Abstract: We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action.
First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere & all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts
Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action.
Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly & accurately when engaging w/government, business & the public. We esp draw attention to the lack of appreciation of the enormous challenges to creating a sustainable future.
The added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of ecosystem services on which society depends.
*The science underlying these issues is strong, but awareness is weak.*
Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest sustainability goals.
[Pours a stiff drink…]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As an original instigator of @sciencetargets it deeply saddens me to tweet this thread on the formal complaint I submitted to the SBTi Executive Board on self-dealing conflict of interests concerns.
@sciencetargets The substance of the complaint is validated by a scientific study by Anders Bjørn & Concordia University colleagues recently published as an accepted manuscript in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters:
@sciencetargets Bjørn et al raise 2 key intertwining technical problems: (mis)alignment with the “latest climate science,” and what they call “emissions imbalances” — i.e., collective carbon footprints under- or overshooting the carbon budget (slices of the pie = less or more than a single pie).
As original instigator & member of SBTI Technical Advisory Group since the get-go, this isn’t actually accurate. SBTI made methodology decisions on their own, without “approval” by the TAG. In fact, SBTI consistently disregarded substantive input by the TAG.
It’s already part of the public record that SBTI’s Sectoral Decarbonization Approach is structurally impeded from aligning with the 1.5C target — a fact that was solidified by the @IEA opting against disclosing data on its NZE2050 (1.5C) scenario late last year.
There’s another scientific study coming out in a peer-reviewed journal in the near future that will shed more light on this conundrum...
“Truly sustainable economic growth and development means recognizing that our long-term prosperity relies on re-balancing our demand of nature’s goods and services with its capacity to supply them.”
"It also means accounting fully for the impact of our interactions with nature across all levels of society,” Dasgupta continued. "Covid-19 has shown us what can happen when we don’t do this.”
See here for links to full and abridged report, headline messages, reactions, etc
In a presentation on @UNRISD thresholds- and transformation-based sustainability indicators I just gave, I point out that thresholds / limits could be viewed as leverage point 12 on Dana’s list ("Constants, parameters, numbers” — or #2: "mindset of paradigm".
How did it handle Sustainability Context? you may ask.
Well, let me tell you.
@GRI_Secretariat "Sections 2 & 3 include contextual information for the sector, including highlighting authoritative measures of sustainable development, referencing broader sustainable development conditions and goals set out in recognized sector-specific or global instruments…"
@GRI_Secretariat "This will assist an organization to report on its impacts in the wider context of sustainable development.”