Impacts of meeting minimum access on critical earth systems amidst the Great Inequality

The Sustainable Development Goals aim to improve access to resources and services, reduce environmental degradation, eradicate poverty and reduce inequality. However, the magnitude of the environmental burden that would arise from meeting the needs of the poorest is under debate—especially when compared to much larger burdens from the rich. We show that the ‘Great Acceleration’ of human impacts was characterized by a ‘Great Inequality’ in using and damaging the environment. We then operationalize ‘just access’ to minimum energy, water, food and infrastructure. We show that achieving just access in 2018, with existing inequalities, technologies and behaviours, would have produced 2–26% additional impacts on the Earth’s natural systems of climate, water, land and nutrients—thus further crossing planetary boundaries. These hypothetical impacts, caused by about a third of humanity, equalled those caused by the wealthiest 1–4%. Technological and behavioural changes thus far, while important, did not deliver just access within a stable Earth system. Achieving these goals therefore calls for a radical redistribution of resources

Achieving a nature- and people-positive future

Despite decades of increasing investment in conservation, we have not succeeded in “bending the curve” of biodiversity decline. Efforts to meet new targets and goals for the next three decades risk repeating this outcome due to three factors: neglect of increasing drivers of decline; unrealistic expectations and time frames of biodiversity recovery; and insufficient attention to justice within and between generations and across countries. Our Earth system justice approach identifies six sets of actions that when tackled simultaneously address these failings: (1) reduce and reverse direct and indirect drivers causing decline; (2) halt and reverse biodiversity loss; (3) restore and regenerate biodiversity to a safe state; (4) raise minimum wellbeing for all; (5) eliminate over-consumption and excesses associated with accumulation of capital; and (6) uphold and respect the rights and responsibilities of all communities, present and future. Current conservation campaigns primarily address actions 2 and 3, with urgent upscaling of actions 1, 4, 5, and 6 needed to help deliver the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

Safe and just Earth system boundaries

The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked 1-3, yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently 4,5. Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. We propose ESBs for maintaining the resilience and stability of the Earth system (safe ESBs) and minimizing exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change (a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice) 4. The stricter of the safe or just boundaries sets the integrated safe and just ESB. Our findings show that justice considerations constrain the integrated ESBs more than safety considerations for climate and atmospheric aerosol loading. Seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of global land area are already exceeded. We propose that our assessment provides a quantitative foundation for safeguarding the global commons for all people now and into the future

Safe and just Earth system boundaries

The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked1-3, yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently4,5. Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. We propose ESBs for maintaining the resilience and stability of the Earth system (safe ESBs) and minimizing exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change (a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice)4. The stricter of the safe or just boundaries sets the integrated safe and just ESB. Our findings show that justice considerations constrain the integrated ESBs more than safety considerations for climate and atmospheric aerosol loading. Seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of global land area are already exceeded. We propose that our assessment provides a quantitative foundation for safeguarding the global commons for all people now and into the future

Achieving a nature- and people-positive future

Despite decades of increasing investment in conservation, we have not succeeded in “bending the curve” of biodiversity decline. Efforts to meet new targets and goals for the next three decades risk repeating this outcome due to three factors: neglect of increasing drivers of decline; unrealistic expectations and time frames of biodiversity recovery; and insufficient attention to justice within and between generations and across countries. Our Earth system justice approach identifies six sets of actions that when tackled simultaneously address these failings: (1) reduce and reverse direct and indirect drivers causing decline; (2) halt and reverse biodiversity loss; (3) restore and regenerate biodiversity to a safe state; (4) raise minimum wellbeing for all; (5) eliminate over-consumption and excesses associated with accumulation of capital; and (6) uphold and respect the rights and responsibilities of all communities, present and future. Current conservation campaigns primarily address actions 2 and 3, with urgent upscaling of actions 1, 4, 5, and 6 needed to help deliver the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

Impacts of meeting minimum access on critical earth systems amidst the Great Inequality

The Sustainable Development Goals aim to improve access to resources and services, reduce environmental degradation, eradicate poverty and reduce inequality. However, the magnitude of the environmental burden that would arise from meeting the needs of the poorest is under debate—especially when compared to much larger burdens from the rich. We show that the ‘Great Acceleration’ of human impacts was characterized by a ‘Great Inequality’ in using and damaging the environment. We then operationalize ‘just access’ to minimum energy, water, food and infrastructure. We show that achieving just access in 2018, with existing inequalities, technologies and behaviours, would have produced 2–26% additional impacts on the Earth’s natural systems of climate, water, land and nutrients—thus further crossing planetary boundaries. These hypothetical impacts, caused by about a third of humanity, equalled those caused by the wealthiest 1–4%. Technological and behavioural changes thus far, while important, did not deliver just access within a stable Earth system. Achieving these goals therefore calls for a radical redistribution of resources

Safe and just Earth system boundaries

The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked1,2,3, yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently4,5. Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. We propose ESBs for maintaining the resilience and stability of the Earth system (safe ESBs) and minimizing exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change (a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice)4. The stricter of the safe or just boundaries sets the integrated safe and just ESB. Our findings show that justice considerations constrain the integrated ESBs more than safety considerations for climate and atmospheric aerosol loading. Seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of global land area are already exceeded. We propose that our assessment provides a quantitative foundation for safeguarding the global commons for all people now and into the future