Conversations on Vietnam Development
Sống trong di sản – Ngô trên xứ đá
Nông Nghiệp – Thứ Hai 29/05/2023
Có một ‘di sản’ khác nằm trong lòng cao nguyên đá và ruộng bậc thang Hà Giang, đó là những con người không chịu khuất phục khó khăn, mạnh mẽ, bền bỉ hơn đá…
Humans are taking colossal risks with the future of civilization and everything that lives on Earth, a new study published in the journal Nature shows. Developed by an international science commission engaging more than 40 researchers from across the globe, the scientists deliver the first quantification of safe and just Earth system boundaries on a global and local level for several biophysical processes and systems that regulate the state of the Earth system.
For the first time, safety and justice for humanity on Earth is assessed and quantified for the same control variables regulating life support and Earth stability. Justice, assessed based on avoiding significant harm to people across the world, tightens the Earth system boundaries, providing even less available space for humans on Earth. This is extremely challenging, as the Earth Commission concludes that numerous of the safe boundaries are already crossed today.
Convened by Future Earth, the Earth Commission is the scientific cornerstone of the Global Commons Alliance.
“We are in the Anthropocene, putting the stability and resilience of the entire planet at risk. This is why, for the first time, we present quantifiable numbers and a solid scientific foundation to assess the state of our planetary health not only in terms of Earth System stability and resilience but also in terms of human wellbeing and equity / justice.” said Prof. Johan Rockström, Earth Commission Co-Chair, lead author and Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
“Justice is a necessity for humanity to live within planetary limits. This is a conclusion seen across the scientific community in multiple heavyweight environmental assessments. It is not a political choice. Overwhelming evidence shows that a just and equitable approach is essential to planetary stability. We cannot have a biophysically safe planet without justice. This includes setting just targets to prevent significant harm and guarantee access to resources to people and for as well as just transformations to achieve those targets” said co-author Prof. Joyeeta Gupta, Co-Chair of the Earth Commission, Professor of Environment and Development in the Global South at the University of Amsterdam and Professor of Law and Policy in Water Resources and Environment at IHE Delft Institute for Water Education.
Published: , Earth Commission , nature.com
Nature (2023)Cite this article
The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked1,2,3, yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently4,5. Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. We propose ESBs for maintaining the resilience and stability of the Earth system (safe ESBs) and minimizing exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change (a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice)4. The stricter of the safe or just boundaries sets the integrated safe and just ESB. Our findings show that justice considerations constrain the integrated ESBs more than safety considerations for climate and atmospheric aerosol loading. Seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of global land area are already exceeded. We propose that our assessment provides a quantitative foundation for safeguarding the global commons for all people now and into the future.
Tiếp tục đọc “Earth Commission Releases First Major Study Quantifying Earth System Boundaries”By Thomas Döring, Birgit Aigner-Walder
The Limits to Growth was published 50 years ago. Ordered by the Club of Rome, the study was a milestone in the analysis of the economic, demographic, technical and ecological effects of the existing economic system. In industrialised Western countries in particular, the critical examination of the development model of continuous economic growth led to a broad discussion about the far-reaching implications of a global economy focusing on growth, on a planet with finite natural resources.
Criticism of the growth paradigm, dominant in both market-based and planned economic systems, has existed (almost) as long as economic growth itself. For example, Thomas Malthus (1798) reflected on the natural boundaries of economic and population growth very early on (Hussen, 2018). However, Meadows et al. (1972) carried out a notably broad system analysis. On the one hand, they examined existing ecological as well as socio-economic development trends and their global effects in detail. Secondly, the use of computer models to simulate different development scenarios of the world economy, based on the availability of data, was a methodological novelty at the time.
Tiếp tục đọc “The Limits to Growth – 50 Years Ago and Today”
Critical Questions by Aidan Arasasingham , Emily Benson , Matthew P. Goodman , and William Alan Reinsch
Published May 31, 2023 CSIS
Negotiators from 14 Indo-Pacific nations concluded negotiations in substance on a new Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) Supply Chain Agreement. At a ministerial-level meeting on the margins of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum gathering in Detroit, Michigan, IPEF parties released a statement outlining major contours of the agreement. The first of four potential agreements that the United States aims to conclude under IPEF, the supply chains agreement represents a positive step toward further economic integration in the Indo-Pacific. However, questions remain about how binding or impactful the supply chains agreement will be and which additional agreements will come to fruition under the framework this year.
Q1: What did IPEF partners agree to under the new Supply Chains Agreement?
Tiếp tục đọc “Assessing IPEF’s New Supply Chains Agreement”
CVD 