Non-technical summary This paper expands the range of scenarios usually explored in integrated assessment models by exploring unconventional economic scenarios (steady-state and degrowth) and assuming no use of negative emissions. It is shown, using a mathematical model of climate and economy, that keeping cumulative emissions within the 1.5 degree carbon budget is possible under all growth assumptions, assuming a rapid electrification of end use and an immediate upscaling of renewable energy investments. Under business-as-usual investment assumptions no economic trajectory corresponds with emissions reductions consistent with the 1.5 degree carbon budget. Technical summary This paper presents a stock-flow consistent input–output integrated assessment model designed to explore the dual dynamics of transitioning to renewable energy while electrifying end use subject a carbon budget constraint. Unlike the majority of conventional integrated assessment model analyses, this paper does not assume the deployment of carbon dioxide removal and examines the role that alternative economic pathways (steady-states and degrowth) may play in achieving 1.5°C consistent emissions pathways. The model is internally calibrated based on a life-cycle energy return on investment scheme and the energy transition dynamics are captured via a dynamic input–output formulation. Renewable energy investment as a fraction of gross domestic product for successful emissions pathways reaches 5%. In terms of new capital requirements and investments, degrowth trajectories impose lower transition requirements than steady-state and growth trajectories. Social media summary We explore the role that steady-state and degrowth economic trajectories may play in emissions reductions consistent with a 1.5 degree world..
{"title":"Ecological macroeconomic assessment of meeting a carbon budget without negative emissions","authors":"Martin R. Sers","doi":"10.1017/sus.2022.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2022.2","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary This paper expands the range of scenarios usually explored in integrated assessment models by exploring unconventional economic scenarios (steady-state and degrowth) and assuming no use of negative emissions. It is shown, using a mathematical model of climate and economy, that keeping cumulative emissions within the 1.5 degree carbon budget is possible under all growth assumptions, assuming a rapid electrification of end use and an immediate upscaling of renewable energy investments. Under business-as-usual investment assumptions no economic trajectory corresponds with emissions reductions consistent with the 1.5 degree carbon budget. Technical summary This paper presents a stock-flow consistent input–output integrated assessment model designed to explore the dual dynamics of transitioning to renewable energy while electrifying end use subject a carbon budget constraint. Unlike the majority of conventional integrated assessment model analyses, this paper does not assume the deployment of carbon dioxide removal and examines the role that alternative economic pathways (steady-states and degrowth) may play in achieving 1.5°C consistent emissions pathways. The model is internally calibrated based on a life-cycle energy return on investment scheme and the energy transition dynamics are captured via a dynamic input–output formulation. Renewable energy investment as a fraction of gross domestic product for successful emissions pathways reaches 5%. In terms of new capital requirements and investments, degrowth trajectories impose lower transition requirements than steady-state and growth trajectories. Social media summary We explore the role that steady-state and degrowth economic trajectories may play in emissions reductions consistent with a 1.5 degree world..","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48260639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-technical summary By distinguishing between developed and less developed nations, the concept of development subtly establishes hierarchies and a supposed comparability, which is highly ambivalent from a socio-ethical point of view. The idea of holistic development in Catholic social teaching focus on cultural dimensions and therefore sets an important counter accent to the fixation on socio-technically producible and countable things. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) lack a coherence between the social and the ecological components as well as a naming of power conflicts. For a power-critical, postcolonial and participatory concept of development, their interpretation could learn substantially from the encyclical Laudato si'. Technical summary The paradigm of development is subjected to a radical critique in parts of the academic debate: Is the idea of development, which in a gesture of aid divides the world into “developed” and “underdeveloped” nations and thus establishes a hierarchy, still politically and morally justifiable at all? Has this concept possibly become a backdoor to prolong the old colonial power relations into the 21st century, even to increase them in some cases? Is development one of the great utopias of the 20th century that promised freedom and brought division? Is the ecological overexploitation of global resources the inevitable reverse side of the spread of the Western model of prosperity disguised as “development”? Do the SDGs act subcutaneously as enablers of Western imperial power, or do they represent a genuine paradigm shift? This article explores these questions in four steps: 1. Is the age of development is over? 2. The ideal of “integral development” – steps of a revision process 3. In the tension between ecological and social goals: A Comparison of the “Sustainable Development Goals” and the Encyclical Laudato si' 4. Priorities and strategies of a “post-utopian development policy”. Social media summary The shadows of colonial thinking are still effective today in development concepts fixated on countable factors of socioeconomic efficiency.
{"title":"Development postcolonial: a critical approach to understanding SDGs in the perspective of Christian social ethics","authors":"M. Vogt","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.31","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary By distinguishing between developed and less developed nations, the concept of development subtly establishes hierarchies and a supposed comparability, which is highly ambivalent from a socio-ethical point of view. The idea of holistic development in Catholic social teaching focus on cultural dimensions and therefore sets an important counter accent to the fixation on socio-technically producible and countable things. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) lack a coherence between the social and the ecological components as well as a naming of power conflicts. For a power-critical, postcolonial and participatory concept of development, their interpretation could learn substantially from the encyclical Laudato si'. Technical summary The paradigm of development is subjected to a radical critique in parts of the academic debate: Is the idea of development, which in a gesture of aid divides the world into “developed” and “underdeveloped” nations and thus establishes a hierarchy, still politically and morally justifiable at all? Has this concept possibly become a backdoor to prolong the old colonial power relations into the 21st century, even to increase them in some cases? Is development one of the great utopias of the 20th century that promised freedom and brought division? Is the ecological overexploitation of global resources the inevitable reverse side of the spread of the Western model of prosperity disguised as “development”? Do the SDGs act subcutaneously as enablers of Western imperial power, or do they represent a genuine paradigm shift? This article explores these questions in four steps: 1. Is the age of development is over? 2. The ideal of “integral development” – steps of a revision process 3. In the tension between ecological and social goals: A Comparison of the “Sustainable Development Goals” and the Encyclical Laudato si' 4. Priorities and strategies of a “post-utopian development policy”. Social media summary The shadows of colonial thinking are still effective today in development concepts fixated on countable factors of socioeconomic efficiency.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42781720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
T. Lenton, Scarlett Benson, Talia Smith, Theodora Ewer, Victor Lanel, Elizabeth Petykowski, T. Powell, J. Abrams, F. Blomsma, S. Sharpe
Non-technical summary Transforming towards global sustainability requires a dramatic acceleration of social change. Hence, there is growing interest in finding ‘positive tipping points’ at which small interventions can trigger self-reinforcing feedbacks that accelerate systemic change. Examples have recently been seen in power generation and personal transport, but how can we identify positive tipping points that have yet to occur? We synthesise theory and examples to provide initial guidelines for creating enabling conditions, sensing when a system can be positively tipped, who can trigger it, and how they can trigger it. All of us can play a part in triggering positive tipping points. Technical summary Recent work on positive tipping points towards sustainability has focused on social-technological systems and the agency of policymakers to tip change, whilst earlier work identified social-ecological positive feedbacks triggered by diverse actors. We bring these together to consider positive tipping points across social-technological-ecological systems and the potential for multiple actors and interventions to trigger them. Established theory and examples provide several generic mechanisms for triggering tipping points. From these we identify specific enabling conditions, reinforcing feedbacks, actors and interventions that can contribute to triggering positive tipping points in the adoption of sustainable behaviours and technologies. Actions that can create enabling conditions for positive tipping include targeting smaller populations, altering social network structure, providing relevant information, reducing price, improving performance, desirability and accessibility, and coordinating complementary technologies. Actions that can trigger positive tipping include social, technological and ecological innovations, policy interventions, public investment, private investment, broadcasting public information, and behavioural nudges. Positive tipping points can help counter widespread feelings of disempowerment in the face of global challenges and help unlock ‘paralysis by complexity’. A key research agenda is to consider how different agents and interventions can most effectively work together to create system-wide positive tipping points whilst ensuring a just transformation. Social media summary We identify key actors and actions that can enable and trigger positive tipping points towards global sustainability.
{"title":"Operationalising positive tipping points towards global sustainability","authors":"T. Lenton, Scarlett Benson, Talia Smith, Theodora Ewer, Victor Lanel, Elizabeth Petykowski, T. Powell, J. Abrams, F. Blomsma, S. Sharpe","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.30","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Transforming towards global sustainability requires a dramatic acceleration of social change. Hence, there is growing interest in finding ‘positive tipping points’ at which small interventions can trigger self-reinforcing feedbacks that accelerate systemic change. Examples have recently been seen in power generation and personal transport, but how can we identify positive tipping points that have yet to occur? We synthesise theory and examples to provide initial guidelines for creating enabling conditions, sensing when a system can be positively tipped, who can trigger it, and how they can trigger it. All of us can play a part in triggering positive tipping points. Technical summary Recent work on positive tipping points towards sustainability has focused on social-technological systems and the agency of policymakers to tip change, whilst earlier work identified social-ecological positive feedbacks triggered by diverse actors. We bring these together to consider positive tipping points across social-technological-ecological systems and the potential for multiple actors and interventions to trigger them. Established theory and examples provide several generic mechanisms for triggering tipping points. From these we identify specific enabling conditions, reinforcing feedbacks, actors and interventions that can contribute to triggering positive tipping points in the adoption of sustainable behaviours and technologies. Actions that can create enabling conditions for positive tipping include targeting smaller populations, altering social network structure, providing relevant information, reducing price, improving performance, desirability and accessibility, and coordinating complementary technologies. Actions that can trigger positive tipping include social, technological and ecological innovations, policy interventions, public investment, private investment, broadcasting public information, and behavioural nudges. Positive tipping points can help counter widespread feelings of disempowerment in the face of global challenges and help unlock ‘paralysis by complexity’. A key research agenda is to consider how different agents and interventions can most effectively work together to create system-wide positive tipping points whilst ensuring a just transformation. Social media summary We identify key actors and actions that can enable and trigger positive tipping points towards global sustainability.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49141002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
David Collste, S. Cornell, J. Randers, J. Rockström, P. Stoknes
Non-technical summary Transformation of the world towards sustainability in line with the 2030 Agenda requires progress on multiple dimensions of human well-being. We track development of relevant indicators for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1–7 against gross domestic product (GDP) per person in seven world regions and the world as a whole. Across the regions, we find uniform development patterns where SDGs 1–7 – and therefore main human needs – are achieved at around US$15,000 measured in 2011 US$ purchasing power parity (PPP). Technical summary How does GDP per person relate to the achievement of well-being as targeted by the 2030 Agenda? The 2030 Agenda includes global ambitions to meet human needs and aspirations. However, these need to be met within planetary boundaries. In nascent world-earth modelling, human well-being as well as global environmental impacts are linked through economic production, which is tracked by GDP. We examined historic developments on 5-year intervals, 1980–2015, between average income and the advancement on indicators of SDGs 1–7. This was done for both seven world regions and the world as a whole. We find uniform patterns of saturation for all regions above an income threshold somewhere around US$15,000 measured in 2011 US$ PPP. At this level, main human needs and capabilities are met. The level is also consistent with studies of life satisfaction and the Easterlin paradox. We observe stark differences with respect to scale: the patterns of the world as an aggregated whole develop differently from all its seven regions, with implications for world-earth model construction – and sustainability transformations. Social media summary Reaching human well-being #SDGs takes GDP levels of $15k. This may help shape transformation to a world that respects #PlanetaryBoundaries.
{"title":"Human well-being in the Anthropocene: limits to growth","authors":"David Collste, S. Cornell, J. Randers, J. Rockström, P. Stoknes","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.26","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Transformation of the world towards sustainability in line with the 2030 Agenda requires progress on multiple dimensions of human well-being. We track development of relevant indicators for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 1–7 against gross domestic product (GDP) per person in seven world regions and the world as a whole. Across the regions, we find uniform development patterns where SDGs 1–7 – and therefore main human needs – are achieved at around US$15,000 measured in 2011 US$ purchasing power parity (PPP). Technical summary How does GDP per person relate to the achievement of well-being as targeted by the 2030 Agenda? The 2030 Agenda includes global ambitions to meet human needs and aspirations. However, these need to be met within planetary boundaries. In nascent world-earth modelling, human well-being as well as global environmental impacts are linked through economic production, which is tracked by GDP. We examined historic developments on 5-year intervals, 1980–2015, between average income and the advancement on indicators of SDGs 1–7. This was done for both seven world regions and the world as a whole. We find uniform patterns of saturation for all regions above an income threshold somewhere around US$15,000 measured in 2011 US$ PPP. At this level, main human needs and capabilities are met. The level is also consistent with studies of life satisfaction and the Easterlin paradox. We observe stark differences with respect to scale: the patterns of the world as an aggregated whole develop differently from all its seven regions, with implications for world-earth model construction – and sustainability transformations. Social media summary Reaching human well-being #SDGs takes GDP levels of $15k. This may help shape transformation to a world that respects #PlanetaryBoundaries.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44564585","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-technical summary Our time seems to be trapped in a paradox. On the one hand, the capacity to master information has tremendously increased, but on the other hand the capacity to use the knowledge humanity produces seems at stake. There is a gap between our capacity to know and our capacity to act. We attempt to better understand that situation by considering the evolution of knowledge processing along human history, in particular the relation between the development of information technologies and the complexity of societies, the balance between the known and the unknown, and the current emergence of autonomous machines allowing intelligent processes. Technical summary Information-processing capacities developed historically in conjunction with the complexity of human societies. Positive feedback loops contributed to the co-evolution of knowledge, social organization, environmental transformation, and information technologies. Very powerful loops now drive the rapid emergence of global digital platforms, disrupting legacy organizations and economic equilibria. The simultaneous emergence of the awareness of the sustainability conundrum and the digital revolution is striking. Both are extremely disruptive and contribute to a surge in complexity, but how do they relate to each other? Paradoxically, as the capacity to master information increases, the capacity to use the knowledge humanity produces seems to lag. The objective of this paper is to analyze the current divergence between knowledge and action, from the angle of the co-evolution of information processing and societal transformation. We show how the interplay between perception and action, between the known and the unknown, between information processing and ontological uncertainty, has evolved toward a sense of control, a hubris, which abolishes the unknown and hinders action. A possible outcome of this interplay might lead to a society controlled to stay in its safe operating space, involving a strong delegation of information processing to autonomous machines, as well as extensive forms of biopolitics. Social media summary The sustainability conundrum and the digital revolution are entangled phenomena leading to complexity and disruption.
{"title":"The evolution of knowledge processing and the sustainability conundrum","authors":"Stéphane Grumbach, S. van der Leeuw","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.29","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Our time seems to be trapped in a paradox. On the one hand, the capacity to master information has tremendously increased, but on the other hand the capacity to use the knowledge humanity produces seems at stake. There is a gap between our capacity to know and our capacity to act. We attempt to better understand that situation by considering the evolution of knowledge processing along human history, in particular the relation between the development of information technologies and the complexity of societies, the balance between the known and the unknown, and the current emergence of autonomous machines allowing intelligent processes. Technical summary Information-processing capacities developed historically in conjunction with the complexity of human societies. Positive feedback loops contributed to the co-evolution of knowledge, social organization, environmental transformation, and information technologies. Very powerful loops now drive the rapid emergence of global digital platforms, disrupting legacy organizations and economic equilibria. The simultaneous emergence of the awareness of the sustainability conundrum and the digital revolution is striking. Both are extremely disruptive and contribute to a surge in complexity, but how do they relate to each other? Paradoxically, as the capacity to master information increases, the capacity to use the knowledge humanity produces seems to lag. The objective of this paper is to analyze the current divergence between knowledge and action, from the angle of the co-evolution of information processing and societal transformation. We show how the interplay between perception and action, between the known and the unknown, between information processing and ontological uncertainty, has evolved toward a sense of control, a hubris, which abolishes the unknown and hinders action. A possible outcome of this interplay might lead to a society controlled to stay in its safe operating space, involving a strong delegation of information processing to autonomous machines, as well as extensive forms of biopolitics. Social media summary The sustainability conundrum and the digital revolution are entangled phenomena leading to complexity and disruption.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47798444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
K. Dillman, Michał Czepkiewicz, J. Heinonen, B. Davíðsdóttir
Non-technical summary The exponential growth of humanity's resource consumption over the last half-century has led to ecological decline while people's basic needs have not been universally satisfied. The ‘doughnut economy’ and sustainable consumption corridor concepts have gained global attention, providing frameworks in which the maximum allowable environmental impacts and the minimum social levels acceptable to lead a good life establish a guiding pathway to meet human needs whilst remaining within the Earth's carrying capacity. We apply this thinking to the urban mobility sector in this article in an attempt to formulate a ‘safe and just space’ for urban mobility. Technical summary The theoretical and broad application of the ‘doughnut economy’ and sustainable consumption corridor concepts are lacking in implementation due to a limited understanding of sectoral thresholds. This study highlights the weakness of sustainable urban mobility indicator studies which often lack connections to ecological ceilings and social foundations and, thus, lack the ability to show if a mobility system is intergenerationally sustainable or not. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this knowledge gap and develop a mobility sector-focused sustainable consumption corridor. It does so by using a collection of concepts and associated indicators ranging from sustainable urban mobility, sustainable consumption corridors, ecological thresholds, needs theory and mobility social impacts to mobility poverty. The output of this study is an initial design of a mobility-focused sustainable consumption corridor with suggested themes and indicators to measure the relative performance of a region in relation to the material dimensions of the corridor accompanied by a discussion surrounding spatial, temporal and sectoral corridor-defining thresholds. This work provides a novel first step in the direction of sector-based sustainable consumption corridors which can aid in providing a transformational alternative to the status quo through the implementation of safe and just sectors. Social media summary This article applies the ‘doughnut economy’ and sustainable consumption corridors to the urban mobility sector. It provides a framework for evaluating urban mobility systems in terms of their ecological impacts (the ‘ecological ceiling’) and providing for human needs (the ‘social floor’), and for defining a ‘safe and just space for urban mobility’.
{"title":"A safe and just space for urban mobility: a framework for sector-based sustainable consumption corridor development","authors":"K. Dillman, Michał Czepkiewicz, J. Heinonen, B. Davíðsdóttir","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.28","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary The exponential growth of humanity's resource consumption over the last half-century has led to ecological decline while people's basic needs have not been universally satisfied. The ‘doughnut economy’ and sustainable consumption corridor concepts have gained global attention, providing frameworks in which the maximum allowable environmental impacts and the minimum social levels acceptable to lead a good life establish a guiding pathway to meet human needs whilst remaining within the Earth's carrying capacity. We apply this thinking to the urban mobility sector in this article in an attempt to formulate a ‘safe and just space’ for urban mobility. Technical summary The theoretical and broad application of the ‘doughnut economy’ and sustainable consumption corridor concepts are lacking in implementation due to a limited understanding of sectoral thresholds. This study highlights the weakness of sustainable urban mobility indicator studies which often lack connections to ecological ceilings and social foundations and, thus, lack the ability to show if a mobility system is intergenerationally sustainable or not. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this knowledge gap and develop a mobility sector-focused sustainable consumption corridor. It does so by using a collection of concepts and associated indicators ranging from sustainable urban mobility, sustainable consumption corridors, ecological thresholds, needs theory and mobility social impacts to mobility poverty. The output of this study is an initial design of a mobility-focused sustainable consumption corridor with suggested themes and indicators to measure the relative performance of a region in relation to the material dimensions of the corridor accompanied by a discussion surrounding spatial, temporal and sectoral corridor-defining thresholds. This work provides a novel first step in the direction of sector-based sustainable consumption corridors which can aid in providing a transformational alternative to the status quo through the implementation of safe and just sectors. Social media summary This article applies the ‘doughnut economy’ and sustainable consumption corridors to the urban mobility sector. It provides a framework for evaluating urban mobility systems in terms of their ecological impacts (the ‘ecological ceiling’) and providing for human needs (the ‘social floor’), and for defining a ‘safe and just space for urban mobility’.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42994441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Newell et al. (2021) provide an insightful interdisciplinary approach to address scaling from individual behaviour change to systems change. I highlight two contributions that are added by expanding this work to engage with the transformations and sustainability science communities: (1) perspectives on the dynamic relationship between individual change and systems change; and (2) the role of systems thinking for navigating complexity and critiquing systems framings.
{"title":"Scaling behaviour change for a 1.5 degree world: transformations and systems thinking","authors":"J. Leventon","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.27","url":null,"abstract":"Newell et al. (2021) provide an insightful interdisciplinary approach to address scaling from individual behaviour change to systems change. I highlight two contributions that are added by expanding this work to engage with the transformations and sustainability science communities: (1) perspectives on the dynamic relationship between individual change and systems change; and (2) the role of systems thinking for navigating complexity and critiquing systems framings.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48410930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-technical summary Tropical deforestation continues apace despite a proliferation of commitments made by companies and governments to control it. Halting and reversing deforestation requires multiple, complementary interventions by state and non-state actors at different scales. We argue that the order in which these instruments and actors are introduced into the policy mix matters. Sequences of interventions from case studies in Latin America show that government commitment is a critical first step, implemented through command-and-control measures and then incentives. Combined with REDD+, they create an enabling environment for supply chain initiatives. A more coordinated and deliberate polycentric governance is needed to achieve zero-deforestation. Technical summary Avoided deforestation provides a natural climate solution for reducing emissions while generating co-benefits for people and nature. However, unleashing this potential requires improved governance. Diverse coalitions of actors are designing interventions to protect forests, each with different motivations and specialization of strategies. We introduce a policy sequencing framework to advance our understanding of how to improve polycentric zero-deforestation governance. Focusing on commodity production in Costa Rica, Brazil, and Colombia, we reconstructed the policy mix of zero-deforestation interventions across three domains – domestic public policies, REDD+, and supply chain initiatives. We classified interventions according to their instrument mechanism – disincentives, incentives, enabling measures – and when they were introduced into the policy mix. We found a sequence of interventions that reflects stages of forest cover dynamics, but also depends on local political will and institutional capacity. Government command-and-control measures are needed early in the policy sequence to slow deforestation, with incentives added to increase legal compliance. REDD+ helps governments build an enabling environment that supports supply chain initiatives seeking to increase forest cover at later stages of the sequence. Policy sequencing and policyscape concepts advance the design of more deliberate polycentric forest governance that enhances actor coordination and instrument synergies in the policy mix. Social media summary How do we stop deforestation? The policy options are well-known, but the order in which they are introduced matters.
{"title":"Policy sequencing to reduce tropical deforestation","authors":"P. Furumo, E. Lambin","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.21","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Tropical deforestation continues apace despite a proliferation of commitments made by companies and governments to control it. Halting and reversing deforestation requires multiple, complementary interventions by state and non-state actors at different scales. We argue that the order in which these instruments and actors are introduced into the policy mix matters. Sequences of interventions from case studies in Latin America show that government commitment is a critical first step, implemented through command-and-control measures and then incentives. Combined with REDD+, they create an enabling environment for supply chain initiatives. A more coordinated and deliberate polycentric governance is needed to achieve zero-deforestation. Technical summary Avoided deforestation provides a natural climate solution for reducing emissions while generating co-benefits for people and nature. However, unleashing this potential requires improved governance. Diverse coalitions of actors are designing interventions to protect forests, each with different motivations and specialization of strategies. We introduce a policy sequencing framework to advance our understanding of how to improve polycentric zero-deforestation governance. Focusing on commodity production in Costa Rica, Brazil, and Colombia, we reconstructed the policy mix of zero-deforestation interventions across three domains – domestic public policies, REDD+, and supply chain initiatives. We classified interventions according to their instrument mechanism – disincentives, incentives, enabling measures – and when they were introduced into the policy mix. We found a sequence of interventions that reflects stages of forest cover dynamics, but also depends on local political will and institutional capacity. Government command-and-control measures are needed early in the policy sequence to slow deforestation, with incentives added to increase legal compliance. REDD+ helps governments build an enabling environment that supports supply chain initiatives seeking to increase forest cover at later stages of the sequence. Policy sequencing and policyscape concepts advance the design of more deliberate polycentric forest governance that enhances actor coordination and instrument synergies in the policy mix. Social media summary How do we stop deforestation? The policy options are well-known, but the order in which they are introduced matters.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45519173","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-technical summary Negative emissions technologies (NETs) have received increasing interest in recent years as a potential part of a portfolio of measures to address anthropogenic climate change, in particular following the 2015 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement and the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report ‘Global Warming of 1.5 °C’. This increasing significance for global climate policy is faced with a multitude of open questions regarding, among others, the geopolitical implications of large-scale use of NETs. This paper outlines what we can learn for the possible geopolitical futures of NETs from existing international ‘green’ approaches. Technical summary We contribute to assessing political implications of NET scenarios, addressing the following question: What are potential geopolitical challenges, conflicts, and consequences of a large-scale deployment of three NETs, namely afforestation, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS)? We turn to the two cases of renewable energies and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation for answers. We find that, first, not only afforestation, but also BECCS and even DACCS would have a geopolitical impact due to their requirements of territory – in the latter two cases, for instance, due to requirements for appropriate carbon storage space. Second, the material requirements of various NETs might also impact geopolitical constellations and induce conflict, providing certain countries and regions of the world with new leverage in the case of large-scale deployment, for instance those which can provide raw materials for fertilizer (for afforestation and BECCS) or energy generation (for DACCS). Third, discursive construction of space and identity might lead to very interesting new patterns of contestation, for instance if specific nation-states can successfully construct an identity of front-running climate protectors and use this to put pressure on other states. Social media summary What might be geopolitical implications of using NETs on a large scale to counteract anthropogenic climate change?
{"title":"The geopolitics of negative emissions technologies: learning lessons from REDD+ and renewable energy for afforestation, BECCS, and direct air capture","authors":"J. Kreuter, Markus Lederer","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.24","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Negative emissions technologies (NETs) have received increasing interest in recent years as a potential part of a portfolio of measures to address anthropogenic climate change, in particular following the 2015 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement and the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report ‘Global Warming of 1.5 °C’. This increasing significance for global climate policy is faced with a multitude of open questions regarding, among others, the geopolitical implications of large-scale use of NETs. This paper outlines what we can learn for the possible geopolitical futures of NETs from existing international ‘green’ approaches. Technical summary We contribute to assessing political implications of NET scenarios, addressing the following question: What are potential geopolitical challenges, conflicts, and consequences of a large-scale deployment of three NETs, namely afforestation, bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCS)? We turn to the two cases of renewable energies and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation for answers. We find that, first, not only afforestation, but also BECCS and even DACCS would have a geopolitical impact due to their requirements of territory – in the latter two cases, for instance, due to requirements for appropriate carbon storage space. Second, the material requirements of various NETs might also impact geopolitical constellations and induce conflict, providing certain countries and regions of the world with new leverage in the case of large-scale deployment, for instance those which can provide raw materials for fertilizer (for afforestation and BECCS) or energy generation (for DACCS). Third, discursive construction of space and identity might lead to very interesting new patterns of contestation, for instance if specific nation-states can successfully construct an identity of front-running climate protectors and use this to put pressure on other states. Social media summary What might be geopolitical implications of using NETs on a large scale to counteract anthropogenic climate change?","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42418315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Maria A. Martin, Olga Alcaraz Sendra, A. Bastos, N. Bauer, C. Bertram, Thorsten Blenckner, K. Bowen, P. Brando, T. Rudolph, M. Büchs, M. Bustamante, Deliang Chen, H. Cleugh, P. Dasgupta, F. Denton, J. Donges, F. Donkor, Hongbo Duan, C. Duarte, K. Ebi, Clea M. Edwards, A. Engel, E. Fisher, S. Fuss, J. Gaertner, A. Gettelman, C. Girardin, N. Golledge, Jessica F. Green, M. Grose, M. Hashizume, S. Hebden, H. Hepach, M. Hirota, H. Hsu, S. Kojima, S. Lele, S. Lorek, H. Lotze, H. Matthews, D. McCauley, Desta Mebratu, N. Mengis, R. Nolan, Erik Pihl, S. Rahmstorf, A. Redman, C. Reid, J. Rockström, J. Rogelj, M. Saunois, Lizzie Sayer, P. Schlosser, G. B. Sioen, J. Spangenberg, D. Stammer, Thomas Sterner, N. Stevens, K. Thonicke, H. Tian, R. Winkelmann, J. Woodcock
Non-technical summary We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements. Technical summary A synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature. Social media summary How do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.
{"title":"Ten new insights in climate science 2021: a horizon scan","authors":"Maria A. Martin, Olga Alcaraz Sendra, A. Bastos, N. Bauer, C. Bertram, Thorsten Blenckner, K. Bowen, P. Brando, T. Rudolph, M. Büchs, M. Bustamante, Deliang Chen, H. Cleugh, P. Dasgupta, F. Denton, J. Donges, F. Donkor, Hongbo Duan, C. Duarte, K. Ebi, Clea M. Edwards, A. Engel, E. Fisher, S. Fuss, J. Gaertner, A. Gettelman, C. Girardin, N. Golledge, Jessica F. Green, M. Grose, M. Hashizume, S. Hebden, H. Hepach, M. Hirota, H. Hsu, S. Kojima, S. Lele, S. Lorek, H. Lotze, H. Matthews, D. McCauley, Desta Mebratu, N. Mengis, R. Nolan, Erik Pihl, S. Rahmstorf, A. Redman, C. Reid, J. Rockström, J. Rogelj, M. Saunois, Lizzie Sayer, P. Schlosser, G. B. Sioen, J. Spangenberg, D. Stammer, Thomas Sterner, N. Stevens, K. Thonicke, H. Tian, R. Winkelmann, J. Woodcock","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.25","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements. Technical summary A synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature. Social media summary How do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2021-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44335898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：