Earth System Governance 10 (2021) 100122 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Earth System Governance journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/earth-system-governance Reconciling safe planetary targets and planetary justice: Why should social scientists engage with planetary targets? J. Gupta a,*, D. Liverman b, X. Bai c, C. Gordon d, M. Hurlbert e, C.Y.A. Inoue f, L. Jacobson g, N. Kanie h, T.M. Lenton i, D. Obura j, I.M. Otto k, C. Okereke l, L. Pereira m,n, K. Prodani a, C. Rammelt a, J. Scholtens a, J.D. Tàbara o, P.H. Verburg p,q, L. Gifford b, D. Ciobanu a a Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands b School of Geography, Development and Environment, University of Arizona, USA c Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University, Australia d CDKN-CEL-GH, Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies, University of Ghana, Ghana e Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada f Center for Global Studies, Institute of International Relations, University of Brasília, Brazil g Future Earth, c/o Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden h Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University, Japan i Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, UK j CORDIO - East Africa - Coastal Oceans Research and Development in the Indian Ocean - East Africa, Kenya k Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change, University of Graz, Austria l Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike, Nigeria m Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden n Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, Stellenbosch University, South Africa o Global Climate Forum, Germany and Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain p Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands q Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf, Switzerland A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords As human activity threatens to make the planet unsafe for humanity and other life forms, scholars are identifying Planetary justice planetary targets set at a safe distance from biophysical thresholds beyond which critical Earth systems may Planetary boundaries collapse. Yet despite the profound implications that both meeting and transgressing such targets may have for Safe planetary targets human wellbeing, including the potential for negative trade-offs, there is limited social science analysis that Just targets systematically considers the justice dimensions of such targets. Here we assess a range of views on planetary justice and present three arguments associated with why social scientists should engage with the scholarship on safe targets. We argue that complementing safe targets with just targets offers a fruitful approach for considering synergies and trade-offs between environmental and social aspirations and can inform inclusive deliberation on these important issues. 1. Introduction Kim, 2020), (b) modified to reflect new or alternative scientific under- standing (Running, 2012; Nash et al., 2017), and (c) complemented by As human activities threaten to make the planet unsafe for humanity adding social floors (e.g. in one instance popularized as the doughnut and other life forms, scholars are identifying planetary boundaries approach) (Raworth, 2012, 2017; Spangenberg, 2014; Ensor and Hoddy, (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015) and safe planetary targets 2021). The Earth Commission, an initiative of Future Earth and the set at a distance from thresholds beyond which critical Earth systems Global Commons Alliance, has set out to combine safe biophysical tar- may collapse. Such planetary boundaries have generated considerable gets with just targets that attempt to minimize harm to humans while debate. They have been (a) rejected as lacking legitimacy (Biermann and ensuring minimum access to critical resources and services for the * Corresponding author. E-mail address: J.Gupta@uva.nl (J. Gupta). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2021.100122 Received 15 October 2021; Received in revised form 5 November 2021; Accepted 10 November 2021 Available online 23 November 2021 2589-8116/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). J. Gupta et al. E a r t h S y s t e m G o v e r n a n ce 10 (2021) 100122 wellbeing of the global population (Rockström et al., 2021a, 2021b). transformative justice (aimed at generating the necessary systemic This paper is based on research within the Transformations working change to ensure long-term equitable redistribution and allocation of group of the Earth Commission. This group includes researchers from resources, risks (harm) and responsibilities). This leads to four quadrants the Global North and South, including Africa, South America and of justice: (Q1) recognizes the need for planetary targets and addresses emerging economies in Europe, representing different social science, global social-ecological systems’ transformation challenges as well as law and natural science disciplines. Our analysis builds on literature local challenges contextualized in their broader planetary dimensions; reviews, workshops of invited speakers, and feedback on presentations (Q2) recognizes planetary targets and addresses the aim of fulfilling at several international conferences. This group guides the Earth Com- some minimum needs without major systemic transformations; (Q3) mission and partners in the Global Commons Alliance including the focuses exclusively on contextual, inclusive economic growth within Science Based Targets Network of cities and businesses on how to local ecological limits; and (Q4) focuses exclusively on transforming integrate justice in the setting of biophysical targets and transformation. contextual well-being conditions through local redistributive policy Both crossing planetary boundaries and setting safe targets has while living within local limits. profound implications for human wellbeing. Yet, social science analysis The concept of planetary justice moves beyond global justice in that that systematically considers the justice dimensions of such targets (e.g. it draws attention to the inseparability of social-ecological systems in the Hickel, 2019; Pasgaard & Dawson, 2019; Leach et al., 2018; O’Neill Anthropocene and the resulting obligations across geography, time, and et al., 2018; Häyhä et al., 2016) is limited. To encourage productive and species. It also discusses justice issues at a planetary scale or, if discus- systematic engagement between the social and natural sciences on safe sing local justice concerns, it contextualizes them in the broader Earth planetary targets, we cluster justice perspectives in relation to safe tar- system (Biermann et al., 2020; Biermann and Kalfagianni, 2020). gets; explore three arguments for why social scientists should engage Therefore, our approach to engaging with safe targets builds on ideas of with biophysical targets from a justice perspective; and briefly discuss multi-scale planetary justice spanning Q1 to Q4, which allows for uni- how this can be done. versal values as well as contextual interpretations but takes a trans- formative angle. We suggest that there is enough evidence that 2. Clustering justice perspectives with respect to safe planetary incremental reformist justice is inadequate to meet both the social goals targets in Agenda (2030) as well as the environmental ones (e.g. meeting the food security goals can lead to crossing planetary boundaries (Willett Scholarship on justice is extensive and derives from several schools et al., 2019) and without an equitable approach it will be impossible to of thought. Scholarship on global justice (Cimadamore, 2016) and convince developing countries not to use their fossil fuels). Hence planetary justice (Biermann and Kalfagianni, 2020; Hickey and meeting these goals sustainably requires transformative justice. Robeyns, 2020; Kashwan et al., 2020; Dryzek and Pickering, 2019) is growing and complements the accumulated work on access and allo- 3. Why social scientists should engage with the scholarship on cation within the Earth System Governance network (Gupta & Lebel safe targets to include justice perspectives (eds.) 2020; Gupta and Lebel, 2020). While acknowledging the com- plexities and nuances in the justice literature (Dirth et al., 2020), we Despite repeated calls for stronger collaboration across social and cluster justice approaches with respect to safe planetary targets into four natural sciences and for an integrative approach in exploring plausible ideal-types (cf. Tàbara and Chabay, 2013) (see Fig. 1) that range along and desirable futures in the Anthropocene (Brondizio et al., 2016; Bai one axis from worldviews promoting the existence of universal values (e. et al., 2016), the engagement of social scientists is somewhat limited. g. human rights as captured by international laws) to those only Hence, and building on the above justice framing, we advance three accepting contextual values (e.g. local justice issues as promoted by arguments for why social scientists should engage with the scholarship diverse communities); and along the other axis, from those advocating on setting safe targets from a justice perspective. for reformist justice (e.g. including some pro-poor measures) to First, we argue that setting safe planetary targets is necessary Fig. 1. Clustering perspectives on planetary justice. 2 J. Gupta et al. E a r t h S y s t e m G o v e r n a n ce 10 (2021) 100122 from a justice perspective. We note that some scientists argue that safe legitimate. Democratic deliberation can and should occur in defining, planetary targets are of minor importance for social justice compared to refining and implementing such proposed targets. In addition, inte- more urgent global socio-economic issues; that local socio-economic grated assessment models have been fairly accurate with hindsight and justice issues are not well connected to global biophysical issues in the have become more inclusive over time (Pedersen et al., 2021). While short-term; and that designing and reaching safe global targets that work setting safe targets without accounting for justice in scenarios may to everyone’s benefit is an illusion that must be abandoned (Hulme, reproduce inequalities (Parikh, 1992), complementing them with just 2020). targets can expose potential trade-offs between safety and justice in a However, we argue that biophysical targets that reduce risks of scientifically and ethically transparent manner. crossing planetary boundaries can decrease harm to humans and thus increase social justice. Moreover, social-ecological issues are interwoven 4. How social scientists could engage with the scholarship on and have to be addressed synergistically (Roseland, 2000). For example, safe targets 70% of the world’s poor depend directly on nature’s contributions to people (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). If Academic efforts to complement and contrast safe targets with con- we only focus on local socio-economic justice, and do so in a reformist siderations of justice are challenging but useful. A key challenge is that mode, we will fail to solve cumulative and long-term international, the biophysical targets for the Earth system are usually quantitative (e.g. intra- and intergenerational planetary threats or the structural, trans- 2 ◦C of warming) whereas social justice is often measured more quali- boundary injustices that emerge in a globalized world. tatively with social scientists often using narratives and qualitative ar- Second, we submit that safe planetary targets need to be modified guments. While there are a plethora of social and development to ensure transformative, planetary justice. While some scholars indicators that are used to assess poverty, inequality or harm to humans, imply that safe targets are inherently just as they aim to preserve Earth many are measured infrequently or are only proxies (Liverman 2018). system stability for the survival of humanity (Rockström et al., 2009), we We combine a narrative and quantitative approach in proposing how argue that Earth system stability for the survival or even wellbeing of justice can be used in target setting using two concepts - harm and access humanity is not necessarily just for all humans and that safe targets may (Rockström et al., 2021b). Quantifying justice is reductionist but enables even make things worse for some. Biophysically ‘safe’ targets may be inclusion of some justice aspects in discussing biophysical targets. incompatible with goals for achieving social justice and human devel- While some Earth system scientists want to identify safe targets that opment (Biermann, 2012) and may negatively impact on the world’s will ensure the functioning of the Earth system for humanity, we argue poor (Kashwan et al., 2020). For example, setting aside large areas (as that a justice perspective requires that, for each biophysical domain, much as half the Earth; Wilson, 2016) from human use for biodiversity these targets also avoid significant (irreversible and existential) harm to protection, without addressing systemic issues, such as inequality in humans.1 For example, a 1.5 ◦C target may still cause widespread harm land tenure and the food consumption habits of the rich, could have to present and future humans. This suggests that a just target would be potentially devastating impacts on the world’s poor and food security more stringent in some cases than the safe planetary targets. At the same (Mehrabi et al., 2018; Obura et al., 2021; Büscher et al., 2017; Kopnina, time, human rights and Agenda 2030 require us to meet several social 2016; Schleicher et al., 2019), and potentially ignore relational values goals. Hence, we will also examine the Earth system implications of for nature (Wyborn et al., 2021). For climate, the 1.5 ◦C and 2 ◦C global ensuring access to energy, food, water and infrastructure (housing and warming limits, while avoiding the most extreme climate impacts, still transport) for those who currently lack such access, in a business-as- result in considerable harm to the most vulnerable (Masson-Delmotte usual scenario (i.e. a situation without substantial institutional, et al., 2018). Moreover, evaluating and implementing safe targets from a including technological and distributive, transformations). These im- broad transformations-oriented justice perspective and criteria (Grasso plications will be measured as additional pressure on biophysical vari- and Tàbara, 2019) can increase the chances of their implementation. ables such as greenhouse gas emissions, nutrient use, water use, land Behavioural experiments show that integrating justice may mobilize use, etc. people to change their behaviour (Gampfer et al., 2014; Liebrand et al., We anticipate that a safe target may still cause significant harm to 1986) while lack of collaboration and income inequalities will only people and that we may therefore need much more stringent global exacerbate resource overexploitation and scarcity (Owusu et al., 2019). biophysical targets from a just (no significant harm) perspective; how- Third, it can be legitimate for scholars to qualify safe planetary ever, achieving minimum access without transformation may increase targets by proposing that they also be just. Some object to setting pressures on the Earth system. The gap between the just (access) targets targets on behalf of ‘humanity’ because no legitimate authority and the just (no harm) targets will need to be bridged through just and commissioned the scientists to do so (Biermann and Kim, 2020) and transformative governance. Hence, if we are serious about the Sustain- argue that it is illegitimate for scientists and policymakers to undertake able Development Goals, the existing distribution of resources, risks and such an exercise (Boelens et al., 2018). In addition, it has been argued responsibilities will have to be revisited. that solutions-oriented research risks creating post-political narratives We recognize that quantifying justice may be seen as problematic that promote techno-managerial planning and administration at the because of its reductionism and the lack of focus on procedural justice. expense of democratic contestation (Lövbrand et al., 2015). Others are However, we see such preliminary quantification as a first step towards concerned that targets are often based on simulation or integrated strengthening the justice narrative in relation to biophysical targets. assessment models which use assumptions that may be inappropriate (Grubler et al., 2018), inaccurate (Castles and Henderson, 2003; Ped- 5. Conclusion ersen et al., 2020) unrealistic (Rosen, 2016), reductionist, power blind, ‘dehumanized’, decontextualized (Carton, 2020), disembodied (Porter, In this perspective we have introduced a framework that clusters 1995), and may disregard ethical (Lenzi, 2018) and historical re- justice perspectives with respect to safe planetary targets into four ideal- sponsibility (Parikh, 1992; Lenzi, 2018) or homogenize knowledge types. These range along one axis from worldviews promoting the ex- (Rosen, 2016; Ford et al., 2016). istence of universal values to those only accepting contextual values; We counter these arguments by proposing that it is a legitimate and useful research activity to study and suggest possible just targets and assess their implications, and to transparently grapple with the 1 We acknowledge that planetary justice goes beyond anthropocentrism but complexity of these issues in order to help decision-makers in their de- the human-nature relationships are being explored by a working group on liberations to set a path towards a better future for people and the biodiversity within the Earth Commission and are thus outside the purview of planet. Extended peer review processes can make the targets more this paper. 3 J. Gupta et al. E a r t h S y s t e m G o v e r n a n ce 10 (2021) 100122 and along the second axis from those advocating for reformist justice to Come to This? the Promises and Perils of Geoengineering on the Brink. Rutgers those promoting transformative justice. We then suggested that taking a University Press. Castles, I., Henderson, D., 2003. The IPCC emission scenarios: an economic-statistical multi-scale, transformative planetary justice approach can allow for justice critique. Energy Environ. 14, 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1260/ considerations to be integrated into proposals for safe planetary targets. 095830503765184583. Such an integration can lead to redefining targets focused on Earth Cimadamore, A.D., 2016. Global justice, international relations and the Sustainable Development Goals’ quest for poverty eradication. Journal of International and system stability and safety to also minimize harm to humans and ensure Comparative Social Policy 32 (2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/ access to the resources needed for a minimum level for all and can 21699763.2016.1198267. highlight the scale and speed of the global transformations needed. We Dirth, E., Biermann, F., Kalfagianni, A., 2020. What do researchers mean when talking do not wish to suggest that justice can be reduced to a calculus. Rather, about justice? An empirical review of justice narratives in global change research. Earth Syst. Govern. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100042, 100042. given the ‘trust in numbers’ (Porter, 1996) prevalent in our societies and Dryzek, J.S., Pickering, J., 2019. The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford University the impact of the scholarly work on safe targets on policymaking and Press. human wellbeing, we find it important to examine the justice implica- Ensor, J., Hoddy, E., 2021. Securing the social foundation: a rights-based approach to planetary boundaries. Earth Syst. Govern. 7, 100086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tions of such targets. By juxtaposing safe targets with harm and access esg.2020.100086. concerns, we hope to make it more difficult for justice and equity con- Ford, J., Cameron, L., Rubis, J., Maillet, M., Nakashima, D., Cunsolo Willox, A., cerns to be ignored. Pearce, T., 2016. Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Foregrounding the SDGs by way of harm and access targets places nclimate2954. social concerns on the same footing as environmental ones. It also en- Gampfer, R., Maule, A.G., Waste, S.M., 2014. Do individuals care about fairness in ables synergies and trade-offs between environmental and social aspi- burden sharing for climate change mitigation? Evidence from a lab experiment. Climatic Change 124 (1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1091-6. rations to be transparently investigated and facilitates democratic Grasso, M., Tàbara, J.D., 2019. Towards a moral compass to guide sustainability deliberation on these important issues. transformations in a high-end climate change world. Sustainability 11 (10), 2971. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102971. Grubler, A., Wilson, C., Bento, N., Boza-Kiss, B., Krey, V., McCollum, D.L., Rao, N.D., Funding Riahi, K., Rogelj, J., De Stercke, S., Cullen, J., Frank, S., Fricko, O., Guo, F., Gidden, M., Havlik, P., Huppmann, D., Kiesewetter, G., Rafaj, P., Schoepp, W., Valin, H., 2018. A low energy demand scenario for meeting the 1.5◦This work was supported by the Global Challenges Foundation and Ctarget and sustainable development goals without negative emission technologies. Nat. Energy the Global Commons Alliance, a sponsored project of Rockefeller Phi- 3, 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0172-6. lanthropy Advisors (with support from Oak Foundation, MAVA, Porti- Special issue: access and allocation in earth system governance. In: Gupta, J., Lebel, L. cus, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Herlin Foundation and the (Eds.), Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 20. Global Environment Facility). Gupta, J., Lebel, L., 2020b. Access and allocation in earth system governance: lessons learnt in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, 20, 393–410. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09486-4. Author contributions Häyhä, T., Lucas, P.L., van Vuuren, D.P., Cornell, S.E., Hoff, H., 2016. From planetary boundaries to national fair shares of the global safe operating space - how can the scales be bridged? Global Environ. Change 40, 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. This perspective emerged from the first workshop (held on gloenvcha.2016.06.008. November 12, 2020) among the Earth Commission Working Group 4 Hickel, Jason, 2019. Is it possible to achieve a good life for all within planetary members as well as many brainstorming sessions between senior and boundaries? Third World Q. 40 (1), 18–35. Hickey, C., Robeyns, I., 2020. Planetary justice: what can we learn from ethics and junior scholars within the Earth Commission. The first two authors led political philosophy? Earth Syst. Govern. 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. the process and others contributed to it. esg.2020.100045. Hulme, M., 2020. One earth, many futures, No destination. One Earth 2 (4), 309–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.03.005. Declaration of competing interest Kashwan, P., Biermann, F., Gupta, A., Okereke, C., 2020. Planetary justice: prioritizing the poor in earth system governance. Earth Syst. Govern. 6, 1–5. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.esg.2020.100075. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Kopnina, H., 2016. Half the earth for people (or more)? Addressing ethical questions in interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence conservation. Biol. Conserv. 203, 176–185. the work reported in this paper. Leach, M., Reyers, B., Bai, X., Brondizio, E.S., Cook, C., Díaz, S., Espindola, G., Scobie, M., Stafford-Smith, M., Subramanian, S.M., 2018. Equity and sustainability in the Anthropocene: a social–ecological systems perspective on their intertwined References futures. Global Sustainability 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.12. Lenzi, D., 2018. The ethics of negative emissions. Global Sustainability 1, E7. https://doi. Bai, X., van der Leeuw, S., O’Brien, K., Berkhout, F., Biermann, F., Brondizio, E.S., org/10.1017/sus.2018.5. Cudennec, C., Dearing, J., Duraiappah, A., Glaser, M., Revkin, A., Steffen, W., Liebrand, W.B., Jansen, R.W., Rijken, V.M., Suhre, C.J., 1986. Might over morality: social Syvitski, J., 2016. Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: a new values and the perception of other players in experimental games. J. Exp. Soc. research agenda. Global Environ. Change 39, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Psychol. 22 (3), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90024-7. gloenvcha.2015.09.017. Liverman, D.M., 2018. Geographic perspectives on development goals: constructive Biermann, F., 2012. Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: exploring the engagements and critical perspectives on the MDGs and the SDGs. Dialogues in links. Ecol. Econ. 81, 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.016. Human Geography 8 (2), 168–185. Biermann, F., Dirth, E., Kalfagianni, A., 2020. Planetary justice as a challenge for earth Lövbrand, E., Beck, S., Chilvers, J., Forsyth, T., Hedrén, J., Hulme, M., Lidskog, R., system governance: Editorial. Earth Syst. Govern. 6, 100085. https://doi.org/ Vasileiadou, E., 2015. Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science 10.1016/j.esg.2020.100085. can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Global Environ. Change 32, Biermann, F., Kalfagianni, A., 2020. Planetary justice: a research framework. Earth Syst. 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.012. Govern. 6, 100049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.10004. Masson-Delmotte, Valérie, Zhai, Panmao, Hans-Otto Pörtner, Roberts, Debra, Jim Skea, Biermann, F., Kim, R.E., 2020. The boundaries of the planetary boundary framework: a Shukla, Priyadarshi R., Anna, Pirani, et al., 2018. Global warming of 1.5 C. An IPCC critical appraisal of approaches to define a “safe operating space” for humanity. Special Report On the Impacts of Global Warming of 1, p. 5C. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45, 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- Mehrabi, Z., Ellis, E.C., Ramankutty, N., 2018. The challenge of feeding the world while environ-012320-080337. conserving half the planet. Nature Sustainability 1 (8), 409–412. https://doi.org/ Boelens, R., Perreault, T., Vos, J. (Eds.), 2018. Water Justice. Cambridge University 10.1038/s41893-018-0119-8. Press. Nash, Kirsty L., Christopher Cvitanovic, Elizabeth A., Fulton, Benjamin S., Halpern, E.J., Brondizio, E.S., O’Brien, K., Bai, X., Biermann, F., Steffen, W., Berkhout, F., Cudennec, C., Milner-Gulland, Watson, Reg A., Blanchard, Julia L., 2017. Planetary boundaries for Lemos, M.C., Wolfe, A., Palma-Oliveira, J., Chen, C.-T.A., 2016. Re-conceptualizing a blue planet. Nature ecology & evolution 1, 1625–1634. the Anthropocene: a call for collaboration. Global Environ. Change 39, 318–327. Obura, D.O., Katerere, Y., Mayet, M., Kaelo, D., Msweli, S., Mather, K., Harris, J., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.006. Louis, M., Kramer, R., Teferi, T., Samoilys, M., Lewis, L., Bennie, A., Kumah, F., Büscher, B., Fletcher, R., Brockington, D., Sandbrook, C., Adams, W.M., Campbell, L., Isaacs, M., Nantongo, P., 2021. Integrate biodiversity targets from local to global Corson, C., Dressler, W., Duffy, R., Gray, N., Holmes, G., 2017. Half-Earth or Whole levels. Science 373 (6556), 746–748. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh2234. Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications. Oryx 51 (3), 407–410. O’Neill, D.W., Fanning, A.L., Lamb, W.F., Steinberger, J.K., 2018. A good life for all Carton, W., 2020. Carbon unicorns and fossil futures. Whose emission reduction within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability 1 (2), 88–95. https://doi.org/ pathways is the IPCC performing? In: Sapinski, J.P., Buck, H., Malm, A. (Eds.), Has it 10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4. Scopus. 4 J. Gupta et al. E a r t h S y s t e m G o v e r n a n ce 10 (2021) 100122 Owusu, K.A., Kulesz, M.M., Merico, A., 2019. Extraction behaviour and income Roseland, M., 2000. Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, inequalities resulting from a common pool resource exploitation. Sustainability 1 economic, and social objectives. Prog. Plann. 54 (2), 73–132. https://doi.org/ (2), 536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020536. 10.1016/S0305-9006(00)00003-9. Parikh, J.K., 1992. IPCC strategies unfair to the South. Nature 360, 507–508. https://doi. Rosen, R.A., 2016. Is the IPCC’s 5th assessment a denier of possible macroeconomic org/10.1038/360507a0. benefits from mitigating climate change? Clim. Change Econ. 7 https://doi.org/ Pedersen, J.S.T., Santos, F.D., van Vuuren, D.P., Gupta, J., Coelho, R.E., Aparício, B.A., 10.1142/S2010007816400030, 16040003-1-1640003-30. Swart, R., 2021. An assessment of the performance of scenarios against historical Running, S.W., 2012. A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. science 337 global emissions for IPCC reports. Global Environ. Change 66, 1–14. https://doi.org/ (6101), 1458–1459. 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.001. Schleicher, J., Zaehringer, J.G., Fastré, C., Vira, B., Visconti, P., Sandbrook, C., 2019. Pedersen, J.S.T., van Vuuren, D.P., Aparício, B.A., Swart, R., Gupta, J., Santos, F.D., Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nature 2020. Variability in historical emissions trends suggests a need for a wide range of Sustainability 2 (12), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0423-y. global scenarios and regional analyses. Communications Earth & Environment 1, 41. Spangenberg, J.H., 2014. Institutional change for strong sustainable consumption: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00045-y. sustainable consumption and the degrowth economy. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 10 (1), Porter, T.M., 1995. Trust in Numbers: the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public 62–77. Life. Princeton University Press. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Raworth, K., 2012. A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can We Live within the Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Papers. Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sorlin, S., 2015. Planetary Raworth, K., 2017. A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity’s compass in the 21st boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347. https:// century. Lancet: Planetary Health 1 (2) e-48-e-49. doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855, 1259855–1259855. Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Lenton, T.M., Qin, D., Lade, S.J., Abrams, J.F., Rocha, J.C., Tàbara, J.D., Chabay, I., 2013. Coupling Human Information and Knowledge Systems Bai, X., Bala, G., Bringezu, S., Broadgate, W., Bunn, S.E., DeClerck, F., Ebi, K.L., with social–ecological systems change: reframing research, education, and policy for Gong, P., Gordon, C., Halpern, B.S., Kanie, N., Liverman, D.M., Nakicenovic, N., sustainability. Environ. Sci. Pol. 28, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Obura, D., Ramanathan, V., Verburg, P.H., van Vuuren, D.P., Winkelmann, R., envsci.2012.11.005. 2021a. A safe and just corridor for people and the planet. Earth’s Future 9. https:// Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., et al., doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001866. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., Pedde, S., Broadgate, W., Warszawski, L., 2021b. sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 (10170), 447–492. Stockholm to Stockholm: achieving a safe Earth requires goals that incorporate a just Wilson, E.O., 2016. Half-earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, first ed. Liveright Publishing approach. One Earth 4 (9), 1209–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Corporation, a division of W.W. Norton & Company. oneear.2021.08.012. Wyborn, C., Montana, J., Kalas, N., Clement, S., Davila, F., Knowles, N., Louder, E., Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T. Balan, M., Chambers, J., Christel, L., Forsyth, T., Henderson, G., Izquierdo Tort, S., M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., Lim, M., Martinez-Harms, M.J., Merçon, J., Nuesiri, E., Pereira, L., Pilbeam, V., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Ryan, M., 2021. An agenda for research and action toward diverse and just futures Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., for life on Earth. Conserv. Biol. 35 (4), 1086–1097. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. cobi.13671. Nature 461, 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a. 5