One Earth最新文献

One major societal challenge is meeting the constantly increasing demand for (sea)food in a sustainable way. Marine aquaculture offers large production potential, but it is crucial to define production limits that maintain ocean health. The concept of aquaculture carrying capacity (CC) provides such limits for locally defined areas. However, the ocean is subject to large- and small-scale dynamics, and far-reaching effects of aquaculture (e.g., the spread of marine diseases with ocean currents) are currently neglected in CC estimates. Here we predict potential “impact areas” with a biophysical simulation approach and find them to be larger than those currently considered in CC estimates. We suggest “impact areas” as a measure for spatial connectivity with the requirement to define what is an acceptable “impact area” case specifically. The proposed approach is applicable to various marine aquaculture systems and would drive CC estimates toward improved sustainability by considering the impact and risk of dispersal beyond the immediately adjacent area.

In a world where <30% of the Earth’s surface is land, competition for this limited but precious resource is fierce. To serve many basic living needs for a growing population, land has been converted into multiple uses, from farmland and properties to dumpsites, but often at the cost of deforestation. Andrea Bowers, a Los Angeles-based artist, commemorates a tree-siting protest via the hanging sculpture Memorial to Arcadia Woodlands Clear-Cut. In an attempt to save the clearing of a pristine grove of majestic oaks and sycamores in Arcadia for the sake of creating a sediment dump, Bowers and three other activists tied themselves to two treetops. At 100 ft above the ground, they witnessed the devastating clearance. After their release from a 2-day imprisonment, Bowers revisited the site and retrieved the legacy: a mountain of chippings. Together with ropes and other tree-sitting gear, Bowers forms the aftermath as a monument to the 250 cleared trees and their habitat.

The idea that there exists a “human climate niche” has become increasingly influential. But this idea rests on flawed and anachronistic determinist premises. It is overly climate-centric in its characterization of the challenges faced by humanity, and it fails to capture the main sources of climate-related vulnerability.

Rapidly progressing climate heating as well as ongoing economic and population growth exacerbate the challenges of reconciling the multitude of land functions and services. Terrestrial ecosystems support biodiversity and climate regulation and deliver resources like food, energy, or fiber, while infrastructures proliferate. Navigating the resulting “global land squeeze” aims to maintain a healthy biosphere while supporting land-based services for a decent living for us all. To elucidate trade-offs and synergies related to the global land squeeze, we discuss key components of the land system and their interplay, trade-offs, past trends, and current geographical patterns. We examine three social-science concepts and explore their suitability for navigating the land squeeze and identify demand-side strategies, like reducing overconsumption, that may emerge as no-regret solutions in industrialized contexts. We conclude that enhancing the analytical capabilities to steer land system change requires shifting from isolated driver-impact analyses toward the ex ante integration of societal and ecological sustainability targets on an equal footing.

Large-scale land acquisitions dispossess and marginalize smallholder farmers and Indigenous people, potentially driving zoonotic disease spillover and epidemics through complex socio-biological interactions. Agroecological practices and governance prioritizing human and environmental well-being over capital accumulation are essential to address this issue.

Current dietary protein production and consumption are depleting resources, degrading the environment, and fueling chronic diseases. These human and environmental impacts ignite intense debate on how to shift away from resource-intensive animal-based proteins. While there is significant research across disciplines on shifting supply-demand aspects, knowledge gaps remain in how to transition to optimize nutrition while reducing bidirectional climate change effects. These gaps stymy incentives and policy change to make bold food systems transformations and determine levers to invest in. Here we present a transdisciplinary overview of evidence on proteins’ environmental impacts and vulnerability of crop, livestock, and aquatic proteins to climate change. We identify critical unknowns fueling concerns surrounding transitions and propose research directions to increase the likelihood transitions will be environmentally sound and healthy, harnessing genetic crop diversity, managing agricultural landscapes sustainably, and considering cell-based alternatives and pro-equity policies that facilitate healthy choices. Implementing changes requires nuanced, regionally tailored approaches incorporating socio-behavioral, public health, nutrition, and climate science fostering effective debate and solutions promoting sustainability and health.

Achieving the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target necessitates reversing the rise in atmospheric concentrations of methane (CH₄), which is a greenhouse gas that is more radiatively potent than carbon dioxide, and that possesses a considerably shorter lifetime. Future reductions in pollutants like nitrogen oxides for air quality improvement are anticipated, with a side effect of potentially extending the lifetime of CH₄. However, at present the antagonism between air quality improvements and climate change response with respect to CH₄ lifetime is not being prominently addressed. Utilizing the GEOS-Chem model, we assessed CH₄ lifetime sensitivity to pollutant emissions. Applying this sensitivity to the OSCAR box model, we simulated future CH₄ dynamics, revealing that pollutant reduction in SSP1-26 compared to SSP2-45 could offset nearly 20% of CH₄ abatement efforts. Our study highlights the pollution abatement penalty in controlling atmospheric CH₄ concentrations, suggesting the need for escalated endeavors to combat climate change.

In this issue of One Earth, Pienkowski et al. propose a framework for nature’s contributions to social determinants of mental health. In this preview, Buckley examines how that framework fits within human economic structures and statistics and its potential political consequences.

Anuradha Mittal is the executive director of the Oakland Institute, an independent policy think tank known for its rigorous research and analysis on key social, economic, and environmental issues. The Oakland Institute aims to inspire change through informed and active citizenship. We recently spoke with Dr. Mittal about the impact of carbon credits sales on land use.