@article{SurethKalkuhlEdenhoferetal.2023, author = {Sureth, Michael and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan}, title = {A welfare economic approach to planetary boundaries}, series = {Jahrb{\"u}cher f{\"u}r National{\"o}konomie und Statistik}, volume = {243}, journal = {Jahrb{\"u}cher f{\"u}r National{\"o}konomie und Statistik}, number = {5}, publisher = {De Gruyter Oldenbourg}, address = {Berlin}, issn = {0021-4027}, doi = {10.1515/jbnst-2022-0022}, pages = {477 -- 542}, year = {2023}, abstract = {The crises of both the climate and the biosphere are manifestations of the imbalance between human extractive, and polluting activities and the Earth's regenerative capacity. Planetary boundaries define limits for biophysical systems and processes that regulate the stability and life support capacity of the Earth system, and thereby also define a safe operating space for humanity on Earth. Budgets associated to planetary boundaries can be understood as global commons: common pool resources that can be utilized within finite limits. Despite the analytical interpretation of planetary boundaries as global commons, the planetary boundaries framework is missing a thorough integration into economic theory. We aim to bridge the gap between welfare economic theory and planetary boundaries as derived in the natural sciences by presenting a unified theory of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Our pragmatic approach aims to overcome shortcomings of the practical applications of CEA and CBA to environmental problems of a planetary scale. To do so, we develop a model framework and explore decision paradigms that give guidance to setting limits on human activities. This conceptual framework is then applied to planetary boundaries. We conclude by using the realized insights to derive a research agenda that builds on the understanding of planetary boundaries as global commons.}, language = {en} } @article{HerreroThorntonMasonD'Crozetal.2020, author = {Herrero, Mario and Thornton, Philip K. and Mason-D'Croz, Daniel and Palmer, Jeda and Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon and Pradhan, Prajal and Barrett, Christopher B. and Benton, Tim G. and Hall, Andrew and Pikaar, Ilje and Bogard, Jessica R. and Bonnett, Graham D. and Bryan, Brett A. and Campbell, Bruce M. and Christensen, Svend and Clark, Michael and Fanzo, Jessica and Godde, Cecile M. and Jarvis, Andy and Loboguerrero, Ana Maria and Mathys, Alexander and McIntyre, C. Lynne and Naylor, Rosamond L. and Nelson, Rebecca and Obersteiner, Michael and Parodi, Alejandro and Popp, Alexander and Ricketts, Katie and Smith, Pete and Valin, Hugo and Vermeulen, Sonja J. and Vervoort, Joost and van Wijk, Mark and van Zanten, Hannah H. E. and West, Paul C. and Wood, Stephen A. and Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan}, title = {Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals}, series = {The lancet Planetary health}, volume = {5}, journal = {The lancet Planetary health}, number = {1}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {2542-5196}, doi = {10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30277-1}, pages = {E50 -- E62}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Food system innovations will be instrumental to achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, major innovation breakthroughs can trigger profound and disruptive changes, leading to simultaneous and interlinked reconfigurations of multiple parts of the global food system. The emergence of new technologies or social solutions, therefore, have very different impact profiles, with favourable consequences for some SDGs and unintended adverse side-effects for others. Stand-alone innovations seldom achieve positive outcomes over multiple sustainability dimensions. Instead, they should be embedded as part of systemic changes that facilitate the implementation of the SDGs. Emerging trade-offs need to be intentionally addressed to achieve true sustainability, particularly those involving social aspects like inequality in its many forms, social justice, and strong institutions, which remain challenging. Trade-offs with undesirable consequences are manageable through the development of well planned transition pathways, careful monitoring of key indicators, and through the implementation of transparent science targets at the local level.}, language = {en} } @article{Rockstroem2022, author = {Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan}, title = {Speeding up state-of-the-art assessments on global sustainability}, series = {Global sustainability}, volume = {5}, journal = {Global sustainability}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {2059-4798}, doi = {10.1017/sus.2022.1}, pages = {2}, year = {2022}, language = {en} } @article{VinkeGabryschPaolettietal.2020, author = {Vinke, Kira and Gabrysch, Sabine and Paoletti, Emanuela and Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan and Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim}, title = {Corona and the climate}, series = {Global sustainability}, volume = {3}, journal = {Global sustainability}, publisher = {Cambridge Univ. Press}, address = {Cambridge}, issn = {2059-4798}, doi = {10.1017/sus.2020.20}, pages = {7}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Lessons from the corona crisis can help manage the even more daunting challenge of anthropogenic global warming.}, language = {en} } @article{RockstroemKotzeMilutinovićetal.2024, author = {Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan and Kotz{\´e}, Louis and Milutinović, Svetlana and Biermann, Frank and Brovkin, Victor and Donges, Jonathan and Ebbesson, Jonas and French, Duncan and Gupta, Joyeeta and Kim, Rakhyun and Lenton, Timothy and Lenzi, Dominic and Nakicenovic, Nebojsa and Neumann, Barbara and Schuppert, Fabian and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Bosselmann, Klaus and Folke, Carl and Lucht, Wolfgang and Schlosberg, David and Richardson, Katherine and Steffen, Will}, title = {The planetary commons}, series = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America}, volume = {121}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America}, number = {5}, publisher = {National Academy of Sciences}, address = {Washington, DC}, issn = {1091-6490}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.2301531121}, pages = {10}, year = {2024}, abstract = {The Anthropocene signifies the start of a no- analogue tra­jectory of the Earth system that is fundamentally different from the Holocene. This new trajectory is characterized by rising risks of triggering irreversible and unmanageable shifts in Earth system functioning. We urgently need a new global approach to safeguard critical Earth system regulating functions more effectively and comprehensively. The global commons framework is the closest example of an existing approach with the aim of governing biophysical systems on Earth upon which the world collectively depends. Derived during stable Holocene conditions, the global commons framework must now evolve in the light of new Anthropocene dynamics. This requires a fundamental shift from a focus only on governing shared resources beyond national jurisdiction, to one that secures critical functions of the Earth system irrespective of national boundaries. We propose a new framework—the planetary commons—which differs from the global commons frame­work by including not only globally shared geographic regions but also critical biophysical systems that regulate the resilience and state, and therefore livability, on Earth. The new planetary commons should articulate and create comprehensive stewardship obligations through Earth system governance aimed at restoring and strengthening planetary resilience and justice.}, language = {en} } @article{WarszawskiKrieglerLentonetal.2021, author = {Warszawski, Lila and Kriegler, Elmar and Lenton, Timothy M. and Gaffney, Owen and Jacob, Daniela and Klingenfeld, Daniel and Koide, Ryu and Costa, Mar{\´i}a M{\´a}{\~n}ez and Messner, Dirk and Nakicenovic, Nebojsa and Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim and Schlosser, Peter and Takeuchi, Kazuhiko and van der Leeuw, Sander and Whiteman, Gail and Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan}, title = {All options, not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C}, series = {Environmental research letters}, volume = {16}, journal = {Environmental research letters}, number = {6}, publisher = {IOP Publishing}, address = {Bristol}, issn = {1748-9326}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/abfeec}, pages = {15}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Climate science provides strong evidence of the necessity of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. The IPCC 1.5 °C special report (SR1.5) presents 414 emissions scenarios modelled for the report, of which around 50 are classified as '1.5 °C scenarios', with no or low temperature overshoot. These emission scenarios differ in their reliance on individual mitigation levers, including reduction of global energy demand, decarbonisation of energy production, development of land-management systems, and the pace and scale of deploying carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. The reliance of 1.5 °C scenarios on these levers needs to be critically assessed in light of the potentials of the relevant technologies and roll-out plans. We use a set of five parameters to bundle and characterise the mitigation levers employed in the SR1.5 1.5 °C scenarios. For each of these levers, we draw on the literature to define 'medium' and 'high' upper bounds that delineate between their 'reasonable', 'challenging' and 'speculative' use by mid century. We do not find any 1.5 °C scenarios that stay within all medium upper bounds on the five mitigation levers. Scenarios most frequently 'over use' CDR with geological storage as a mitigation lever, whilst reductions of energy demand and carbon intensity of energy production are 'over used' less frequently. If we allow mitigation levers to be employed up to our high upper bounds, we are left with 22 of the SR1.5 1.5 °C scenarios with no or low overshoot. The scenarios that fulfil these criteria are characterised by greater coverage of the available mitigation levers than those scenarios that exceed at least one of the high upper bounds. When excluding the two scenarios that exceed the SR1.5 carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, this subset of 1.5 °C scenarios shows a range of 15-22 Gt CO2 (16-22 Gt CO2 interquartile range) for emissions in 2030. For the year of reaching net zero CO2 emissions the range is 2039-2061 (2049-2057 interquartile range).}, language = {en} } @article{SteffenRoeckstromRichardsonetal.2018, author = {Steffen, Will and R{\"o}ckstrom, Johan and Richardson, Katherine and Lenton, Timothy M. and Folke, Carl and Liverman, Diana and Summerhayes, Colin P. and Barnosky, Anthony D. and Cornell, Sarah E. and Crucifix, Michel and Donges, Jonathan Friedemann and Fetzer, Ingo and Lade, Steven J. and Scheffer, Marten and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim}, title = {Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene}, series = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America}, volume = {115}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America}, number = {33}, publisher = {National Acad. of Sciences}, address = {Washington}, issn = {0027-8424}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.1810141115}, pages = {8252 -- 8259}, year = {2018}, abstract = {We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a "Hothouse Earth" pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene. We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies. Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System-biosphere, climate, and societies-and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.}, language = {en} }