7 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
- ItemReply to Bhowmik et al.: Democratic climate action and studying extreme climate risks are not in tension(Washington, DC : National Acad. of Sciences, 2022) Kemp, Luke; Xu, Chi; Depledge, Joanna; Ebi, Kristie L.; Gibbins, Goodwin; Kohler, Timothy A.; Rockström, Johan; Scheffer, Marten; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim; Steffen, Will; Lenton, Timothy M.[no abstract available]
- ItemReply to Ruhl and Craig: Assessing and governing extreme climate risks needs to be legitimate and democratic(Washington, DC : National Acad. of Sciences, 2022) Kemp, Luke; Xu, Chi; Depledge, Joanna; Ebi, Kristie L.; Gibbins, Goodwin; Kohler, Timothy A.; Rockström, Johan; Scheffer, Marten; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim; Steffen, Will; Lenton, Timothy M.[No abstract available]
- ItemImpacts of meeting minimum access on critical earth systems amidst the Great Inequality(London : Springer Nature, 2022) Rammelt, Crelis F.; Gupta, Joyeeta; Liverman, Diana; Scholtens, Joeri; Ciobanu, Daniel; Abrams, Jesse F.; Bai, Xuemei; Gifford, Lauren; Gordon, Christopher; Hurlbert, Margot; Inoue, Cristina Y. A.; Jacobson, Lisa; Lade, Steven J.; Lenton, Timothy M.; McKay, David I. Armstrong; Nakicenovic, Nebojsa; Okereke, Chukwumerije; Otto, Ilona M.; Pereira, Laura M.; Prodani, Klaudia; Rockström, Johan; Stewart-Koster, Ben; Verburg, Peter H.; Zimm, CarolineThe 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.
- ItemReply to Burgess et al: Catastrophic climate risks are neglected, plausible, and safe to study(Washington, DC : National Acad. of Sciences, 2022) Kemp, Luke; Xu, Chi; Depledge, Joanna; Ebi, Kristie L.; Gibbins, Goodwin; Kohler, Timothy A.; Rockström, Johan; Scheffer, Marten; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim; Steffen, Will; Lenton, Timothy M.
- ItemReply to Kelman: The foundations for studying catastrophic climate risks(Washington, DC : National Acad. of Sciences, 2022) Kemp, Luke; Xu, Chi; Depledge, Joanna; Ebi, Kristie L.; Gibbins, Goodwin; Kohler, Timothy A.; Rockström, Johan; Scheffer, Marten; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim; Steffen, Will; Lenton, Timothy M.
- ItemAll options, not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C: a scenario appraisal(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2021-5-25) Warszawski, Lila; Kriegler, Elmar; Lenton, Timothy M.; Gaffney, Owen; Jacob, Daniela; Klingenfeld, Daniel; Koide, Ryu; Máñez Costa, María; Messner, Dirk; Nakicenovic, Nebojsa; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim; Schlosser, Peter; Takeuchi, Kazuhiko; Van Der Leeuw, Sander; Whiteman, Gail; Rockström, JohanClimate science provides strong evidence of the necessity of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. The IPCC 1.5 °C special report (SR1.5) presents 414 emissions scenarios modelled for the report, of which around 50 are classified as '1.5 °C scenarios', with no or low temperature overshoot. These emission scenarios differ in their reliance on individual mitigation levers, including reduction of global energy demand, decarbonisation of energy production, development of land-management systems, and the pace and scale of deploying carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. The reliance of 1.5 °C scenarios on these levers needs to be critically assessed in light of the potentials of the relevant technologies and roll-out plans. We use a set of five parameters to bundle and characterise the mitigation levers employed in the SR1.5 1.5 °C scenarios. For each of these levers, we draw on the literature to define 'medium' and 'high' upper bounds that delineate between their 'reasonable', 'challenging' and 'speculative' use by mid century. We do not find any 1.5 °C scenarios that stay within all medium upper bounds on the five mitigation levers. Scenarios most frequently 'over use' CDR with geological storage as a mitigation lever, whilst reductions of energy demand and carbon intensity of energy production are 'over used' less frequently. If we allow mitigation levers to be employed up to our high upper bounds, we are left with 22 of the SR1.5 1.5 °C scenarios with no or low overshoot. The scenarios that fulfil these criteria are characterised by greater coverage of the available mitigation levers than those scenarios that exceed at least one of the high upper bounds. When excluding the two scenarios that exceed the SR1.5 carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, this subset of 1.5 °C scenarios shows a range of 15–22 Gt CO2 (16–22 Gt CO2 interquartile range) for emissions in 2030. For the year of reaching net zero CO2 emissions the range is 2039–2061 (2049–2057 interquartile range).
- ItemIdentifying a Safe and Just Corridor for People and the Planet(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2021) Rockström, Johan; Gupta, Joyeeta; Lenton, Timothy M.; Qin, Dahe; Lade, Steven J.; Abrams, Jesse F.; Jacobson, Lisa; Rocha, Juan C.; Zimm, Caroline; Bai, Xuemei; Bala, Govindasamy; Bringezu, Stefan; Broadgate, Wendy; Bunn, Stuart E.; DeClerck, Fabrice; Ebi, Kristie L.; Gong, Peng; Gordon, Chris; Kanie, Norichika; Liverman, Diana M.; Nakicenovic, Nebojsa; Obura, David; Ramanathan, Veerabhadran; Verburg, Peter H.; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Winkelmann, RicardaKeeping the Earth system in a stable and resilient state, to safeguard Earth's life support systems while ensuring that Earth's benefits, risks, and related responsibilities are equitably shared, constitutes the grand challenge for human development in the Anthropocene. Here, we describe a framework that the recently formed Earth Commission will use to define and quantify target ranges for a “safe and just corridor” that meets these goals. Although “safe” and “just” Earth system targets are interrelated, we see safe as primarily referring to a stable Earth system and just targets as being associated with meeting human needs and reducing exposure to risks. To align safe and just dimensions, we propose to address the equity dimensions of each safe target for Earth system regulating systems and processes. The more stringent of the safe or just target ranges then defines the corridor. Identifying levers of social transformation aimed at meeting the safe and just targets and challenges associated with translating the corridor to actors at multiple scales present scope for future work.