Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that nature is central to both the emergence of and recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. It proposes a sustainability dashboard focused on the planetary boundaries of climate and nature loss, identifying the transformation of the global food system as a primary priority to strengthen planetary resilience against future pandemics.

The submission by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) criticises the UK's focus on military deployment and the arms trade, urging a shift toward 'human security'. SGR identifies rapid climate change, nuclear war, and biodiversity loss as high-priority security threats and calls for the reallocation of military funding toward the 'green' economy and social needs.

The Green Economy Coalition views the COVID-19 pandemic as a symptom of a broken economic system and a 'once-in-a-generation opportunity' to shift toward a green economy. They advocate for a recovery that goes beyond net-zero emissions to incorporate wellbeing, justice, and planetary boundaries. The Coalition is currently monitoring government stimulus packages to ensure they support small businesses and green job creation for the poorest, while connecting networks to develop long-term resilience reforms.

The statement asserts that current economic systems, which treat the environment as a free good and ignore thermodynamic limits, have driven climate change and the sixth mass extinction. It calls for a radical shift toward economic models that prioritize sustainable ecological foundations and biodiversity preservation to maintain a safe and just space within planetary boundaries.

The author advocates for a 'legal revolution' to address the climate and environmental crisis by granting legal personhood to species and ecosystems. This approach aims to replace the current system, where nature is treated as an object for exploitation, with a framework that recognizes planetary boundaries and holds corporate executives accountable through the criminalization of ecocide. The text highlights the work of the non-profit Notre Affaire à Tous in mobilizing citizens and pursuing legal action, such as the Affaire du Siècle, to force state accountability.

Friends of the Earth International assesses the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, acknowledging some progress in governance but condemning the lack of corporate accountability, the absence of indigenous rights, and the promotion of 'false solutions' like biodiversity offsetting. The organization calls for a systemic shift that addresses the root causes of biodiversity loss and ensures equity between the Global North and South.

The Green Economy Coalition (GEC) has established a 10-year action plan (2020–2030) to drive structural economic reform globally. The strategy identifies five systemic flaws in current economic models—including outdated metrics like GDP and short-termism in finance—and proposes five key interventions: reforming governance, financial systems, economic sectors, inequality, and the valuation of nature. To achieve these, GEC will pursue four pathways: telling new narratives, building critical mass through citizen dialogue, influencing policy via tools like the Green Economy Tracker, and transitioning to a decentralized 'network of networks' structure. The goal is to ensure that by 2030, inclusive green economy principles are central to decisions made by policymakers, business leaders, and citizens.

The report analyzes how shifting from current diets to planet-based diets—which prioritize plant-based foods over animal-source foods—can mitigate biodiversity loss, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and lower premature mortality globally. It identifies five strategic actions: reversing biodiversity loss, living within a global carbon budget for food, feeding humanity on existing cropland, achieving negative emissions, and optimizing crop yields. While global trends show clear benefits, the report emphasizes that impacts vary by country; for instance, some undernourished nations may see increased land-use pressure if dietary improvements are not coupled with sustainable production and reduced waste. The document concludes with policy recommendations for national governments to integrate sustainable diets into their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and update National Dietary Guidelines (NDGs).

The text addresses criticisms that the planetary boundaries framework lacks democratic legitimacy due to its expert-driven nature. It proposes a model of 'evaluative labour' where experts provide risk warnings while citizens and policy-makers engage in deliberative contestation over the value judgments involved in responding to earth-system risks.

The document categorises natural capital tools into six technical groups: biodiversity footprint, mapping, qualitative/quantitative, monetary, absolute ecological performance, and integrated accounting. It distinguishes between tools oriented toward economic performance (utilitarian interests) and those oriented toward ecological performance (strong sustainability), advocating for the latter to ensure activities remain within planetary boundaries.

The Stockholm Environment Institute has developed a new macroeconomic model to test how different sustainability strategies affect economic stability. Unlike traditional models, this version assumes people act based on past experience rather than optimal future knowledge. Initial experiments show that 'downshifting' (reducing working hours/workforce participation) can slow GDP growth and consumption without causing instability, whereas simply reducing consumption levels while maintaining the workforce can lead to recession and economic instability.

The document outlines requirements for the post-2020 biodiversity goals following the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. It advocates for the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth in the decision-making process. The authors argue that unlimited economic growth is incompatible with environmental preservation and call for the removal of corporate control over public policy and financial instruments. Furthermore, the statement rejects the use of biodiversity offsets and single biodiversity metrics, suggesting that goals must include qualitative aspects and divestment from destructive projects.

The document calls for a post-2020 biodiversity framework that prioritizes planetary boundaries over economic growth and incorporates the leadership of indigenous peoples and local communities. It explicitly rejects the 'voluntary commitments' model used in the Paris Agreement and argues against biodiversity offsets, claiming they are ineffective due to the complexity of ecosystems.

The document calls for the Convention on Biological Diversity to replace the Aichi Biodiversity Targets with a framework based on planetary limits, emphasizing the need for full participation from indigenous peoples, local communities, and civil society. It argues against the use of voluntary pledges, biodiversity metrics, and offsetting, while advocating for the limitation of corporate influence and the divestment from destructive activities.

The author advocates for a 'sufficiency' paradigm to replace the pursuit of infinite economic growth, which is deemed incompatible with planetary boundaries. The text proposes a shift toward an economy where the Global North reduces its material and energy throughput to allow the global poor to meet their basic needs. Key policy mechanisms suggested include 'cap-and-rationing' systems for resources and carbon, a transition from labor-based to resource-based green taxation, and the implementation of maximum income ceilings to curb conspicuous consumption and speculation.

The document introduces a study that applies the Planetary Boundaries framework—which sets quantitative limits on human perturbation of Earth system processes to avoid irreversible environmental change—to the EU-28. It specifically focuses on disaggregating and benchmarking boundaries for climate change, biosphere integrity, land systems change, freshwater use, biogeochemical flows, and novel entities.

The paper examines Tanzania's electrification challenges, noting that only 32.8% of the population had electricity access in 2016. It critiques the proposed $3.6 billion Stiegler's Gorge hydroelectric dam, arguing that its benefits are outweighed by risks to the Selous World Heritage Site and downstream livelihoods in the Lower Rufiji. The author suggests that Tanzania should leapfrog traditional centralized infrastructure in favor of a combination of large-scale and micro-scale solar and wind power to achieve inclusive development without causing significant biodiversity loss.

The Living Planet Report 2018 documents a severe global decline in biodiversity, highlighted by a 60% drop in vertebrate populations since 1970. It identifies overexploitation and agriculture, driven by runaway human consumption, as the primary threats. The report emphasizes that nature provides essential services worth approximately US$125 trillion annually and calls for an ambitious international agreement to 'bend the curve' of biodiversity loss through a roadmap of clear goals, measurable indicators, and transformative actions.

The document argues that the EU is not "living within the limits of our planet," significantly exceeding its equal-per-capita fair share of the global safe operating space for climate change and biogeochemical flows. It proposes downscaling global boundaries to regional levels to create benchmarks for both production- and consumption-based performance, highlighting that EU consumption often exerts higher pressure than the global average. While the EU has various policy instruments addressing individual boundaries, the brief notes a lack of integration regarding interlinkages between processes and the EU's international environmental footprint.

The brief explores the application of the Planetary Boundaries framework to EU policy, using an equal-per-capita allocation approach to determine a 'fair share' of the global safe operating space. It finds that the EU significantly exceeds its per capita limits for climate change and biogeochemical flows, and that EU consumption exerts higher pressure on several boundaries than the global average. While existing EU policy instruments offer entry points for integrating these boundaries, they currently fail to address the EU's international environmental footprint or the interactions between different planetary processes.