Planetary Boundaries Quotes

We take it for granted, the world that we love—and we’re destroying it so quickly. The light of dawn on the prairie. The silvery flash of fish in a stream. The cry of a hawk over a forest. Everybody has their own idea of the beautiful, and we’ll surely miss it when it’s gone.

When a business really wants to show off today, it doesn’t hang its logo on the equivalent of a gas-guzzling Hummer; it proudly puts forward its leanest, cleanest, and coolest new product.

While growth may be unsustainable, de-growth is unstable.’ Today’s economic model cannot continue indefinitely. We live on a small planet. The population and the economy are growing, but the planet is not growing.

The evidence piles up. And in the face of this evidence, proponents of green growth eventually begin to turn to fairy tales. Sure, they say, maybe green growth isn’t empirically actual, but there’s no reason that it can’t happen in theory. We are limited only by our imagination! There’s no reason we can’t have our incomes rising for ever while we nonetheless consume less material stuff each year. And here they are right. There’s no a priori reason why such a thing can’t happen in theory, in a magical alternative world. But there’s a certain moral hazard at stake when we start trafficking in fairy tales – telling people not to worry because eventually, somehow, GDP will de-link from resource use and we’ll be in the clear. In an era of climate emergency and mass extinction, we don’t have time to speculate about imaginary possibilities. We don’t have time to wait for this juggernaut of ecological destruction to suddenly stop being destructive, when all the evidence says it won’t happen. It is unscientific, and a profoundly irresponsible gamble with human lives – with all of life. There is an easy way to solve this problem. For decades, ecological economists have proposed that we can put an end to the debate once and for all with a simple and elegant intervention: impose a cap on annual resource use and waste, and tighten that cap year-on-year until we are back within planetary boundaries.36 If green growthers really believe GDP will keep growing, for ever, despite rapid reductions in material use, then this shouldn’t worry them one bit. In fact, they should welcome such a move. It will give them a chance to prove to the world once and for all that they are right. Indeed, putting hard limits on resource use and waste will help incentivise the transition, spurring the shift toward dematerialised GDP growth. But every time we propose this policy to green growthers, they wriggle away. Indeed, to my knowledge, not a single proponent of green growth has ever agreed to take it up. Why not? I suspect that on some deep level – despite the fairy tales – they realise that this is not how capitalism actually works. For 500 years, capitalism has depended on extraction from nature. It has always needed an ‘outside’, external to itself, from which to plunder value, for free, without an equivalent return. That’s what fuels growth. To put a limit on material extraction and waste is to effectively kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[A] group of leading academics argue that humanity must stay within defined boundaries for a range of essential Earth-system processes to avoid catastrophic environmental change. . . . They propose that for three of these—the nitrogen cycle, the rate of loss of species and anthropogenic climate change—the maximum acceptable limit has already been transgressed. In addition, they say that humanity is fast approaching the boundaries for freshwater use, for converting forests and other natural ecosystems to cropland and urban areas, and for acidification of the oceans. Crossing even one of these planetary boundaries would risk triggering abrupt or irreversible environmental changes that would be very damaging or even catastrophic for society.

How can one think of art institutions in an age that is defined by planetary civil war, growing inequality, and proprietary digital technology? The boundaries of the institution have become fuzzy.

that profits are only one slice of the pie is an important contrast to ‘de-growth economics’. Advocates of this view argue that economies shouldn’t grow too fast or create too much value, otherwise we’ll exceed planetary boundaries such as resource constraints or temperature thresholds.

The planetary personalities work in the same way, but because they exist in the unfallen, translunar realm, their personalities have an influence so strong that they can pierce the boundary of the Moon and make their presence known even on the sealed-off, silent planet of Earth.

When O’Neill examined quality of life relative to environmental damage, his research proved that the more stable a nation’s social foundation was, the greater the tendency for that nation to overshoot planetary boundaries. Almost every nation satisfied social demands by sacrificing sustainability. This is an incredibly inconvenient truth to uncover. It means that using developed nations as models when helping emerging countries raise their living standards to attain the minimum social foundation will inevitably, when seen from a planetary point of view, lead us down the path to total destruction.

In Jared Diamond’s book Collapse (2005) it was estimated that more than one billion people living in developed countries have on average a per capita resource usage 32 times larger than the 5.5 billion people who live in what we call developing countries.

A ben guardare, però, c'erano dei segnali incoraggianti. I leader politici riuniti a Copenaghen hanno finalmente ammesso che il cambiamento climatico non è solo una questione ambientale, ma anche sociale ed economica. Di conseguenza, qualsiasi soluzione al problema del clima richiede anche cambiamenti fondamentali nelle nostre economie, nei nostri sistemi finanziari, nei modi in cui costruiamo le nostre città, produciamo il cibo, e persino ai modi in cui ci rapportiamo gli uni con gli altri - un cambiamento dei nostri modi di pensare davvero enorme. Ciononostante, avevamo parecchie cose per cui essere depressi, mentre sostavamo all'esterno del Bella Center.

Wenn eine Gesellschaft nicht mit der Erschöpfung ihrer Ressourcen umgehen kann, drehen sich die wirklich interessanten Fragen um die Gesellschaft und nicht um die Ressource. Welche strukturellen, politischen, ideologischen oder wirtschaftlichen Faktoren in der Gesellschaft verhinderten eine angemessene Reaktion

How many habitable planets are there? From Figure 12 it is evident that there are a handful of planets with instellation in the habitable zone range, and which are also of a size or mass small enough to have a potentially rocky composition. Most of these orbit M stars, but that is just because smallish planets with Earthlike instellation are easier to detect around low mass stars. Taking into account the effect of stellar type on the habitable zone instellation boundaries, at the time of writing there are eighteen known planets in the habitable zone, including Proxima Centauri b (orbiting our nearest stellar neighbour) and planets d, e, f, and g in the remarkable Trappist 1 system. There are an additional twenty-six near-misses which could perhaps be rendered habitable if cloud conditions or other uncertain bits of climate physics become more favourable than current best estimates. One would like to extrapolate from this number to an estimate of the proportion of all stars that have a planet in their habitable zone.

The hydra became a means of exploring multiplicity, movement, and connection, the long waves and planetary currents of humanity. The multiplicity was indicated, as it were, in silhouette in the multitudes who gathered at the market, in the fields, on the piers and the ships, on the plantations, upon the battlefields. The power of numbers was expanded by movement, as the hydra journeyed and voyaged or was banished or dispersed in diaspora, carried by the winds and the waves beyond the boundaries of the nation-state. Sailors, pilots, felons, lovers, translators, musicians, mobile workers of all kinds made new and unexpected connections, which variously appeared to be accidental, contingent, transient, even miraculous.

In this sense, the earth’s carrying capacity is not bound by a finite set of planetary boundaries, but rather is a function of human technology,” she wrote.

Today the concept of global carrying capacity has evolved into the idea of planetary boundaries. The boundaries set the environmental terrain “within which we expect that humanity can operate safely,” a team of twenty-nine European and American scientists argued in an influential report from 2009. (It was updated in 2015.) To prevent “non-linear, abrupt environmental change,” they said, humankind must not transgress nine global limits. That is, people must not 1. use too much fresh water; 2. put too much nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer into the land; 3. overly deplete the protective ozone in the stratosphere; 4. change the acidity of the oceans too much; 5. use too much land for agriculture; 6. wipe out species too fast; 7. dump too many chemicals into ecosystems; 8. send too much soot into the air; and 9. put too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

While the concept of Tawheed creates an equal basis for humans to use what is bestowed in nature, the concept of Khilafah instils stewardship towards the responsible use of natural and environmental resources without pushing planetary boundaries and causing precious loss of biodiversity.

Looking back at the knowledge economies discussed earlier, we can recognize that the dynamic coupling of human societies and the Earth system not only depended on the generation of knowledge, but enhanced, in turn, the significance of that generation. In a process extending over millennia, scientific knowledge eventually became a crucial component of economic growth; it is now becoming no less important in coping with its consequences. Substantial anthropogenic change on a global scale was evidently already characteristic of the Holocene and the late Pleistocene, from the human-induced extinction of great mammals via Neolithization and urbanization to the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. What characterizes the Anthropocene is the need to actively prevent the Earth system from transgressing planetary boundaries. The emergence of this need is closely related to the cascade of evolutionary processes described above. Just as cultural evolution started as a side-show of biological evolution before it became the conditio humana (the essential condition of human life), epistemic evolution, that is, the growing dependence of human societies on knowledge economies producing scientific knowledge, was, for a long time, no more than a tangential aspect of cultural evolution. But with the onset of the Anthropocene, the survival of human culture as we know it hinges on this.