Impacts of meeting minimum access on critical earth systems amidst the Great Inequality

Abstract

The Sustainable Development Goals aim to improve access to resources and services, reduce environmental degradation, eradicate poverty and reduce inequality. However, the magnitude of the environmental burden that would arise from meeting the needs of the poorest is under debate—especially when compared to much larger burdens from the rich. We show that the ‘Great Acceleration’ of human impacts was characterized by a ‘Great Inequality’ in using and damaging the environment. We then operationalize ‘just access’ to minimum energy, water, food and infrastructure. We show that achieving just access in 2018, with existing inequalities, technologies and behaviours, would have produced 2–26% additional impacts on the Earth’s natural systems of climate, water, land and nutrients—thus further crossing planetary boundaries. These hypothetical impacts, caused by about a third of humanity, equalled those caused by the wealthiest 1–4%. Technological and behavioural changes thus far, while important, did not deliver just access within a stable Earth system. Achieving these goals therefore calls for a radical redistribution of resources.

Earth system justice needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries

“…Vulnerability and marginalization are not innate but created by human systems 61 , hence the response to Earth system risks must address the drivers of such vulnerability. We choose ideal rather than conservative justice because it will be impossible to meet the basic needs of the poorest within ESBs without redistribution and radical transformation of the global system 28 . Epistemic justice leads us to consider scholarship on other knowledge systems, especially local and Indigenous 62 , and respect attempts by unrecognized or misrecognized groups to frame and decide transformations and establish epistemic equity between different forms of knowing 63 .…”

“…Guided by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and international human rights principles, our operationalization of justice posits that everyone should have at least minimum access to the food, energy, water and infrastructure (housing and transport) needed for a dignified life or to escape from poverty. However, ensuring such minimum access adds significant pressure on the environment 28 unless we address issues of sharing the remaining resources, risks/harm and responsibilities and implement sustainability practices combined with structural and systemic transformations in inequality, accumulation, consumption, technology, values and other social underlying drivers of environmental change and vulnerability. Just transformations may require redistributive strategies that reallocate consumption, risks and responsibilities, and address vested interests.…”

Achieving a nature- and people-positive future

“…108 Intragenerational justice is a critical issue in current conservation discourse due to the inequity between the low-income countries targeted for greatest conservation action and the high-income countries who have over-consumed their fair share of nature's benefits. 52,55,77,79,109,110 A justice perspective also recognizes nuances: in between these extremes are many different combinations of economies, actors, and individuals with respect to their historical responsibility and the capability to act. The current spatial burden of conservation responses requires that we consider justice and fairness when understanding who lives in places where conservation can be implemented, who is impacted by conservation and how, and who is tasked with action.…”

“…With over a billion people worldwide falling into this category, implementing this with no compensatory changes will entail a significant increase in impacts on biodiversity, often in already-stressed and biodiversity-important regions. 110 This highlights the ''transformative ll OPEN ACCESS change'' that is seen as necessary to achieve a future within planetary limits 10 and to achieve the GBF. 13,41 That is, the political will and cohesion on the part of wealthier nations to facilitate and enable this, by making space through action 5 and other measures such as those expressed in the GBF targets 18 (eliminating harmful subsidies) and 19 (fully resourcing the strategy), is understood by many as an unavoidable and necessary precondition for addressing these tradeoffs.…”

Catalysing city-company collaborations to operate within Earth System boundaries

“…There are few existing mechanisms that cater to the need for catalysing city-company collaborations, but there are ways ahead. Common procedures for translating Earth system boundaries, focusing on interactions, acknowledging dynamics, allocating for justice and equity 58 , and designing incentives take place among important needs to be able to guide this process 21 . The illustrative roadmap for catalysing city-company collaborations in Table 1 emphasizes the possible entry points and collaborative actions forward with a view of interactions across domains.…”