Search Results
Integrating Life Cycle and Impact Assessments to Map Food's Cumulative Environmental Footprint
Producing food exerts pressures on the environment. Understanding the location and magnitude of food production is key to reducing the impacts of these pressures on nature and people. In this Perspective, Kuempel et al. outline an approach for integrating life cycle assessment and cumulative impact mapping data and methodologies to map the cumulative environmental pressure of food systems. The approach enables quantification of current and potential future environmental pressures, which are needed to reduce the net impact of feeding humanity. © 2020 The AuthorsFeeding a growing, increasingly affluent population while limiting environmental pressures of food production is a central challenge for society. Understanding the location and magnitude of food production is key to addressing this challenge because pressures vary substantially across food production types. Applying data and models from life cycle assessment with the methodologies for mapping cumulative environmental impacts of human activities (hereafter cumulative impact mapping) provides a powerful approach to spatially map the cumulative environmental pressure of food production in a way that is consistent and comprehensive across food types. However, these methodologies have yet to be combined. By synthesizing life cycle assessment and cumulative impact mapping methodologies, we provide guidance for comprehensively and cumulatively mapping the environmental pressures (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, spatial occupancy, and freshwater use) associated with food production systems. This spatial approach enables quantification of current and potential future environmental pressures, which is needed for decision makers to create more sustainable food policies and practices. © 2020 The Authors
The strategic dimension of financing global public goods
One challenge in addressing transboundary problems such as climate change is the incentive to free-ride. Transfers from multilateral compensation funds are often used to counteract such incentives, albeit with varying success. We examine how such funds can change the incentive to free-ride in a global public-goods game. In our game, self-interested countries choose their own preferred course, deciding their voluntary public good provision, whether to join a fund that offers compensation for providing the public good and the volume of compensatory payments. We show that (i) total public-good provision is higher when those contributing are given more compensation; and (ii) non-participation in the fund can be punished if the remaining members decrease their public-good provision sufficiently. We then examine three specific fund designs. In the first, the compensation paid to each country is equal to the percentage of above-average total costs for public-goods provision. This design is best able to deter free-riding and can establish the social optimum as the equilibrium. In the second, the compensation paid to each country is a function of the marginal cost of their public-good provision. Here there are significant incentives to free-ride. In the third case, the monetary resources provided by the fund are fixed, a design frequently encountered in international funds. This design is the one least able to deter free-riding. © 2020 The Author(s)
Integrated Climate-Change Assessment Scenarios and Carbon Dioxide Removal
To halt climate change, we must reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions to net zero. Any emission sources must be balanced by natural or technological carbon sinks that facilitate CO2 removal (CDR) from the atmosphere. The integrated scenario framework represents how socio-economic trends and social values interact with biophysical systems in exploring future climate change and decarbonization pathways. This primer introduces the integrated scenario framework and its application to explore options for offsetting emissions with CDR. © 2020 The AuthorsTo halt climate change this century, we must reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities to net zero. Any emission sources, such as in the energy or land-use sectors, must be balanced by natural or technological carbon sinks that facilitate CO2 removal (CDR) from the atmosphere. Projections of demand for large-scale CDR are based on an integrated scenario framework for emission scenarios composed of emission profiles as well as alternative socio-economic development trends and social values consistent with them. The framework, however, was developed years before systematic reviews of CDR entered the literature. This primer provides an overview of the purposes of scenarios in climate-change research and how they are used. It also introduces the integrated scenario framework and why it came about. CDR studies using the scenario framework, as well as its limitations, are discussed. Possible future developments for the scenario framework are highlighted, especially in relation to CDR. © 2020 The Authors
Challenges in producing policy-relevant global scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services
Scenario-based modelling is a powerful tool to describe relationships between plausible trajectories of drivers, possible policy interventions, and impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Model inter-comparisons are key in quantifying uncertainties and identifying avenues for model improvement but have been missing among the global biodiversity and ecosystem services modelling communities. The biodiversity and ecosystem services scenario-based inter-model comparison (BES-SIM) aims to fill this gap. We used global land-use and climate projections to simulate possible future impacts on terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services using a variety of models and a range of harmonized metrics. The goal of this paper is to reflect on the steps taken in BES-SIM, identify remaining methodological challenges, and suggest pathways for improvement. We identified five major groups of challenges; the need to: 1) better account for the role of nature in future human development storylines; 2) improve the representation of drivers in the scenarios by increasing the resolution (temporal, spatial and thematic) of land-use as key driver of biodiversity change and including additional relevant drivers; 3) explicitly integrate species- and trait-level biodiversity in ecosystem services models; 4) expand the coverage of the multiple dimensions of biodiversity and ecosystem services; and finally, 5) incorporate time-series or one-off historical data in the calibration and validation of biodiversity and ecosystem services models. Addressing these challenges would allow the development of more integrated global projections of biodiversity and ecosystem services, thereby improving their policy relevance in supporting the interlinked international conservation and sustainable development agendas. © 2019 The Authors
The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment
Background: Health-care services are necessary for sustaining and improving human wellbeing, yet they have an environmental footprint that contributes to environment-related threats to human health. Previous studies have quantified the carbon emissions resulting from health care at a global level. We aimed to provide a global assessment of the wide-ranging environmental impacts of this sector. Methods: In this multiregional input-output analysis, we evaluated the contribution of health-care sectors in driving environmental damage that in turn puts human health at risk. Using a global supply-chain database containing detailed information on health-care sectors, we quantified the direct and indirect supply-chain environmental damage driven by the demand for health care. We focused on seven environmental stressors with known adverse feedback cycles: greenhouse gas emissions, particulate matter, air pollutants (nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide), malaria risk, reactive nitrogen in water, and scarce water use. Findings: Health care causes global environmental impacts that, depending on which indicator is considered, range between 1% and 5% of total global impacts, and are more than 5% for some national impacts. Interpretation: Enhancing health-care expenditure to mitigate negative health effects of environmental damage is often promoted by health-care practitioners. However, global supply chains that feed into the enhanced activity of health-care sectors in turn initiate adverse feedback cycles by increasing the environmental impact of health care, thus counteracting the mission of health care. Funding: Australian Research Council, National eResearch Collaboration Tools and Resources project. © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license