53 results
A panacea to unsustainable consumption? A review of resource caps
- Adam Kelly
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 7 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 April 2024, e18
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
Many of the most pressing issues of today, such as climate change, habitat destruction, and conflict, are linked to our growing economies and the increasing amount of natural resources needed to maintain them. Current resource management policies focus on using resources more efficiently while maintaining economic growth. However, these policies have been insufficient and alternatives are needed. Resource caps are one such alternative which would directly limit resource consumption and extraction. This first review on the topic covers existing research on resource caps, the practical issues of implementation, and suggests a way forward for future policy and research.
Technical summaryIncreasingly unsustainable rates of resource consumption and extraction have led to a growing discussion among researchers and environmental advocates on introducing caps on resource use. Research suggests that a reliance on efficiency-based approaches and a focus on decoupling are not sufficient to reduce ecosystem pressures, and instead alternatives such as resource caps may be needed. This article therefore provides the first comprehensive review of research on resource caps, linking them to major social science debates on resource scarcity, social metabolism, decoupling, and degrowth. Resource caps have been increasingly proposed in contemporary degrowth research, but this review found that resource caps are compatible with the agendas of those who endorse ‘green growth’ or ‘ecomodernist’ positions. Although resource caps are commonly proposed at a global level, it was found that enacting national or regional level caps is more viable, and that such caps should be developed through post-normal science and with democratic governance. However, current research does not show how resource caps can be implemented in practice, despite there being a detailed discussion on the political and social factors surrounding implementation. Future research will need to consider how, and even if, caps can function, and in what situations they are effective.
Social media summaryCapping consumption and extraction of natural resources is an alternative to current efficiency-based resource policies.
The dry sky: future scenarios for humanity's modification of the atmospheric water cycle
- Patrick W. Keys, Lan Wang-Erlandsson, Michele-Lee Moore, Agnes Pranindita, Fabian Stenzel, Olli Varis, Rekha Warrier, R. Bin Wong, Paolo D'Odorico, Carl Folke
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 7 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 March 2024, e11
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-Technical Summary
Human societies are changing where and how water flows through the atmosphere. However, these changes in the atmospheric water cycle are not being managed, nor is there any real sense of where these changes might be headed in the future. Thus, we develop a new economic theory of atmospheric water management, and explore this theory using creative story-based scenarios. These scenarios reveal surprising possibilities for the future of atmospheric water management, ranging from a stock market for transpiration to on-demand weather. We discuss these story-based futures in the context of research and policy priorities in the present day.
Technical SummaryHumanity is modifying the atmospheric water cycle, via land use, climate change, air pollution, and weather modification. Historically, atmospheric water was implicitly considered a ‘public good’ since it was neither actively consumed nor controlled. However, given anthropogenic changes, atmospheric water can become a ‘common-pool’ good (consumable) or a ‘club’ good (controllable). Moreover, advancements in weather modification presage water becoming a ‘private’ good, meaning both consumable and controllable. Given the implications, we designed a theoretical framing of atmospheric water as an economic good and used a combination of methods in order to explore possible future scenarios based on human modifications of the atmospheric water cycle. First, a systematic literature search of scholarly abstracts was used in a computational text analysis. Second, the output of the text analysis was matched to different parts of an existing economic goods framework. Then, a group of global water experts were trained and developed story-based scenarios. The resultant scenarios serve as creative investigations of the future of human modification of the atmospheric water cycle. We discuss how the scenarios can enhance anticipatory capacity in the context of both future research frontiers and potential policy pathways including transboundary governance, finance, and resource management.
Social Media SummaryStory-based scenarios reveal novel future pathways for the management of the atmospheric water cycle.
Steering signification for sustainability
- Myanna Lahsen
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 7 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 February 2024, e15
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-Technical Summary
Powerful influences on societal knowledge, values, and behavior, artificial intelligence-infused media systems, new and old, currently reinforce the interlinked problems of inequality and unsustainable consumption. This problem is rarely discussed in environmental research and policy, and even less so how it might be overcome. Discussing this consequential blind spot and the power structures that underpin it, this article argues that sustainability researchers should centrally explore the need and possibilities for democratic reconfiguration of the political economies and charters of media systems to achieve sustainability and other broad, inclusive public goals.
Technical SummaryPowerful influences on societal knowledge, values and behavior, artificial intelligence-infused media systems, new and old, currently tend to reinforce the interlinked problems of inequality and unsustainable consumption. This problem is rarely discussed in environmental research and policy, and even less so how it might be overcome. Discussing this consequential blind spot and the power structures that underpin it, this article argues that sustainability researchers should centrally explore the possibilities for democratic governance and reconfiguration of the political economies of media systems to foster human wellbeing and just transformations toward sustainability.
Social Media SummarySustainability transformations require ‘signification steering’ and interventions in media systems' configurations.
A review of existing model-based scenarios achieving SDGs: progress and challenges
- K. Orbons, D.P. van Vuuren, G. Ambrosio, S. Kulkarni, E. Weber, V. Zapata, V. Daioglou, A.F. Hof, C. Zimm
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 7 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 08 February 2024, e3
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-Technical Summary
In 2015, the United Nations articulated the ambition to move toward a prosperous, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable future for all by adopting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, little is known about the pathways that could lead to their concurrent achievement. We provide an overview of the current literature on quantitative pathways toward the SDGs, indicate the commonly used methods and indicators, and identify the most comprehensive pathways that have been published to date. Our results indicate that there is a need for more scenarios toward the full set of SDGs, using a wider range of underlying narratives.
Technical SummaryQuantitative goal-seeking scenario studies could help to explore the needed systems' transformations to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by identifying enabling conditions and accounting for the synergies and trade-offs between the SDGs. Given that the SDGs were adopted some time ago, here, we review the existing global scenario literature to determine what it can offer in this context. We found only a few scenarios that address a large set of SDGs, while many more deal with specific clusters of 2–6 SDGs. We identified the most frequent clusters and compared the results of the most comprehensive sustainable development scenarios. The latter is complicated because of the diversity of methods, indicators, and assumptions used. Therefore, we suggest that an effort is needed to develop a wider set of scenarios that would achieve multiple SDGs, using a more standardized framework of targets and indicators.
Social Media SummaryThis study reviews the current global pathways toward the SDGs and shows the need for a broader set of SDG scenarios.
Polycrisis in the Anthropocene: an invitation to contributions and debates
- Part of
- Michael Lawrence
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 7 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 January 2024, e5
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
The popularity of the term polycrisis suggests a growing demand for new thinking about the world's intersecting crises, but loose and haphazard uses of the concept impede knowledge generation. The special issue, ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’, aims to close the gap. This introductory comment first elaborates upon three key contributions of the lead article ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’: a conceptualization of crisis as systemic disequilibrium; the distinction between the slow-moving stresses and the fast-moving trigger events that interact to generate a crisis; and a grammar with which to map the causality of crisis interactions. The commentary then explores three key debates around the polycrisis concept: Are we in a polycrisis, at risk of a polycrisis, or neither? Is the present polycrisis truly unique and unprecedented? And where are power and agency in a systemic approach to polycrisis? These ongoing debates suggest promising directions for polycrisis research that could feature in this special issue and advance the field of polycrisis analysis.
Non-technical summaryThis commentary introduces the special issue ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’ by elaborating upon three major contributions of its lead article, ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal Mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’, and exploring three key debates surrounding the polycrisis concept. It invites others to contribute to the special issue in order to advance polycrisis analysis, build a community of knowledge and practice, and generate new insights and strategies with which to address the world's worsening crises.
Technical summaryThe popularity of the term polycrisis suggests a growing demand for new thinking about the world's intersecting crises, but loose and haphazard uses of the concept impede knowledge generation. The special issue, ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’, aims to close the gap. This introductory comment first elaborates upon three key contributions of the lead article ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’: a conceptualization of crisis as systemic disequilibrium; the distinction between the slow-moving stresses and the fast-moving trigger events that interact to generate a crisis; and a grammar with which to map the causality of crisis interactions. The commentary then explores three key debates around the polycrisis concept: Are we in a polycrisis, at risk of a polycrisis, or neither? Is the present polycrisis truly unique and unprecedented? And where are power and agency in a systemic approach to polycrisis? These ongoing debates suggest promising directions for polycrisis research that could feature in this special issue and advance the field of polycrisis analysis.
Social media summaryInviting contributions and debates to Global Sustainability journal's special issue ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’.
Global polycrisis: the causal mechanisms of crisis entanglement
- Part of
- Michael Lawrence, Thomas Homer-Dixon, Scott Janzwood, Johan Rockstöm, Ortwin Renn, Jonathan F. Donges
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 7 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 January 2024, e6
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Multiple global crises – including the pandemic, climate change, and Russia's war on Ukraine – have recently linked together in ways that are significant in scope, devastating in effect, but poorly understood. A growing number of scholars and policymakers characterize the situation as a ‘polycrisis’. Yet this neologism remains poorly defined. We provide the concept with a substantive definition, highlight its value-added in comparison to related concepts, and develop a theoretical framework to explain the causal mechanisms currently entangling many of the world's crises. In this framework, a global crisis arises when one or more fast-moving trigger events combine with slow-moving stresses to push a global system out of its established equilibrium and into a volatile and harmful state of disequilibrium. We then identify three causal pathways – common stresses, domino effects, and inter-systemic feedbacks – that can connect multiple global systems to produce synchronized crises. Drawing on current examples, we show that the polycrisis concept is a valuable tool for understanding ongoing crises, generating actionable insights, and opening avenues for future research.
Non-technical summaryThe term ‘polycrisis’ appears with growing frequently to capture the interconnections between global crises, but the word lacks substantive content. In this article, we convert it from an empty buzzword into a conceptual framework and research program that enables us to better understand the causal linkages between contemporary crises. We draw upon the intersection of climate change, the covid-19 pandemic, and Russia's war in Ukraine to illustrate these causal interconnections and explore key features of the world's present polycrisis.
Technical summaryMultiple global crises – including the pandemic, climate change, and Russia's war on Ukraine – have recently linked together in ways that are significant in scope, devastating in effect, but poorly understood. A growing number of scholars and policymakers characterize the situation as a ‘polycrisis’. Yet this neologism remains poorly defined. We provide the concept with a substantive definition, highlight its value-added in comparison to related concepts, and develop a theoretical framework to explain the causal mechanisms currently entangling many of the world's crises. In this framework, a global crisis arises when one or more fast-moving trigger events combines with slow-moving stresses to push a global system out of its established equilibrium and into a volatile and harmful state of disequilibrium. We then identify three causal pathways – common stresses, domino effects, and inter-systemic feedbacks – that can connect multiple global systems to produce synchronized crises. Drawing on current examples, we show that the polycrisis concept is a valuable tool for understanding ongoing crises, generating actionable insights, and opening avenues for future research.
Social media summaryNo longer a mere buzzword, the ‘polycrisis’ concept highlights causal interactions among crises to help navigate a tumultuous future.
Reassessing the need for carbon dioxide removal: moral implications of alternative climate target pathways
- Part of
- Lieske Voget-Kleschin, Christian Baatz, Clare Heyward, Detlef Van Vuuren, Nadine Mengis
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 7 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 05 January 2024, e1
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
Scenarios compatible with the Paris agreement's temperature goal of 1.5 °C involve carbon dioxide removal measures – measures that actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere – on a massive scale. Such large-scale implementations raise significant ethical problems. Van Vuuren et al. (2018), as well as the current IPCC scenarios, show that reduction in energy and or food demand could reduce the need for such activities. There is some reluctance to discuss such societal changes. However, we argue that policy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily ethically problematic. Therefore, they should be discussed alongside techno-optimistic approaches in any kind of discussions about how to respond to climate change.
Technical summaryThe 1.5 °C goal has given impetus to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures, such as bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, or afforestation. However, land-based CDR options compete with food production and biodiversity protection. Van Vuuren et al. (2018) looked at alternative pathways including lifestyle changes, low-population projections, or non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation, to reach the 1.5 °C temperature objective. Underlined by the recently published IPCC AR6 WGIII report, they show that demand-side management measures are likely to reduce the need for CDR. Yet, policy measures entailed in these scenarios could be associated with ethical problems themselves. In this paper, we therefore investigate ethical implications of four alternative pathways as proposed by Van Vuuren et al. (2018). We find that emission reduction options such as lifestyle changes and reducing population, which are typically perceived as ethically problematic, might be less so on further inspection. In contrast, options associated with less societal transformation and more techno-optimistic approaches turn out to be in need of further scrutiny. The vast majority of emission reduction options considered are not intrinsically ethically problematic; rather everything rests on the precise implementation. Explicitly addressing ethical considerations when developing, advancing, and using integrated assessment scenarios could reignite debates about previously overlooked topics and thereby support necessary societal discourse.
Social media summaryPolicy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily as ethically problematic as commonly presumed and reduce the need for large-scale CDR.
Attitudes toward water resilience and potential for improvement
- Part of
- Julia Baird, Gillian Dale, Gary Pickering
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 6 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 December 2023, e23
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
There is a global water crisis, brought on by human actions. The ways we make decisions about water must transform to solve it. We focused on the attitudes that people in society hold toward water to understand how close or far away we are from a broadly accepted worldview that supports this transformation (what we call ‘water resilience’). We found that, across six countries in the Global South and North, attitudes showed moderate support for water resilience. Many people also showed potential to increase their support.
Technical summaryWater in the Anthropocene is threatened. Water governance aligned with the complex, dynamic, and uncertain nature of social–ecological systems (a ‘water resilience’ paradigm) is needed, and requires transformative change. We queried the potential for transformative change from the perspective that societal worldviews/paradigms offer an important leverage point for system change. Our study aimed to identify attitudes about water resilience and the extent to which there was potential for greater endorsement of water resilience. We surveyed individuals in six countries using vignettes to determine their level of water resilience endorsement (n = 2649). Overall water resilience endorsement was moderate (M = 2.86 out of 4). In some countries, a vignette related to a personally relevant water issue resulted in higher water resilience endorsement. More than half of the respondents held the potential for greater water resilience endorsement. Those with the greatest potential were younger, had children, considered religion more important, were more likely to live in urban areas, and lived in the same area for 10+ years. These findings provide guidance how to engage with the public (e.g. age-specific or parent-focused framing) to potentially increase societal water resilience endorsement.
Social media summaryGeneral public in six countries moderately supports water resilience to address the water crisis, with room to improve.
Justice in benefitting from carbon removal
- Part of
- Dominic Lenzi, Hanna Schübel, Ivo Wallimann-Helmer
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 6 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 12 December 2023, e22
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-Technical Summary
Climate stabilization requires scaling-up technologies to capture and store carbon. Carbon removal could be very profitable, and some of the agents best placed to benefit are ‘carbon majors’, i.e. fossil fuel companies. We argue that in ordinary circumstances only agents without significant historical climate responsibilities would be entitled to the full benefits from carbon removal. Under non-ideal conditions, carbon majors might be entitled to benefit, provided that no other agent could remove similar quantities of carbon at similar costs. This burden of proof is only likely to be met in countries with poor governance capacities.
Technical SummaryClimate stabilization requires scaling up technologies to capture and store carbon. Some of the agents best placed to profit from carbon removal are ‘carbon majors’, especially fossil fuel companies. Yet incentivizing carbon majors to undertake carbon removal poses an ethical dilemma: carbon majors have made significant historical contributions to climate change and have significantly benefitted from such contributions without being made to compensate for resulting climate harm. This is why it seems unfair to reward them with additional economic benefits. However, carbon majors possess the technological skills and infrastructure to upscale carbon removal efficiently. We argue that in ordinary circumstances, only agents without significant climate responsibilities would be morally entitled to fully benefit from carbon removal. Yet under non-ideal conditions, it might be permissible to reward carbon majors if no other agent were capable of removing as much carbon at similar costs and on similar timeframes. We believe this argument faces an imposing burden of proof that is only likely to be met in countries with poor governance capacities. In more favorable circumstances, including those of most OECD countries, rewarding carbon majors without having them pay for their historical climate responsibilities remains impermissible.
Social Media SummaryRewarding carbon majors to undertake carbon dioxide removal is unjust due to their historical climate responsibilities. Where possible, governments should empower other agents to remove CO2.
Contextualizing discourses of climate delay: a response to Lamb et al. (2020)
- Géraldine Pflieger, Kari De Pryck
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 6 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 November 2023, e20
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
Individuals and institutions seeking to delay climate action use a variety of new discursive strategies, emphasizing the downsides, spreading fatalism, or betting on technological fixes. This commentary highlights the importance of context when investigating discourses of climate delay. Depending on who holds them and why, some discourses can take on different meanings, hinder or enhance climate action.
Technical summaryIn this commentary, we propose a review of ‘Discourses of climate delay’ by Lamb et al. (2020). While we agree that discursive strategies of climate delay are taking new forms, we argue that such analysis should go beyond discourses and investigate the context in which they are enunciated to avoid oversimplifying the complexity of the debate about climate (in)action. Discourses, and the context in which they are enacted, hold an important place in climate deliberations and should be carefully analyzed from a multicultural perspective, open to social diversity.
Social media summaryAre all discourses of climate delay discourses of delay? Context matters when debating whether a discourse promotes (in)action.
Accelerating transformations for a just, sustainable future: 10 ‘Must Haves’
- Peter Schlosser, Johan Rockström, Clea Edwards, Paula Mirazo, Adrian Heilemann, Niklas H. Kitzmann, Siri L. Krobjinski
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 6 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 September 2023, e17
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
There is increasing evidence of extreme events and irreversible damage occurring faster than expected. Despite inescapable evidence of intersecting crises facing the Earth system and numerous efforts and agreements, global society is not on track to achieve its sustainability objectives. The 10 ‘Must Haves’ initiative aims to identify the pathways of accelerated systemic transformations needed across the globe toward a sustainable and just future where all can thrive on a healthy planet. In this Intelligence Briefing, the authors lay out the rationale for the project, the proposed targets, and set the stage for forthcoming work on action.
Technical summaryThis Intelligence Briefing recognizes the urgent need for global-scale transformations to overcome the crises facing humanity. The ‘10 Must Haves Initiative’, conceptualized by The Earth League and the participants of the Global Futures Conference, aims to provide a framework for accelerated transformations to bridge the gap between pledges and action related to global challenges to stay within planetary boundaries and ensure a safe and just future for all. Each ‘Must Have’ represents targets within which a forthcoming report outlines the specific ‘must-do’ actions, relevant actors and considerations for successful implementation. The authors put forth that we must have a limit of global warming as close to 1.5°C as possible by 2050; an immediate halt and reversal of the loss of nature's functions and diversity; just economies that operate within planetary boundaries; equitable access to resources needed for human well-being; governance transformations to stay within planetary boundaries; healthy, safe, and secure food for the global population; the reconnection of human well-being to planetary health; an ethical digital world providing for human security and, a resilient global society ready to respond to planetary crises.
Social media summary10 ‘Must Haves’ toward thriving future 4 all: global contingency plan toward transformation of unsustainable trajectory.
Earth stewardship, water resilience, and ethics in the Anthropocene
- Jeremy J. Schmidt
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 6 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 September 2023, e15
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
This article uses water to examine how the relationships of ethics to science are modified through the pursuit of Earth stewardship. Earth stewardship is often defined as the use of science to actively shape social–ecological relations by enhancing resilience. The changing relations of science to values are explored by considering how ideas of resilience operate to translate different ways of knowing water into the framework of Earth stewardship. This is not a neutral process, and Earth stewardship requires careful appraisal to ensure other ways of knowing water are not oppressed.
Technical summaryScientific disclosures of anthropogenic impacts on the Earth system – the Anthropocene – increasingly come with ethical diagnoses for value transformation and, often, Earth stewardship. This article examines the changing relationship of science to values in calls for Earth stewardship with special attention to water resilience. The article begins by situating recent efforts to reconceptualize human–water relations in view of anthropogenic impacts on the global water system. It then traces some of the ways that Earth stewardship has been articulated, especially as a framework supporting the use of science to actively shape social–ecological relations by enhancing resilience. The shift in relations of ethics and science entailed by Earth stewardship is placed in historical context before the issues of water resilience are examined. Resilience, and critiques of it, are then discussed for how they operate to translate different ways of knowing water into the framework of Earth stewardship. The ethical stakes of such translations are a core concern of the conclusion. Rather than reducing different ways of knowing water to those amendable to the framework of Earth stewardship, the article advances a pluralized approach as needed to respect multiple practices for knowing and relating to water – and resilience.
Social media summaryWater resilience is key to Earth stewardship; Jeremy Schmidt examines how it changes relations of science and ethics.
Community-based participatory climate action
- Andrea Restrepo-Mieth, Jocelyn Perry, Jonah Garnick, Michael Weisberg
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 6 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 August 2023, e14
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
Improving the flow of information between governments and local communities is paramount to achieving effective climate change mitigation and adaptation. We propose five pathways to deepen participation and improve community-based climate action. The pathways can be summarized as visualization, simulations to practice decision-making, participatory budgeting and planning, environmental civic service, and education and curriculum development. These pathways contribute to improving governance by consolidating in governments the practice of soliciting and incorporating community participation while simultaneously giving communities the tools and knowledge needed to become active contributors to climate change adaptation and mitigation measures.
Technical summaryCommunity participation is considered a key component in the design of responses to climate change. Substantial engagement of local communities is required to ensure information flow between governments and communities, but also because local communities are the primary sites of adaptation action. However, frontline communities are often excluded from decision-making and implementation processes due to political choices or failures to identify ways to make participatory frameworks more inclusive. Climate action requires the active engagement of communities in making consequential decisions, or what we term deepened participation. We propose five pathways to deepen participation: visualization, simulations to practice decision-making, participatory budgeting and planning, environmental civic service, and education and curriculum development. The five pathways identify strategies that can be incorporated into existing organizational and institutional frameworks or used to create new ones. Shortcomings related to each strategy are identified. Reflection by communities and governments is encouraged as they choose which participatory technique(s) to adopt.
Social media summaryClimate action requires the active engagement of communities. Learn five pathways to get started deepening participation.
Does a change in the ‘global net zero’ language matter?
- Hannah Parris, Annela Anger-Kraavi, Glen P. Peters
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 6 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 19 June 2023, e13
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
Changes in language used in long term climate policy can undermine their credibility and discourage climate action. Previous IPCC reports have promoted an idea of reaching ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) emissions by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. In the latest IPCC Report, this language has been changed.
To understand the impact of this change, we survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in long term policy goals. We find a low tolerance for a change and, indeed, there is substantial finance, business and political effort behind the idea of reaching GNZ by 2050.
This suggests that GNZ by 2050 will remain central to climate action.
Technical summaryConsistency in language in long term policy goals is central to building a (political) constituency in support of the Paris Agreement. Changes in language can undermine policy credibility, and stall effective mitigation action.
Recent changes in IPCC language to describe ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) as being reached in the ‘early or mid 2050s’ (AR6 WG1) could risk undermining the substantial cultural, political and financial momentum that has developed behind the interpretation – first developed by the IPCC SR 1.5 °C Report – that GNZ must be reached by 2050.
We survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in policy goals and find a strong preference for a ‘stable’ long term policy target, widely interpreted as reaching ‘GNZ by 2050’, and a rejection of flexibility in long term policy targets, even as new scientific information becomes available.
‘GNZ by 2050’ is no longer a science based target, but has transitioned to a cultural and political metaphor actively used by stakeholders to guide their climate decision making. This makes ‘GNZ by 2050’ no less valid than the original scientific concept. This may stimulate further ‘political calibration’ or between the policy and modelling communities.
Social media summarySig. momentum is behind global net zero by 2050.Will changes in IPCC mitigation language de-rail global climate action?
The future of meat and dairy consumption in the UK: exploring different policy scenarios to meet net zero targets and improve population health
- Silvia Pastorino, Laura Cornelsen, Sol Cuevas Garcia-Dorado, Alan D Dangour, James Milner, Ai Milojevic, Pauline Scheelbeek, Paul Wilkinson, Rosemary Green
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 6 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 May 2023, e10
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-Technical Summary
To meet the UK's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) recommended to reduce current meat and dairy intake by 20% by 2030. In this study, we modelled the impact of potential dietary changes on GHG emissions and water use with the selected scenarios based on the trend of food purchase and meat and dairy reduction policy. We show that implementing fiscal measures and facilitating innovations in production of meat alternatives would accelerate existing positive trends, help the UK reach the CCC 2030 target of 20% meat and dairy reduction and increase fruit and vegetable intake.
Technical SummaryWe used 2001–2019 data from the Family Food module of the Living Costs and Food Survey (LCF), an annual UK survey of about 5,000 representative households recording quantities of all food and drink purchases, to model four 2030 dietary scenarios: Business as usual (BAU); two fiscal policy scenarios (‘fiscal 10%’ and ‘fiscal 20%’), combining either a 10% meat and dairy tax and a 10% fruit and vegetable subsidy, or a 20% tax and 20% subsidy on the same foods; and an ‘innovation scenario’ substituting traditionally-produced meat and dairy with plant-based analogues and animal proteins produced in laboratories. Compared to 2019 levels, we forecasted reductions in the range of 5–30% for meat and 8–32% for dairy across scenarios. Meat reductions could be up to 21.5% (fiscal20%) and 30.4% (innovation). For all scenarios we forecasted an increase in fruit and vegetables intake in the range of 3–13.5%; with the fiscal 20% scenario showing highest increases (13.5%). GHG emissions and water use reductions were highest for the innovation scenario (−19.8%, −16.2%) followed by fiscal 20% (−15.8%, −9.2%) fiscal 10% (−12.1%, 5.9%) and BAU (−8.3%, −2.6%) scenarios. Compared to average households, low-income households had similar patterns of change, but both past and predicted purchase of meat, fruit and vegetables and environmental footprints were lower.
Social Media SummaryMeat and dairy-reduction policies would help meet net zero targets and improve population health in the UK.
Towards a global sustainable development agenda built on social–ecological resilience
- Murray W. Scown, Robin K. Craig, Craig R. Allen, Lance Gunderson, David G. Angeler, Jorge H. Garcia, Ahjond Garmestani
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 6 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 April 2023, e8
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
The United Nations' sustainable development goals (SDGs) articulate societal aspirations for people and our planet. Many scientists have criticised the SDGs and some have suggested that a better understanding of the complex interactions between society and the environment should underpin the next global development agenda. We further this discussion through the theory of social–ecological resilience, which emphasises the ability of systems to absorb, adapt, and transform in the face of change. We determine the strengths of the current SDGs, which should form a basis for the next agenda, and identify key gaps that should be filled.
Technical summaryThe United Nations' sustainable development goals (SDGs) are past their halfway point and the next global development agenda will soon need to be developed. While laudable, the SDGs have received strong criticism from many, and scholars have proposed that adopting complex adaptive or social–ecological system approaches would increase the effectiveness of the agenda. Here we dive deeper into these discussions to explore how the theory of social–ecological resilience could serve as a strong foundation for the next global sustainable development agenda. We identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current SDGs by determining which of the 169 targets address each of 43 factors affecting social–ecological resilience that we have compiled from the literature. The SDGs with the strongest connections to social–ecological resilience are the environment-focus goals (SDGs 2, 6, 13, 14, 15), which are also the goals consistently under-prioritised in the implementation of the current agenda. In terms of the 43 factors affecting social–ecological resilience, the SDG strengths lie in their communication, inclusive decision making, financial support, regulatory incentives, economic diversity, and transparency in governance and law. On the contrary, ecological factors of resilience are seriously lacking in the SDGs, particularly with regards to scale, cross-scale interactions, and non-stationarity.
Social media summaryThe post-2030 agenda should build on strengths of SDGs 2, 6, 13, 14, 15, and fill gaps in scale, variability, and feedbacks.
Ten new insights in climate science 2022 – CORRIGENDUM
- Maria A. Martin, Emmanuel A. Boakye, Emily Boyd
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 6 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 05 January 2023, e1
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
Why the impacts of climate change may make us less likely to reduce emissions
- Joel Millward-Hopkins
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 5 / 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 07 December 2022, e21
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
A widely held belief is that once the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, especially by affluent populations, the necessary support for a politics prioritising ambitious emissions reductions will follow. But consideration of the indirect socioeconomic impacts of warming suggests this could be false hope.
Technical summaryThere is some evidence to support the common intuition that, as the direct impacts of warming intensify – particularly in the affluent Global North – a politics ambitious enough to confront the climate emergency may finally find support. However, it seems at least equally likely that the opposite trend will prevail. This proposition can be understood by considering various indirect impacts of warming, including the widening of socioeconomic inequalities (within and between countries), increases in migration (intra- and inter-nationally) and heightened risk of conflict (from violence and war through to hate speech and crime). Compiling these impacts reveals a considerable and highly inconvenient overlap with key drivers of the authoritarian populism that has proliferated in the 21st century. It highlights the risk of a socio-ecological feedback loop where the consequences of warming create a political environment entirely at odds with that required to reduce emissions. Such a future is, of course, far from inevitable. Nonetheless, the risks highlight the urgent need to find public support for combined solutions to climate change and inequality, which go well beyond the status-quo. This is necessary not only for reasons of economic and climate justice, but in order to mitigate political barriers to carbon mitigation itself.
Social media summaryAs the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, we may vote for precisely the wrong people.
Ten new insights in climate science 2022
- Maria A. Martin, Emmanuel A. Boakye, Emily Boyd, Wendy Broadgate, Mercedes Bustamante, Josep G. Canadell, Edward R. Carr, Eric K. Chu, Helen Cleugh, Szilvia Csevár, Marwa Daoudy, Ariane de Bremond, Meghnath Dhimal, Kristie L. Ebi, Clea Edwards, Sabine Fuss, Martin P. Girardin, Bruce Glavovic, Sophie Hebden, Marina Hirota, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Saleemul Huq, Karin Ingold, Ola M. Johannessen, Yasuko Kameyama, Nilushi Kumarasinghe, Gaby S. Langendijk, Tabea Lissner, Shuaib Lwasa, Catherine Machalaba, Aaron Maltais, Manu V. Mathai, Cheikh Mbow, Karen E. McNamara, Aditi Mukherji, Virginia Murray, Jaroslav Mysiak, Chukwumerije Okereke, Daniel Ospina, Friederike Otto, Anjal Prakash, Juan M. Pulhin, Emmanuel Raju, Aaron Redman, Kanta K. Rigaud, Johan Rockström, Joyashree Roy, E. Lisa F. Schipper, Peter Schlosser, Karsten A. Schulz, Kim Schumacher, Luana Schwarz, Murray Scown, Barbora Šedová, Tasneem A. Siddiqui, Chandni Singh, Giles B. Sioen, Detlef Stammer, Norman J. Steinert, Sunhee Suk, Rowan Sutton, Lisa Thalheimer, Maarten van Aalst, Kees van der Geest, Zhirong Jerry Zhao
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 5 / 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 10 November 2022, e20
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
We summarize what we assess as the past year's most important findings within climate change research: limits to adaptation, vulnerability hotspots, new threats coming from the climate–health nexus, climate (im)mobility and security, sustainable practices for land use and finance, losses and damages, inclusive societal climate decisions and ways to overcome structural barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C.
Technical summaryWe synthesize 10 topics within climate research where there have been significant advances or emerging scientific consensus since January 2021. The selection of these insights was based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings concern: (1) new aspects of soft and hard limits to adaptation; (2) the emergence of regional vulnerability hotspots from climate impacts and human vulnerability; (3) new threats on the climate–health horizon – some involving plants and animals; (4) climate (im)mobility and the need for anticipatory action; (5) security and climate; (6) sustainable land management as a prerequisite to land-based solutions; (7) sustainable finance practices in the private sector and the need for political guidance; (8) the urgent planetary imperative for addressing losses and damages; (9) inclusive societal choices for climate-resilient development and (10) how to overcome barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C.
Social media summaryScience has evidence on barriers to mitigation and how to overcome them to avoid limits to adaptation across multiple fields.
On economic modeling of carbon dioxide removal: values, bias, and norms for good policy-advising modeling
- Simon Hollnaicher
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 5 / 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 03 November 2022, e18
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are important scientific tools for advising policymakers and the public on climate mitigation. Recent results of modeling exercises relied upon large amounts of techniques that can capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, undoing current and past emissions. I argue that the reliance on such techniques unduly shifts risk to future generations and away from current high emitting countries. From an ethical point of view, this is problematic. IAM studies need to be more explicit about the value positions that evidence of mitigation pathways depends upon and should represent a wider array of plausible value positions.
Technical summaryThis paper analyzes the nonepistemic value judgments involved in modeling Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques. The comparably high uncertainty of these techniques gives rise to epistemic risk when large-scale CDR is relied upon in most scenario evidence. Technological assumptions on CDR are thus entangled with nonepistemic value judgments. In particular, the reliance on large-scale CDR implies shifting risk to future generations and thereby gives a one-sided answer to questions of intergenerational justice. This bias in integrated assessment modeling is problematic given the policy-advising role of integrated modeling. Modeling climate mitigation should focus on transforming these implicit value positions into explicit scenario parameters and should aim to provide scenario evidence on the complete array of value-laden mitigation strategies.
Social media summaryThe ethics of mitigation pathways, for example in relation to CDR, must be made transparent and plural.