Sylvia L. R. Wood, Amy Luers, Jennifer Garard, A. Gambhir, K. Chaudhari, M. Ivanova, Casey Cronin
Non-technical summary Charting robust pathways towards more sustainable futures that ‘leave no one behind’ requires that diverse communities engage in collective foresight and intelligence exercises to better understand global systemic challenges, anticipate the emerging risks and opportunities that disruptions present, and share perspectives on how to respond and inform decision-making. We report on the recent use of an international rapid foresight survey to assess expected societal trends over the next 3 years following the COVID-19 crisis. The results illustrate the power of collective foresight approaches to provide timely, nuanced insights for decision-making across sectors and scales, particularly in times of uncertainty. Technical summary We present the findings of a rapid foresight survey launched in spring 2020 to draw on the collective intelligence of the global community on where the world is headed post-COVID-19. Respondents were asked to (i) assess five key societal trends in the coming 3 years, (ii) provide news headlines they both expect and hope to see, and (iii) assess the role of digital technologies during crises. Analysis of over 2000 responses from more than 90 countries revealed important regional differences in expected societal trends related to sustainability. More respondents in the Global South expected shifts towards less inequality while more respondents in the Global North expected shifts towards a smaller ecological footprint. Qualitative analysis of proposed news headlines revealed four broad themes of focus (environment, equity, health, and economy), and yielded insights into perspectives on critical drivers of change. Finally, the survey report found that the vast majority of respondents were not opposed to digital surveillance in crises. In presenting these results, we explore the value of collective foresight and intelligence exercises in providing pluralistic inputs to decision-making and in complementing more prevalent methods of forecasting. Social media summary Collective foresight exercises with diverse communities can help chart robust pathways to more sustainable futures.
{"title":"Collective foresight and intelligence for sustainability","authors":"Sylvia L. R. Wood, Amy Luers, Jennifer Garard, A. Gambhir, K. Chaudhari, M. Ivanova, Casey Cronin","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.3","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Charting robust pathways towards more sustainable futures that ‘leave no one behind’ requires that diverse communities engage in collective foresight and intelligence exercises to better understand global systemic challenges, anticipate the emerging risks and opportunities that disruptions present, and share perspectives on how to respond and inform decision-making. We report on the recent use of an international rapid foresight survey to assess expected societal trends over the next 3 years following the COVID-19 crisis. The results illustrate the power of collective foresight approaches to provide timely, nuanced insights for decision-making across sectors and scales, particularly in times of uncertainty. Technical summary We present the findings of a rapid foresight survey launched in spring 2020 to draw on the collective intelligence of the global community on where the world is headed post-COVID-19. Respondents were asked to (i) assess five key societal trends in the coming 3 years, (ii) provide news headlines they both expect and hope to see, and (iii) assess the role of digital technologies during crises. Analysis of over 2000 responses from more than 90 countries revealed important regional differences in expected societal trends related to sustainability. More respondents in the Global South expected shifts towards less inequality while more respondents in the Global North expected shifts towards a smaller ecological footprint. Qualitative analysis of proposed news headlines revealed four broad themes of focus (environment, equity, health, and economy), and yielded insights into perspectives on critical drivers of change. Finally, the survey report found that the vast majority of respondents were not opposed to digital surveillance in crises. In presenting these results, we explore the value of collective foresight and intelligence exercises in providing pluralistic inputs to decision-making and in complementing more prevalent methods of forecasting. Social media summary Collective foresight exercises with diverse communities can help chart robust pathways to more sustainable futures.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2021.3","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46529536","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}
Y. Oswald, J. Steinberger, D. Ivanova, J. Millward-Hopkins
Non-technical summary Global income inequality and energy consumption inequality are related. High-income households consume more energy than low-income ones, and for different purposes. Here, we explore the global household energy consumption implications of global income redistribution. We show that global income inequality shapes not only inequalities of energy consumption but the quantity and composition of overall energy demand. Our results call for the inclusion of income distribution into energy system models, as well as into energy and climate policy. Technical summary Despite a rapidly growing number of studies on the relationship between inequality and energy, there is little research estimating the effect of income redistribution on energy demand. We contribute to this debate by proposing a simple but granular and data-driven model of the global income distribution and of global household energy consumption. We isolate the effect of income distribution on household energy consumption and move beyond the assumption of aggregate income–energy elasticities. First, we model expenditure as a function of income. Second, we determine budget shares of expenditure for a variety of products and services by employing product-granular income elasticities of demand. Subsequently, we apply consumption-based final energy intensities to product and services to obtain energy footprint accounts. Testing variants of the global income distribution, we find that the ‘energy costs’ of equity are small. Equitable and inequitable distributions of income, however, entail distinct structural change in energy system terms. In an equitable world, fewer people live in energy poverty and more energy is consumed for subsistence and necessities, instead of luxury and transport. Social media summary Equality in global income shifts household energy footprints towards subsistence, while inequality shifts them towards transport and luxury.
{"title":"Global redistribution of income and household energy footprints: a computational thought experiment","authors":"Y. Oswald, J. Steinberger, D. Ivanova, J. Millward-Hopkins","doi":"10.1017/sus.2021.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.1","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Global income inequality and energy consumption inequality are related. High-income households consume more energy than low-income ones, and for different purposes. Here, we explore the global household energy consumption implications of global income redistribution. We show that global income inequality shapes not only inequalities of energy consumption but the quantity and composition of overall energy demand. Our results call for the inclusion of income distribution into energy system models, as well as into energy and climate policy. Technical summary Despite a rapidly growing number of studies on the relationship between inequality and energy, there is little research estimating the effect of income redistribution on energy demand. We contribute to this debate by proposing a simple but granular and data-driven model of the global income distribution and of global household energy consumption. We isolate the effect of income distribution on household energy consumption and move beyond the assumption of aggregate income–energy elasticities. First, we model expenditure as a function of income. Second, we determine budget shares of expenditure for a variety of products and services by employing product-granular income elasticities of demand. Subsequently, we apply consumption-based final energy intensities to product and services to obtain energy footprint accounts. Testing variants of the global income distribution, we find that the ‘energy costs’ of equity are small. Equitable and inequitable distributions of income, however, entail distinct structural change in energy system terms. In an equitable world, fewer people live in energy poverty and more energy is consumed for subsistence and necessities, instead of luxury and transport. Social media summary Equality in global income shifts household energy footprints towards subsistence, while inequality shifts them towards transport and luxury.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2021-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2021.1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45857660","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 Conserving tropical forests has many benefits, from protecting biodiversity, sustaining indigenous and local communities, and safeguarding climate. To achieve the ambitious climate goals of the Paris Agreement, forest protection is essential. Yet deforestation continues to diminish the world's forests. Halting this trend is the objective of the international framework for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). While previous studies have demonstrated the contribution of tropical forests to mitigate climate change, here we show that tropical forest protection can ‘flatten the curve’ of the costs of transition to climate stability, estimating tens of trillions of dollars in policy cost savings. Technical summary The pledges made by parties under the Paris Agreement are insufficient to limit global warming to well below 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels. We use a global climate-economic model to quantify the economic benefits from rapidly deploying programs for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and increased reforestation (REDD+) given current delays in the implementation of climate policies around the world. REDD+ has been shown to have substantial greenhouse gas emissions mitigation potential in the fight against climate change and can thus play a critical role in closing the emissions gap, thereby enabling the achievement of more ambitious climate targets. Under our principal scenario, we estimate that REDD+ can contribute up to US$36 trillion in net policy cost savings by mitigating the adjustment costs of reaching a greenhouse gas emissions trajectory consistent with ambitious global climate stabilization goals. Investment in REDD+ has a high benefit-cost ratio; one dollar invested in REDD+ yields about US$5.4 in net policy cost savings. Realizing the full estimated potential for REDD+ reduces the risk-adjusted carbon price in 2030 by US$45/tCO2. Social media summary Protecting tropical forests is crucial to achieve ambitious climate stabilization goals while saving trillions of dollars in economic value.
{"title":"The economic value of tropical forests in meeting global climate stabilization goals","authors":"S. Fuss, A. Golub, R. Lubowski","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.34","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Conserving tropical forests has many benefits, from protecting biodiversity, sustaining indigenous and local communities, and safeguarding climate. To achieve the ambitious climate goals of the Paris Agreement, forest protection is essential. Yet deforestation continues to diminish the world's forests. Halting this trend is the objective of the international framework for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+). While previous studies have demonstrated the contribution of tropical forests to mitigate climate change, here we show that tropical forest protection can ‘flatten the curve’ of the costs of transition to climate stability, estimating tens of trillions of dollars in policy cost savings. Technical summary The pledges made by parties under the Paris Agreement are insufficient to limit global warming to well below 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels. We use a global climate-economic model to quantify the economic benefits from rapidly deploying programs for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and increased reforestation (REDD+) given current delays in the implementation of climate policies around the world. REDD+ has been shown to have substantial greenhouse gas emissions mitigation potential in the fight against climate change and can thus play a critical role in closing the emissions gap, thereby enabling the achievement of more ambitious climate targets. Under our principal scenario, we estimate that REDD+ can contribute up to US$36 trillion in net policy cost savings by mitigating the adjustment costs of reaching a greenhouse gas emissions trajectory consistent with ambitious global climate stabilization goals. Investment in REDD+ has a high benefit-cost ratio; one dollar invested in REDD+ yields about US$5.4 in net policy cost savings. Realizing the full estimated potential for REDD+ reduces the risk-adjusted carbon price in 2030 by US$45/tCO2. Social media summary Protecting tropical forests is crucial to achieve ambitious climate stabilization goals while saving trillions of dollars in economic value.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.34","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48486458","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 The COVID-19 pandemic can be considered an experiment forced upon the world community and, as such, responses to the pandemic can provide lessons about socio-ecological systems as well as processes of transformative change. What enabled responses to COVID-19 to be as effective as they were, right at a time when climate action is notably lagging behind what intergovernmental panels have called for? This paper examines key differences in the COVID-19 response compared to that of climate change, examining the ‘deeper’ human dimensions of these global issues. Unearthing insights into the responses to both issues provides important lessons for climate change engagement. Technical summary In the first half of 2020, a dramatic, fast and widespread series of changes occurred in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in behaviors, mindsets, culture, and systems. Yet, despite the intergovernmental calls for precisely this kind of fundamental, transformative change across society regarding global warming, public opinion on climate change is fractured and collective action is slow. More research is needed on the psychosocial dimensions of climate change, to better understand what the bottlenecks are for realizing transformative change. In this paper, I examine what occurred in the COVID-19 pandemic response that could be learned for the climate crisis. I focus on three psychological aspects that made the COVID-19 response accessible and actionable in a way that climate change is not: the mental demands for understanding complex issues; psychological distance and its impacts on motivation and agency; and finite attentional resources that can render certain issues as non-salient. Lessons for climate engagement include: (1) the usefulness of concrete, simple, and personally-relatable messaging; (2) more diverse and democratized climate understandings and stories; (3) greater recognition about how psychological distance affects meaning-making and sense of agency; and (4) appreciation of attentional crowding and the need for sense-making strategies about complex issues. Social media summary Lessons from the deeper human dimensions of COVID-19 response help inform climate change engagement and transformation.
{"title":"Unearthing insights for climate change response in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"G. Hochachka","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.27","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary The COVID-19 pandemic can be considered an experiment forced upon the world community and, as such, responses to the pandemic can provide lessons about socio-ecological systems as well as processes of transformative change. What enabled responses to COVID-19 to be as effective as they were, right at a time when climate action is notably lagging behind what intergovernmental panels have called for? This paper examines key differences in the COVID-19 response compared to that of climate change, examining the ‘deeper’ human dimensions of these global issues. Unearthing insights into the responses to both issues provides important lessons for climate change engagement. Technical summary In the first half of 2020, a dramatic, fast and widespread series of changes occurred in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in behaviors, mindsets, culture, and systems. Yet, despite the intergovernmental calls for precisely this kind of fundamental, transformative change across society regarding global warming, public opinion on climate change is fractured and collective action is slow. More research is needed on the psychosocial dimensions of climate change, to better understand what the bottlenecks are for realizing transformative change. In this paper, I examine what occurred in the COVID-19 pandemic response that could be learned for the climate crisis. I focus on three psychological aspects that made the COVID-19 response accessible and actionable in a way that climate change is not: the mental demands for understanding complex issues; psychological distance and its impacts on motivation and agency; and finite attentional resources that can render certain issues as non-salient. Lessons for climate engagement include: (1) the usefulness of concrete, simple, and personally-relatable messaging; (2) more diverse and democratized climate understandings and stories; (3) greater recognition about how psychological distance affects meaning-making and sense of agency; and (4) appreciation of attentional crowding and the need for sense-making strategies about complex issues. Social media summary Lessons from the deeper human dimensions of COVID-19 response help inform climate change engagement and transformation.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.27","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48919835","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}
This paper investigates analogies in the dynamics of Covid-19 pandemic and climate change. A comparison of their common features (such as nonlinearity and inertia) and differences helps us to achieve a correct scientific perception of both situations, increasing the chances of actions for their solutions. Besides, applying to both the risk equation provides different angles to analyse them, something that may result useful especially at the policy level. It shows that not only short-term interventions are needed, but also long-term strategies involving some structural changes. More specifically, it also shows that, even if climate change is probably more critical and long-lasting than the Covid-19 crisis, we still have, at least currently, more options for reducing its related risk. Social media summary A risk equation shows that now we have more options for fighting climate change than reducing the risks from Covid-19.
{"title":"Perception and risk of Covid-19 and climate change: investigating analogies in a common framework","authors":"A. Pasini, F. Mazzocchi","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.30","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates analogies in the dynamics of Covid-19 pandemic and climate change. A comparison of their common features (such as nonlinearity and inertia) and differences helps us to achieve a correct scientific perception of both situations, increasing the chances of actions for their solutions. Besides, applying to both the risk equation provides different angles to analyse them, something that may result useful especially at the policy level. It shows that not only short-term interventions are needed, but also long-term strategies involving some structural changes. More specifically, it also shows that, even if climate change is probably more critical and long-lasting than the Covid-19 crisis, we still have, at least currently, more options for reducing its related risk. Social media summary A risk equation shows that now we have more options for fighting climate change than reducing the risks from Covid-19.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.30","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48617118","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}
Social media summary A green economic recovery from Covid-19 cannot be built in the image of a pre-Covid era. Green growth must be abandoned.
新冠疫情后的绿色经济复苏不能建立在新冠疫情前的形象上。必须放弃绿色增长。
{"title":"Promise of a green economic recovery post-Covid: trojan horse or turning point?","authors":"Oliver Taherzadeh","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.33","url":null,"abstract":"Social media summary A green economic recovery from Covid-19 cannot be built in the image of a pre-Covid era. Green growth must be abandoned.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.33","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43328945","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 A small benefit of the disastrous COVID-19 pandemic has been the temporary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this paper asks: what strategies can return people to work without returning to the old high-emissions economy? How can we modify the old economic system to reduce environmental impacts while rebuilding employment? Technological change, such as replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy (RE), is necessary but, in an economy that's growing, unlikely to be sufficiently rapid to avoid dangerous climate change. Degrowth in physical consumption, especially by the ‘rich’ 10%, towards a steady-state economy, is needed as well as low-carbon jobs. Technical summary In planning recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments aim to return to economic growth that, by default, is closely coupled to growth in consumption of energy, materials and land, together with growth in population in some countries. This scenario almost certainly forecloses the option of a smooth transition to a climate in which global heating is limited to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level, the aspirational Paris target. Although the transition to energy efficiency and 100% RE – based mainly on wind, solar and hydro – is now technically feasible, affordable and progressing in some countries, states, cities and businesses, technological transformation would be chasing a retreating goal if economic growth returns. Even to stay below 2°C, reducing consumption, especially by the rich 10%, is needed as well as technology change. Therefore, we explore a pandemic recovery scenario in which low-carbon employment creation is fostered during a process of general degrowth, in biophysical terms, towards an ecologically sustainable steady-state economy. Strategies are suggested for governments to create low-carbon jobs, together with reduced consumption, and to drive and finance the transition. With strong public pressure on governments and business, a 2°C target without overshoot may still be possible. Social media summary Degrowth can be combined with green employment to cut emissions while improving social equity.
{"title":"COVID-19 and economic recovery with effective climate mitigation","authors":"M. Diesendorf","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.32","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary A small benefit of the disastrous COVID-19 pandemic has been the temporary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, this paper asks: what strategies can return people to work without returning to the old high-emissions economy? How can we modify the old economic system to reduce environmental impacts while rebuilding employment? Technological change, such as replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy (RE), is necessary but, in an economy that's growing, unlikely to be sufficiently rapid to avoid dangerous climate change. Degrowth in physical consumption, especially by the ‘rich’ 10%, towards a steady-state economy, is needed as well as low-carbon jobs. Technical summary In planning recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, most governments aim to return to economic growth that, by default, is closely coupled to growth in consumption of energy, materials and land, together with growth in population in some countries. This scenario almost certainly forecloses the option of a smooth transition to a climate in which global heating is limited to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level, the aspirational Paris target. Although the transition to energy efficiency and 100% RE – based mainly on wind, solar and hydro – is now technically feasible, affordable and progressing in some countries, states, cities and businesses, technological transformation would be chasing a retreating goal if economic growth returns. Even to stay below 2°C, reducing consumption, especially by the rich 10%, is needed as well as technology change. Therefore, we explore a pandemic recovery scenario in which low-carbon employment creation is fostered during a process of general degrowth, in biophysical terms, towards an ecologically sustainable steady-state economy. Strategies are suggested for governments to create low-carbon jobs, together with reduced consumption, and to drive and finance the transition. With strong public pressure on governments and business, a 2°C target without overshoot may still be possible. Social media summary Degrowth can be combined with green employment to cut emissions while improving social equity.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-25"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.32","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57570496","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 Lamb et al. (2020) identified 12 discourses used by a counter-movement to delay or weaken action to limit climate change. This commentary notes three discourses used by those promoting such action that can also delay meaningful action: insisting on transformational change to the exclusion of incremental change, downplaying the value of emissions targets, and focusing attention on adaptation. Social media summary Discourses of climate delay: reject incremental changes and emissions targets as diversions, focus on adaptation.
{"title":"Well-meaning discourses of climate delay","authors":"P. Stern","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.31","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Lamb et al. (2020) identified 12 discourses used by a counter-movement to delay or weaken action to limit climate change. This commentary notes three discourses used by those promoting such action that can also delay meaningful action: insisting on transformational change to the exclusion of incremental change, downplaying the value of emissions targets, and focusing attention on adaptation. Social media summary Discourses of climate delay: reject incremental changes and emissions targets as diversions, focus on adaptation.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.31","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46917438","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 Many countries are committed to emerge from COVID 19 on a more sustainable environmental footing. Here we explore what such a structurally transformative recovery would mean for the manufacturing sector of 14 major economies. We find that all countries have zero-carbon growth opportunities post-COVID and comparative advantages in some sectors, but industrialised countries and the East Asian economies, especially South Korea, appear best positioned, thanks a push in low-carbon innovation that predates the pandemic. Technical summary We construct two indicators to assess the readiness of manufacturing in 14 countries to move toward zero-carbon products and processes post-COVID 19. The first indicator is the extent to which country-sectors have already started to convert to zero-carbon products and processes. This is measured by the relative low-carbon innovation in different country sectors (using global patent data). The second indicator is the ability of country-sectors to gain and maintain market share. This is measured by existing comparative advantages, using the Balassa index of revealed comparative advantage. Taken together the two indicators paint an intuitive picture of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) faced by different sectors, which can guide countries in their recovery strategies. Social media summary A zero-carbon recovery from COVID must be led by industry. It requires clean innovation based on comparative advantage.
{"title":"The readiness of industry for a transformative recovery from COVID 19","authors":"S. Fankhauser, R. Kotsch, S. Srivastav","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.29","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Many countries are committed to emerge from COVID 19 on a more sustainable environmental footing. Here we explore what such a structurally transformative recovery would mean for the manufacturing sector of 14 major economies. We find that all countries have zero-carbon growth opportunities post-COVID and comparative advantages in some sectors, but industrialised countries and the East Asian economies, especially South Korea, appear best positioned, thanks a push in low-carbon innovation that predates the pandemic. Technical summary We construct two indicators to assess the readiness of manufacturing in 14 countries to move toward zero-carbon products and processes post-COVID 19. The first indicator is the extent to which country-sectors have already started to convert to zero-carbon products and processes. This is measured by the relative low-carbon innovation in different country sectors (using global patent data). The second indicator is the ability of country-sectors to gain and maintain market share. This is measured by existing comparative advantages, using the Balassa index of revealed comparative advantage. Taken together the two indicators paint an intuitive picture of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) faced by different sectors, which can guide countries in their recovery strategies. Social media summary A zero-carbon recovery from COVID must be led by industry. It requires clean innovation based on comparative advantage.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.29","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44729212","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 Resources are the basis of our economy and their provision causes major shares of the global environmental burdens, many of which are beyond safe limits today. In order to be sustainable, our economy needs to be able to operate within those boundaries. As resources are the physical ‘currency’ of our economy, we present a method that allows translating Earth system boundaries into resource budgets. This ecological resource availability determines the global annual production of a resource that can be considered absolutely sustainable. The budgets can be managed like financial budgets, bringing absolute environmental limits one step closer to decision-makers. Technical summary In this paper, we propose a new method translating Earth system boundaries into resource budgets. These Earth system boundaries are represented by 10 variables from the planetary boundaries framework and one additional boundary for renewable energy potentials. This follows the idea that, in a sustainable economy, resources are not limited by their physical and/or geopolitical availability, but rather by the environmental impacts caused due to their utilization. The method is designed to estimate how much of a specific resource can be provided to the society within Earth system boundaries, taking into account impacts caused by primary production and end-of-life treatment. For the calculation, it is necessary to specify how global boundaries are allocated to the various resources and the acceptable risk of boundary violation. The method considers multiple boundary dimensions and can therefore effectively avoid burden shifting. We calculate the ecological resource availability (ERA) for major metals. We find that, in the current forms of production (state-of-the-art processes), the current share of production (i.e., resource mix) and when allocating the global boundaries according to the same share of impacts caused by these resources today (grandfathering principle), the ERA budgets are 40 times smaller than production volumes in 2016. Social media summary Resource budgets in accordance with the Earth system boundaries enable the management of our planetary household.
{"title":"Ecological resource availability: a method to estimate resource budgets for a sustainable economy","authors":"Harald Desing, G. Braun, R. Hischier","doi":"10.1017/sus.2020.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.26","url":null,"abstract":"Non-technical summary Resources are the basis of our economy and their provision causes major shares of the global environmental burdens, many of which are beyond safe limits today. In order to be sustainable, our economy needs to be able to operate within those boundaries. As resources are the physical ‘currency’ of our economy, we present a method that allows translating Earth system boundaries into resource budgets. This ecological resource availability determines the global annual production of a resource that can be considered absolutely sustainable. The budgets can be managed like financial budgets, bringing absolute environmental limits one step closer to decision-makers. Technical summary In this paper, we propose a new method translating Earth system boundaries into resource budgets. These Earth system boundaries are represented by 10 variables from the planetary boundaries framework and one additional boundary for renewable energy potentials. This follows the idea that, in a sustainable economy, resources are not limited by their physical and/or geopolitical availability, but rather by the environmental impacts caused due to their utilization. The method is designed to estimate how much of a specific resource can be provided to the society within Earth system boundaries, taking into account impacts caused by primary production and end-of-life treatment. For the calculation, it is necessary to specify how global boundaries are allocated to the various resources and the acceptable risk of boundary violation. The method considers multiple boundary dimensions and can therefore effectively avoid burden shifting. We calculate the ecological resource availability (ERA) for major metals. We find that, in the current forms of production (state-of-the-art processes), the current share of production (i.e., resource mix) and when allocating the global boundaries according to the same share of impacts caused by these resources today (grandfathering principle), the ERA budgets are 40 times smaller than production volumes in 2016. Social media summary Resource budgets in accordance with the Earth system boundaries enable the management of our planetary household.","PeriodicalId":36849,"journal":{"name":"Global Sustainability","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5,"publicationDate":"2020-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/sus.2020.26","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46679613","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：