2 Planetary Boundaries and the Equitable Allocation of Resources and Burdens

Resource extraction:

 With the onset of the Anthropocene and the intensification of industrial activity since the Industrial Revolution, humankind has systematically extracted and degraded natural resources to an extent that has and will continue to alter the climate on a global scale (Steffen et al., 2011). Current levels of resource extraction are unsustainable, and some planetary resources are at the verge of being exhausted. Emanating from this concern, the concept of ‘planetary boundaries’ has been introduced to aid us in understanding the resource limits humankind must respect to avoid drastic, irreversible changes to the livability of the planet (Steffen et al., 2015). Currently, planetary boundaries are being exceeded by most countries on Earth. O’Neill et al. (2018) find that only 34% of 150 countries analysed are within favourable boundaries concerning to CO2 emissions. Further, only 43% of countries are below the limits of five out of the other six biophysical indicators, including ecological footprint and material footprint (which are resource extraction and consumption-based metrics, respectively). Irrespective of this over-extraction and over-consumption in many counties, analysis of socio-economic indicators highlights that few countries experience a ‘complete fulfillment’ of the basic needs of people (O’Neill, 2018). This essay will track a series of debates and discussions emerging from the recognition that planetary boundaries are being exceeded with significant socio-ecological impacts. Debates surrounding climate justice, the economics and degrowth, and the scalar challenge of responding to climate change, its drivers and impacts, will be discussed.

Questions of justice & equity:

The situation regarding planetary boundaries raises various question of equity and justice (Tokar, 2018). Climate equity and climate justice remain concepts with contested definitions (Manzo 2021; Minow, 2021). However, a principal component of both relates to the question of access – to opportunities, a good life, decision-making power, etc. Currently, those nations and people who are surpassing the various planetary boundaries, are preventing populations elsewhere – who exert less pressure on their environments – from accessing their rightful share of the environment and its accompanying benefits (e.g., economic growth, quality of life, comfort, etc.). Additionally, the human and environmental impacts of climate change are often concentrated far from the human activities which cause them. While emissions lead to climate change globally, populations in more vulnerable positions will feel the negative impacts more acutely, directly impacting their overall quality of life. On another scale, generational equity is also jeopardised in cases where excessive resource use at present will prevent future generations from accessing necessary resources currently available for many (Georgescu-Roegen, 1975).

These examples point to various climate justice frameworks which have been proposed, with a variable focus from “corrective justice” within which historical responsibility for current environmental degradation is seen as key, to “inter-generational justice” within which questions of power distribution among current and future generations are considered, to “procedural justice” within which the central concern is representation and voice within decision-making processes (McGandy, 2023). Importantly, these various ways of framing the problem of anthropogenic climate change point to the multiple scales – across time and space – and the complex, socially-driven nature of the inequity-based problem, which will demand deep consideration in designing appropriate responses (Sultana, 2022).

Challenging the economics of extraction

 In general, O’Neill et al. (2018) claim that satisfying the basic needs of the entire world population is feasible within the current economic order. Nevertheless, the depletion of natural resources poses serious challenges to prevalent economic practices, leading to growing calls for a reconsideration of mainstream economic models, challenging the paradigm of continuous economic growth (Van den Bergh and Kallis, 2012). The “economics of degrowth” aims to reorientate current economic models to incorporate considerations of social justice as well as environmental and ecological economics to meet the challenges of intensifying climatic extremes and to avert worst-case scenarios with respect to the unequal impacts of climate change. At the core of the discussion are two main concepts. Firstly, degrowth questions how much growth is sustainable in the long term. From there, concerns surrounding the definition of prosperity emerge. From a global perspective, degrowth asks, how should we define prosperity, and how should wealth or prosperity be distributed? What is the global common minimum level of prosperity that countries should be able to achieve in accordance with now limited natural resources?

After defining what a global common minimum level of prosperity should be, the question of how to realise and maintain a certain level of socially equitable prosperity without compromising environmental boundaries must also be addressed. As stated, a starting point might be the redirection of production towards certain sectors, within the concept of degrowth. In some countries, a process of decoupling of GDP growth and CO2 emissions has been observed (Hubacek et al., 2021). However, the process is still lacking sufficient strength and most of the countries of the global south are so far not sufficiently integrated in decision making processes on the future direction of global “growth”, economic or otherwise. The ongoing debate about decoupling and degrowth is also happening at the international scale, having been referenced within the IPCC’s report ‘Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ (IPCC, 2022).

Governing change across scales:

To conclude, collaboration between stakeholders and the increasing use of so-called “citizens’ assemblies” (Lacelle-Webster and Warren, 2021) to address and frame specific societal issues, including climate change and related planetary boundaries, can strengthen the bottom-up element of ensuring prosperity at the local scale. However, the spill-over effects of climate change cannot be resolved at the local or national level in isolation. Changes to multilevel governance mechanisms from the local to the global seems unavoidable for achieving global prosperity and reducing the impacts of climate change through equity-based principles. Interesting proposals have been recently presented by the United Nations’ High-Level Advisory Board (HLAB) on Effective Multilateralism (2023) which are proceeding in the right direction. However, more radical proposals (Grimaldi, 2012) should not be prematurely discarded if it means achieving a safe and equitable planet in place of continued ecological extraction and degradation.

References                                         

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1975) ‘Energy and Economic Myths’, Southern Economic Journal, 41(3), pp. 347–381. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1056148.

Grimaldi, G. (2012). ‘Prospects for Ecological Federalism’, L’Europe en Formation, 363(1), pp. 301-323.

HLAB – High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism (2023). ‘A Breakthrough for People and Planet: Effective and Inclusive Global Governance for Today and the Future’, New York: United Nations University. Available at: https://highleveladvisoryboard.org/breakthrough/pdf/highleveladvisoryboard_breakthrough_fullreport.pdf

Hubacek, K., Chen, X., Feng, K., Wiedmann, T., & Shan, Y. (2021). Evidence of Decoupling Consumption-Based CO2 Emissions from Economic Growth. Advances in Applied Energy, 4, 100074.

IPCC (2022). ‘Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp., doi:10.1017/9781009325844.

Lacelle-Webster, A., & Warren, M. E. (2021), ‘Citizens’ Assemblies and Democracy’, in Thompson, W. R. (ed) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.  New York, NY : Oxford University Press. Available at: https:// oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/ acrefore-9780190228637-e-1975.

Manzo, R. (2021) Climate Equity or Climate Justice? More than a question of terminology | IUCN. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/news/world-commission-environmental-law/202103/climate-equity-or-climate-justice-more-a-question-terminology (Accessed: 5 June 2023).

McGandy, M. (2023) ‘Whose Climate Justice? An Overview of Climate Justice Frameworks’. ENLIGHT Summer School – Equity and Sustainability Transitions, University of Galway, 29 May.

Minow, M. (2021) ‘EQUALITY VS. EQUITY’, American Journal of Law and Equality, 1, pp. 167–193. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1162/ajle_a_00019.

O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F., & Steinberger, J. K. (2018). ‘A Good Life for all within Planetary Boundaries’. Nature Sustainability, 1(2),pp. 88-95.

Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2011). ‘The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1938),pp. 842-867.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K, Rockström, J., Cornell S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyaers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). ‘Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet’, Science, 347 (6223), DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855.

Sultana, F. (2022). Critical Climate Justice. The Geographical Journal, 188 (1), pp.118-124. https://rgsibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/geoj.12417

Tokar, B. (2018). On the Evolution and Continuing Development of the Climate Justice Movement. In Routledge Handbook of Climate Justice, pp. 13-25. London: Routledge.

Van den Bergh, J. C., & Kallis, G. (2012). Growth, A-growth or Degrowth to Stay within Planetary Boundaries?. Journal of Economic Issues, 46(4), 909-920.