본문 바로가기
읽기 · 학술 · 공개 라이선스 원문

Safe and just Earth system boundaries

Johan Rockström et al. · 2023

지구가 안정을 유지하는 한계와 사람들이 큰 피해를 입지 않는 한계를 함께 고려해 기후 · 생물 다양성 · 물 · 영양 순환 · 대기 중 미세 입자의 지구 시스템 경계를 숫자로 정한 연구입니다. 전 지구 차원에서 정한 경계 여덟 가지 가운데 일곱 가지를 이미 넘어섰다고 보고합니다.

출처 Rockström et al. (2023), Nature, 619, 102–111 · 라이선스 CC BY 4.0 · 원문

장 7개 올림 이 장 429낱말
← 앞 장 다음 장 →

이 장은 원문만 있습니다. 문장별 해석은 앞 장부터 차례로 붙입니다.

6장 · Toward a safe and just future

We defined and quantified safe and just (NSH) ESBs for sustaining the global commons that regulate the state of the planet, protect other species, generate NCP, reduce significant harm to humans and support inclusive human development (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Because exceeding safe boundaries results in widespread significant harm, our just and safe ESBs align for surface water, groundwater, functional integrity, natural ecosystem area, phosphorus and nitrogen. Meeting these boundaries without transformation, however, could significantly harm current generations. In two cases, aerosols and climate, the just boundaries are more stringent than the safe boundaries, which indicates that people experience significant harm before that Earth system domain is destabilized.

We identified subglobal ESBs, which, in many domains, are the relevant scale for action to avoid loss of Earth system stability and minimize exposure to significant harm, and global ESBs, which are reference points for monitoring human impacts at the Earth system scale. Nations, cities, businesses and other key actors need to set and achieve science-based targets for reducing their environmental impacts based on translation of the safe and just ESBs to actor fair shares. Climate is the only ESB that has a relatively well-established and implemented methodology, with methodologies for other domains under development. We emphasize that our ESBs complement, not over-ride, environmental restrictions for specific local settings: for example, stricter biosphere boundaries for carbon-dense ecosystems or targeted conservation efforts for protecting endangered or emblematic species. We also acknowledge that other actors may choose to implement targets based on other likelihood levels than those we have highlighted (Fig. 1 and Table 1): for example, a lower risk tolerance than the high risk of passing tipping points associated with a 1.5 °C safe boundary.

We offer our ESBs as an integration of social and natural sciences for further refinement, in the spirit that the PBs were proposed over a decade ago. Seven of the eight globally quantified ESBs have been crossed and at least two local ESBs in much of the world have been crossed, putting human livelihoods for current and future generations at risk. Nothing less than a just global transformation across all ESBs is required to ensure human well-being. Such transformations must be systemic across energy, food, urban and other sectors, addressing the economic, technological, political and other drivers of Earth system change, and ensure access for the poor through reductions and reallocation of resource use. All evidence suggests this will not be a linear journey; it requires a leap in our understanding of how justice, economics, technology and global cooperation can be furthered in the service of a safe and just future.

이 글은 위 출처의 원문을 그 라이선스(CC BY 4.0)에 따라 옮겼습니다. 참고문헌 목록과 인용 번호, 그림 · 표 · 각주 · 수식 · 부록은 빼고 절별로 나누어 실었으며, 그 밖의 문장은 원문 그대로입니다. 원 저작자와 발행 기관은 이 화면을 만들거나 검토하지 않았고, 이곳의 해석과 낱말 풀이는 공식 번역이 아닙니다.