient loads and fishing pressure, move corals into less desirable ecosystem states. Guinotte & Fabry (2008) showed that ocean acidification will significantly change the distribution and abundance of a whole range of marine life, particularly species "that build skeletons, shells, and tests of biogenic calcium carbonate. "Increasing temperatures, surface UV radiation levels and ocean acidity all stress marine biota, and the combination of these stresses may well cause perturbations in the abundance and diversity of marine biological systems that go well beyond the effects of a single stressor acting alone."[80]

Subsequent developments
The concept of planetary boundaries challenges the belief that resources are either limitless or infinitely substitutable. It threatens the business-as-usual approach to economic growth. The fact that reference to planetary boundaries was excluded from the [ Rio+20 ] conference statement is a counterintuitive sign that the concept is being taken very seriously and has indeed gained enough traction to be threatening to the status quo. Had planetary boundaries remained in the statement, the most credible interpretation is that they would join a growing list of nice-sounding goals that are included but never achieved in the end. Planetary boundaries will not go away. The intrinsic limits to the amount of resources and environmental services that humanity can extract safely from the Earth System cannot be eliminated by wishful thinking, denial, or omission from official sustainable development conference statements. It is simply the nature of the planet we inhabit.

– Will Steffen[81]

The doughnut
Main article: Doughnut (economic model)
The Doughnut with indicators to what extent the ecological ceilings are overshot and social foundations are not met yet.

In 2012 Kate Raworth from Oxfam noted the Rockstrom concept does not take human population growth into account.[82] She suggested social boundaries should be incorporated into the planetary boundary structure, such as jobs, education, food, access to water, health services and energy and to accommodate an environmentally safe space compatible with poverty eradication and "rights for all". Within planetary limits and an equitable social foundation lies a doughnut shaped area which is the area where there is a "safe and just space for humanity to thrive in".[83]

An empirical application of the doughnut model by O'Neill et al.[84] showed that so far across 150 countries not a single country satisfies its citizens' basic needs while maintaining a globally sustainable level of resource use.

Comparisons of national environmental footprints with planetary boundaries

Several studies assessed environmental footprints of nations based on planetary boundaries: for Sweden,[85] Switzerland,[86] the Netherlands,[87] the European Union [88] as well as for the world’s most important economies.[89][90] While the metrics and allocation approaches applied varied, there is a converging outcome that resource use of wealthier nations – if extrapolated to world population – is not compatible with planetary boundaries.

Tenth boundary

In 2012, Steven Running suggested a tenth boundary, the annual net global primary production of all terrestrial plants, as an easily determinable measure integrating many variables that will give "a clear signal about the health of ecosystems".[91][92][93]

Not yet endorsed by United Nations

The United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon endorsed the concept of planetary boundaries on 16 March 2012, when he presented the key points of the report of his High Level Panel on Global Sustainability to an informal plenary of the UN General Assembly.[83][94] Ban stated: "The Panel’s vision is to eradicate poverty and reduce inequality, to make growth inclusive and production and consumption more sustainable, while combating climate change and respecting a range of other planetary boundaries."[95] The concept was incorporated into the so-called "zero draft" of the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development to be convened in Rio de Janeiro 20–22 June 2012.[96] However, the use of the concept was subsequently withdrawn from the text of the conference, "partly due to concerns from some poorer countries that its adoption could lead to the sidelining of poverty reduction and economic development. It is also, say observers, because the idea is simply too new to be officially adopted, and needed to be challenged, weathered and chewed over to test its robustness before standing a chance of being internationally accepted at UN negotiations."[97]

The planetary boundary framework was updated in 2015.[7] It was suggested that three of the boundaries (including climate change) might push the Earth system into a new state if crossed; these also strongly influence the remaining boundaries. In the paper, the framework is developed to make it more applicable at the regional scale.

Visualization of the planetary boundaries related to agriculture and nutrition [98]

Human activities related to agriculture and nutrition globally contribute to the transgression of four out of nine planetary boundaries. Surplus nutrient flows (N, P) into aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems are of highest importance, followed by excessive land-system change and biodiversity loss. Whereas in the case of biodiversity loss, P cycle and land-system change, the transgression is in the zone of uncertainty—indicating an increasing risk (yellow circle in the figure), the N boundary related to agriculture is more than 200% transgressed—indicating a high risk (red marked circle in the figure). Here, nutrition includes food processing and trade as well as food consumption (preparation of food in households and gastronomy). Consumption-related environmental impacts are not quantified at the global level for the planetary boundaries of freshwater use, atmospheric aerosol loading (air pollution) and stratospheric ozone depletion.[98]

See also

Notes
  1. Rockström, Johan; et al. (2009). "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity". Ecology and Society. 14 (2). doi:10.5751/ES-03180-140232.
  2. Editorial, Nature 2009.
  3. Rockström, Steffen & 26 others 2009.
  4. Rockström 2009 (presentation).
  5. Rockström & others 2009b.
  6. Molina 2009. Planetary boundaries Archived 10 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine: A series of commentaries in Nature reports climate change on the planetary boundaries concept set out in the original paper.
  7. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S. E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E. M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S. R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C. A.; Folke, C.; Gerten, D.; Heinke, J.; Mace, G. M.; Persson, L. M.; Ramanathan, V.; Reyers, B.; Sorlin, S. (2015). "Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet". Science. 347 (6223): 1259855. doi:10.1126/science.1259855. PMID 25592418.
  8. Steffen; et al. (2018). "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene". PNAS. 115 (33): 8252–8259. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115.8252S. doi:10.1073/pnas.1810141115. PMC 6099852. PMID 30082409.
  9. Watts, Jonathan (7 August 2018). "Domino-effect of climate events could push Earth into a 'hothouse' state". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 August 2018.
  10. Meadows & others 1972.
  11. Meyer & Nørgård 2010.
  12. van Vuuren & Faber 2009, p. 23.
  13. Turner 2008, p. 37.
  14. Nørgård, Peet & Ragnarsdóttir 2010.
  15. Also known as the Brundtland Report 1987.
  16. Lovelock 1972; Lovelock & Margulis 1974.
  17. Dansgaard & others1993; Petit & others 1999; Rioual & others 2001.
  18. van der Leeuw 2008.
  19. Crutzen 2002; Steffen, Crutzen & McNeill 2007; Zalasiewicz & others 2010.
  20. Hamilton, Clive. (2017). Defiant earth : the fate of humans in the anthropocene. Polity. ISBN 9781509519743. OCLC 1027177323.
  21. IPCC AR4 WG2 2007; WMO 2011.
  22. Mace, Masundire & Baillie 2005; Folke & others 2004; Gordon, Peterson & Bennett 2008.
  23. Mace, Masundire & Baillie 2005.
  24. Shiklomanov & Rodda 2003.
  25. Gordon, Peterson & Bennett 2008.
  26. Rockström, John (2009). "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity". Ecology and Society. 14 (2): 473. doi:10.5751/ES-03180-140232.
  27. Stern 2007
  28. Rockström, Steffen & 26 others 2009
  29. Chapron, Guillaume; Epstein, Yaffa; Trouwborst, Arie; López-Bao, José Vicente (February 2017). "Bolster legal boundaries to stay within planetary boundaries". Nature Ecology & Evolution. 1 (3): 0086. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0086. PMID 28812716.
  30. Steffen, Rockström & Costanza 2011.
  31. Rockström, Steffen & 26 others 2009; Stockholm Resilience Centre 2009.
  32. Recent Mauna Loa CO2 Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA Research.
  33. Change, NASA Global Climate. "Carbon Dioxide Concentration | NASA Global Climate Change". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved 7 January 2020.
  34. Allen 2009; Heffernan 2009; Morris 2010; Pearce 2010, pp. 34–45, "Climate change".
  35. Butler, James; Montzka, Stephen. "THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)". Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory. Retrieved 25 August 2019.
  36. Allen 2009.
  37. Samper 2009; Daily 2010; Faith & others 2010; Friends of Europe 2010; Pearce 2010, p. 33, "Biodiversity".
  38. Schlesinger 2009; Pearce 2009; UNEP 2010, pp. 28–29; Howarth 2010; Pearce 2010, pp. 33–34, "Nitrogen and phosphorus cycles".
  39. Schlesinger 2009; Carpenter & Bennett 2011; Townsend & Porder 2011; Ragnarsdottir, Sverdrup & Koca 2011; UNEP 2011; Ulrich, Malley & Voora 2009; Vaccari 2010.
  40. Brewer 2009; UNEP 2010, pp. 36–37; Doney 2010; Pearce 2010, p. 32, "Acid oceans".
  41. Bass 2009; Euliss & others 2010; Foley 2009; Lambin 2010; Pearce 2010, p. 34, "Land use".
  42. Molden 2009; Falkenmark & Rockström 2010; Timmermans & others 2011; Gleick 2010; Pearce 2010, pp.32–33, "Fresh water".
  43. Molina 2009; Fahey 2010; Pearce 2010, p. 32, "Ozone depletion".
  44. Pearce 2010, p. 35, "Aerosol loading".
  45. Handoh & Kawai 2011; Handoh & Kawai 2014; Pearce 2010, p. 35, "Chemical pollution".
  46. Zimmer 2009.
  47. Clark 2011.
  48. Schlesinger 2009.
  49. Molden 2009.
  50. Brewer 2009.
  51. Bass 2009
  52. Morris 2010.
  53. Molina 2009.
  54. United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability (2012). Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A future worth choosing (.pdf) (Report). New York: United Nations. p. 14. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
  55. United Nations High-level Panel on Global Sustainability
  56. UN GSP 2 meeting 2011, p. 5.
  57. UN Sherpa 3 meeting 2011.
  58. UN Agenda 21.
  59. Sustainable agriculture key to green growth, poverty reduction UN Daily News, 1 June 2011, page 8.
  60. UNEP 2010.
  61. The Budapest Declaration; Greenfield 2010.
  62. Martin, Henrichs & others 2010.
  63. USGCRP 2009.
  64. IPCC AR4 WG1 2007, "Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change".
  65. Samper 2009.
  66. Stockholm Resilience Centre 2009.
  67. Neset & Cordell 2011, p. 2
  68. Cordell, Drangert & White 2009, p. 292
  69. Lewis 2008, p. 1
  70. Gruber, Sarmiento & Stocker 1996.
  71. Bass 2009.
  72. Palaniappan & Gleick 2008.
  73. "Underlying Causes of Deforestation" Archived 11 April 2001 at the Wayback Machine UN Report.
  74. Larsen 2005; Sandford 2009.
  75. Manney, Santee & 27 others 2011, p. 473.
  76. IPCC AR4 WG1 2007.
  77. Stockholm Resilience Centre 2009
  78. Handoh & Kawai 2011.
  79. Handoh & Kawai 2014
  80. Rockström, Steffen & 26 others 2009, Appendix 1. Supplementary Information.
  81. Steffen, Will (2012) Rio+20: Another step on the journey towards sustainability The Conversation, 29 June 2012.
  82. Raworth, Kate (2012) A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Paper, 2012.
  83. Climate change: Understanding Rio+20 UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, ITIN, 3 April 2012.
  84. O’Neill, Daniel W.; Fanning, Andrew L.; Lamb, William F.; Steinberger, Julia K. (2018). "A good life for all within planetary boundaries". Nature Sustainability. 1 (2): 88–95. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4. ISSN 2398-9629.
  85. Björn Nykvist, Åsa Persson, Fredrik Moberg, Linn Persson, Sarah Cornell, Johan Rockström: National Environmental Performance on Planetary Boundaries, commissioned by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2013.
  86. Hy Dao, Pascal Peduzzi, Damien Friot: National environmental limits and footprints based on the Planetary Boundaries framework: The case of Switzerland, University of Geneva, Institute for Environmental Sciences, GRID-Geneva, EA - Shaping Environmental Action, 2018.
  87. Paul Lucas, Harry Wilting: Towards a Safe Operating Space for the Netherlands: Using planetary boundaries to support national implementation of environment-related SDGs, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency 2018.
  88. Tina Häyhä, Sarah E. Cornell, Holger Hoff, Paul Lucas, Detlef van Vuuren: the concept of a safe operating space at the EU level – first steps and explorations, Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2018.
  89. bluedot.world: Environmental footprint of nations.
  90. Kai Fang, Reinout Heijungs, Zheng Duan, Geert R. de Snoo: The Environmental Sustainability of Nations: Benchmarking the Carbon, Water and Land Footprints against Allocated Planetary Boundaries, Sustainability 2015, 7, 11285-11305.
  91. Running, Steven W. (2012). "A Measurable Planetary Boundary for the Biosphere". Science. 337 (6101): 1458–1459. Bibcode:2012Sci...337.1458R. doi:10.1126/science.1227620. PMID 22997311.
  92. Has Plant Life Reached Its Limits? New York Times, 20 September 2012.
  93. Biomass should be tenth tipping point, researcher says SciDev.Net, 27 March 2012.
  94. Rio+20 zero draft accepts 'planetary boundaries' SciDev.Net, 28 March 2012.
  95. Secretary-General Highlights Key Points... United Nations News, 16 March 2012.
  96. Zero draft of the outcome document RIO+20, United Nations Conference on Sustainability Development.
  97. Your guide to science and technology at Rio+20 scidev.net, 12 June 2012.
  98. Meier 2017

References

Further reading

Books
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.