Search

‘We have kicked the can down the road once again – but we are running out of road.’ – Rachel Kyte, Dean of Fletcher School at Tufts University. We, in our capacities as scientists, economists, governance and policy specialists, are shifting from warnings to guidance for action before there is no more ‘road.’ The science is clear and irrefutable; humanity is in advanced ecological overshoot. Our overexploitation of resources exceeds ecosystems’ capacity to provide them or to absorb our waste. Society has failed to meet clearly stated goals of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Civilization faces an epochal crossroads, but with potentially much better, wiser outcomes if we act now. What are the concrete and transformative actions by which we can turn away from the abyss? In this paper we forcefully recommend priority actions and resource allocation to avert the worst of the climate and nature emergencies, two of the most pressing symptoms of overshoot, and lead society into a future of greater wellbeing and wisdom. Humanity has begun the social, economic, political and technological initiatives needed for this transformation. Now, massive upscaling and acceleration of these actions and collaborations are essential before irreversible tipping points are crossed in the coming decade. We still can overcome significant societal, political and economic barriers of our own making. Previously, we identified six core areas for urgent global action – energy, pollutants, nature, food systems, population stabilization and economic goals. Here we identify an indicative, systemic and time-limited framework for priority actions for policy, planning and management at multiple scales from household to global. We broadly follow the ‘Reduce-Remove-Repair’ approach to rapid action. To guide decision makers, planners, managers, and budgeters, we cite some of the many experiments, mechanisms and resources in order to facilitate rapid global adoption of effective solutions. Our biggest challenges are not technical, but social, economic, political and behavioral. To have hope of success, we must accelerate collaborative actions across scales, in different cultures and governance systems, while maintaining adequate social, economic and political stability. Effective and timely actions are still achievable on many, though not all fronts. Such change will mean the difference for billions of children and adults, hundreds of thousands of species, health of many ecosystems, and will determine our common future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'We have kicked the can down the road once again – but we are running out of road.' – Rachel Kyte, Dean of Fletcher School at Tufts University. We, in our capacities as scientists, economists, governance and policy specialists, are shifting from warnings to guidance for action before there is no more 'road.' The science is clear and irrefutable; humanity is in advanced ecological overshoot. Our overexploitation of resources exceeds ecosystems' capacity to provide them or to absorb our waste. Society has failed to meet clearly stated goals of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Civilization faces an epochal crossroads, but with potentially much better, wiser outcomes if we act now. What are the concrete and transformative actions by which we can turn away from the abyss? In this paper we forcefully recommend priority actions and resource allocation to avert the worst of the climate and nature emergencies, two of the most pressing symptoms of overshoot, and lead society into a future of greater wellbeing and wisdom. Humanity has begun the social, economic, political and technological initiatives needed for this transformation. Now, massive upscaling and acceleration of these actions and collaborations are essential before irreversible tipping points are crossed in the coming decade. We still can overcome significant societal, political and economic barriers of our own making. Previously, we identified six core areas for urgent global action – energy, pollutants, nature, food systems, population stabilization and economic goals. Here we identify an indicative, systemic and time-limited framework for priority actions for policy, planning and management at multiple scales from household to global. We broadly follow the 'Reduce-Remove-Repair' approach to rapid action. To guide decision makers, planners, managers, and budgeters, we cite some of the many experiments, mechanisms and resources in order to facilitate rapid global adoption of effective solutions. Our biggest challenges are not technical, but social, economic, political and behavioral. To have hope of success, we must accelerate collaborative actions across scales, in different cultures and governance systems, while maintaining adequate social, economic and political stability. Effective and timely actions are still achievable on many, though not all fronts. Such change will mean the difference for billions of children and adults, hundreds of thousands of species, health of many ecosystems, and will determine our common future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forests are critical to the planetary operational system and evolved without human management for millions of years in North America. Actively managing forests to help them adapt to a changing climate and disturbance regime has become a major focus in the United States. Aside from a subset of forests wherein wood production, human safety, and experimental research are primary goals, we argue that expensive management interventions are often unnecessary, have uncertain benefits, or are detrimental to many forest attributes such as resilience, carbon accumulation, structural complexity, and genetic and biological diversity. Natural forests (i.e., those protected and largely free from human management) tend to develop greater complexity, carbon storage, and tree diversity over time than forests that are actively managed; and natural forests often become less susceptible to future insect attacks and fire following these disturbances. Natural forest stewardship is therefore a critical and cost effective strategy in forest climate adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on Bjorn Lomborg's (2001) book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist,' concerning errors committed by environmentalists. Various studies of Lomborg; Distinction between environmental advocates and environmental scientists; Critical aspects of the environmental changes.

Protecting the climate system requires urgently reducing carbon emissions to the atmosphere and increasing cumulative carbon stocks in natural systems. Recent studies confirm that large trees accumulate and store a disproportionate share of aboveground forest carbon. In the temperate forests of the western United States, a century of intensive logging drastically reduced large‐trees and older forest, but some large trees remain. However, recent changes to large tree management policy on National Forest lands east of the Cascade Mountains crest in Oregon and southeastern Washington allows increased harvesting of large‐diameter trees (≥53 cm or 21 inches) that account for just 3% of all stems, but hold 42% of total aboveground carbon. In this article, we describe synergies with protecting large trees for climate mitigation, biodiversity, and forest resilience goals to shift species composition, reduce fuel loads and stem density, and adapt to climatically driven increases in fire activity in eastern Oregon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a letter to the editor in response to speeches by Mikhail S. Gorbachev and George Bush about global environmental issues in the April issue.

Despite major efforts, the reduction of reactive nitrogen (Nr) using traditional metrics and policy tools for the Chesapeake Bay has slowed in recent years. In this article, we apply the concept of the Nitrogen Cascade to the chemically dynamic nature and multiple sources of Nr to examine the temporal and spatial movement of different forms of Nr through multiple ecosystems and media. We also demonstrate the benefit of using more than the traditional mass fluxes to set criteria for action. The use of multiple metrics provides additional information about where the most effective intervention point might be. Utilizing damage costs or mortality metrics demonstrates that even though the mass fluxes to the atmosphere are lower than direct releases to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, total damage costs to all ecosystems and health are higher because of the cascade of Nr and the associated damages, and because they exact a higher human health cost. Abatement costs for reducing Nr releases into the air are also lower. These findings have major implications for the use of multiple metrics and the additional benefits of expanding the scope of concern beyond the Bay itself and support improved coordination between the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts while restoring the Chesapeake Bay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A de facto "system" of global environmental governance already exists. The de facto system of global environmental governance is neither neat nor simple; it works in a rather messy, non-linear, non-hierarchical, and intertwined fashion. However it is a system that has proved to be resilient as well as prolific. This paper argues that although there is no real reason to make the system less messy, it can be made more effective by taking a number of steps that would (a) support the positive trends already apparent in the emergent system (b) strengthen the system as it evolves, and (c) articulate a clear vision for the eventual system that we wish to move towards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports that in February, the first negotiating sessions for a framework convention on global climate change will attempt to forge an international agreement aimed at limiting anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Gives details on a `Greenhouse Index,' which will facilitate comparison of national contributions to the warming potential of the atmosphere. INSET: Commitments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions..

Presents a response from Allen Hammond, Eric Rodenburg and William Moomaw to letters to the editor about their article on the Greenhouse Index.

The carbon stock in Europe's forests is decreasing and the importance of protecting "unmanaged" forests must be recognised in reversing this process. In order to keep carbon out of the atmosphere and to meet the Paris Agreement goals, the remaining primary forests must be protected and secondary forests should be allowed to continue growing to preserve existing carbon stocks and accumulate additional stocks. In order to reverse the decreasing forest carbon stocks in Europe (European Environmental Agency, 2019), the largest forest carbon stores must be protected and additional forests must be allowed to continue accumulating carbon (proforestation). [Extracted from the article]

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is the largest known remaining anthropogenic threat to the stratospheric ozone layer. However, it is currently only regulated under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol because of its simultaneous ability to warm the climate. The threat N2O poses to the stratospheric ozone layer, coupled with the uncertain future of the international climate regime, motivates our exploration of issues that could be relevant to the Parties to the ozone regime (the 1985 Vienna Convention and its 1987 Montreal Protocol) should they decide to take measures to manage N2O in the future. There are clear legal avenues to regulate N2O under the ozone regime as well as several ways to share authority with the existing and future international climate treaties. N2O mitigation strategies exist to address the most significant anthropogenic sources, including agriculture, where behavioral practices and new technologies could contribute significantly to reducing emissions. Existing policies managing N2O and other forms of reactive nitrogen could be harnessed and built on by the ozone regime to implement N2O controls. There are several challenges and potential cobenefits to N2O control which we discuss here: food security, equity, and implications of the nitrogen cascade. The possible inclusion of N2O in the ozone regime need not be viewed as a sign of failure of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to adequately deal with climate change. Rather, it could represent an additional valuable tool in sustainable development diplomacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]