Baum, S.D. and Handoh, I.C. (2014) “Integrating the planetary boundaries and global catastrophic
risk paradigms,” Ecological economics, 107, pp. 13–21.
Key words: Global catastrophic Risk; Planetary boundaries; Biogeochemical phosphorus cycle;
Resilience; Risk // Type: Article
Abstract (Purpose, Argument)lectr
“Planetary boundaries (PBs) and global catastrophic risk (GCR) have emerged in recent years
as important paradigms for understanding and addressing global threats to humanity and
the environment.”
Purpose: compares PBs and GCR paradigms to then integrate them into a unified PBs-GCR
conceptual framework (Boundary Risk for Humanity and Nature (BRIHN)) [illustrates using P-
bioG cycle]
Definition of PBs: [Proposed by Rockstrom et al., 2009] global environmental boundaries
that, if transgressed, would have major threats to both humans and nature.
o Emphasis on stable Holocene conditions for Human civilisations success, in addition
to the Anthropocene (Steffen et al., 2007)
o PBs emphasises global environmental threats whilst GCR looks at threates to human
civilisation
o Framed to highlight the stressors, named tipping points or environmental
boundaries, which would nudge earth’s stable Holocene system to a novel,
dangerous state with ‘unacceptable’ consequences to humanity (Rockstrom et al.,
2009)
Definition of GCR: [Proposed by Bostrom and Cirkovic, 2008] analyses the probabilities and
magnitude of Human Civilisation threats
o epistemology takes a more reductionist approach, with few studies analysing risks
systemically (Baum et al., 2013)
o Offers more insights into the impacts of transgressing environmental boundaries.
Limitation of PBs/GCR: lack precision on key aspects of the threat’s impacts, PBs offers little
practical knowledge on the impacts to humanity of crossing tipping points.
Opportunities with BRIHN framework: 1. Handles human impacts, 2. Offers theoretically
precise definition of GC, 3. Converses a stylised version of the story of humanity and nature
co-evolving across temporal scopes, 4. Can be applied to system threats at any scale but
especially useful for global-scale used in PBs and GCR research
Main Point(s):
Introduction
“Human civilization today faces many threats, as does the global environment.”
Risk as a product of probability and magnitude, includes scope (generational, global, local)
and intensity (imperceptible, endurable, terminal)
PBs/GCR originate from different schools of thought, for example PBs follows traditional
Earth system research like the Limits to Growth (Meadows et al., 1972)
“integrated BRIHN framework jointly considers global boundaries to both human and
environmental systems” – crossing one boundary does not suggest crossing another albeit
they remain interconnected
o Considers the probabilities of crossing thresholds
The P-BioG cycle
One PB, but not a GCR
Nudge to environmental boundaries: using P as an agricultural fertilisers (eutrophication)
o A substantial (economic) threat: U.S. freshwaters, annual loss of $2.2 billion (Dodds
et al., 2009)
o Biggest concern: Oceanic Anoxic Event (dramatically change ocean ecosystems)
Planetary Boundaries
, “identify how humanity can maintain Earth system properties in states conducive to a viable
human population” – nine outlined such as biodiversity loss and biogeochemical flows
“PBs theory posits the existence of biogeophysical planetary thresholds that, if crossed,
could cause “unacceptable global environmental change”, which is in turn “defined in
relation to the risks humanity face [sic] in the transition of the planet from the Holocene to
the Anthropocene” (Rockström et al., 2009: 3)”
Defined in anthropocentric terms – ‘unacceptable risks to humanity’
Important distinction between boundaries and thresholds:
o Boundaries = Anthro-centric (self-imposed limits to avoid crossing thresholds;
socially constructed) [defined in terms of a variable under human control such
as ‘quantity’] [Deliminated a safe distance away to keep risk of crossing a
threshold below a normatively defined acceptable level] [Qualitatively
determined, problematic since nature of thresholds exist independent of human
views] Enlightenment thinking…
o Thresholds; “Earth system properties: the points at which resilience is exceeded
and the system transitions to a different state.”
Two types: Systemic (Global scale), Aggregative (Local-scale)
Both expressed in terms of control and response variables, with
uncertainty highlighted under ‘zone of uncertainty’
exact location of thresholds is uncertain thus a certain probability of crossing the threshold.
thresholds themselves are biogeophysical; crossing them would be harmful to
environmental systems but not necessarily to humanity (Nordhaus et al., 2012).
“Humanity thus pushes the global environmental system out of this hospitable state at its
own risk.”
o PB Critique on risk; need for more rigorous engagement with human impacts
o Risk definition with PB; magnitude and intensity of threats following the crossing a
large and damaging human system threshold.
GCR
“focuses on risks of events that could significantly harm human civilization or even cause
human extinction”
Debated – what qualifies as a GCR, thus the definition for a GCR is unclear.
(Atkinson, 1999); “an event in which more than one quarter of the human population dies”
Core GCR study by (Bostrom and Cirkovic, 2008); “events causing at least 104 deaths or $109
in damages and events causing at least 107 deaths or $1012 in damages” – focus on scope n
intensity (global, endurable)
o Study lists 13 GCRs categorised into 3: “risks from nature, risks from unintended
consequences, and risks from hostile acts.” – Representative of the majority of GCR
literature
BRIHN
Storytelling with BRIHN – “how the framework can be used to concisely tell the story of humanity
and nature co-evolving across time”
F, G, H = possible futures but there remains great
uncertainties as listed:
o No precision how harmful, what happens next, no
consideration of various environmental threats.
Basic features of the future are not currently known: Will
there be any global catastrophes? When will they occur?
What type of catastrophes will they be? How will the
, catastrophes affect humanity and nature? Will humanity and nature recover from the
catastrophes, or will there be permanent collapse?
o What should humanity do? (ethical), What steps can humanity take to prevent
permanent global collapses of humanity and nature
BRIHN Phosphorus Story
Conclusion
Two core points:
o The human consequences of even major global environmental changes are often
poorly understood (uncertainty)
Other PBs beyond climate change would benefit from more analysis of
human impacts, especially at the global scale
o threats to humanity are poorly understood at a systemic level.
Too focused on arbitrary statistical measures (lives, dollars lost) – masks
humanities resilience
Paradigms also do not effectively handle interactions between different threats.
o shortcoming exists at the theoretical level and also as an absence of empirical
studies
BRIHN framework attempts to reconcile this by acknowledging human-environment wellbeing as
multidimensional and that threats are not linear
Lasting Questions: ‘unacceptable’ (to who? Who defines normatively?), story-telling (not useful in
practical policy-making decisions), ‘reductionist approach’ (what does this mean?), what type of
threat is it (context: economic, social…) and why might it be ignored (profit, productivity…), what
timescale (eutrophication now but diets then), what caveats (is it enough? Much change prior?),
what scale (local, global? + time-frame)
Broader Links in Module: Supo (Ellen)
***
Biermann, F. (2012) “Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: Exploring the links,”
Ecological economics, 81, pp. 4–9.
Keywords: Planetary boundaries; Earth system governance (ESG); Climate governance; International
relations and politics // Type: Article
Abstract (Purpose, Argument)
“Discusses the concept of planetary boundaries that has been advanced by a group of
leading experts around Johan Rockström.”
Places PB in the emerging research paradigm of earth system governance as it remains a
crucial goal for governance.
Outlines political conflicts of PB by virtue of their arbitrary, socially-constructed nature
Explores policy/governance response
Concludes by highlighting remaining research challenges.
Introduction
“Over the last two hundred years, humankind has evolved into a planetary force that
influences global biogeochemical systems” – see global warming
Biermann (2010) Definition of ES governance: Current century’s largest political problem:
protecting Earth’s entire system earth including its subsystems and building stable
institutions that guarantee a safe transition and a co-evolution of natural and social systems
at planetary scale.
o PBs used for this
(Rockstrom et al., 2009) Definition of PB: “a number of boundary conditions in the earth
system that could, if crossed, result in a major disruption in (parts of) the system and a
transition to a different state.” – based on inductive research, allowed quantification of
threshold parameters which is expected to guide political responses to remain in a “safe
operating space for humanity”.
, o Already transgressed climate change, extinction, N-cycle
Lenton et al (2008) Definition of tipping points; “parts of the earth system that can be
switched by small perturbations under certain circumstances into a qualitatively different
state” – “the critical values at which the state of the system is qualitatively changed”
o Knowledge = preliminary, with most existing research focusing on identifying early-
warning signs
ES Governance and Concept of PB
“Earth system governance builds on the assumption that humankind, having become
inadvertently an agent in the earth system over the last 200 years, has now to develop the
governing mechanisms to purposefully steer its own agency”
not “governing” the earth or “managing” the entire process of planetary evolution… about
the ‘human impact on planetary systems’
o Remaining Q’s: What precisely are the goals of earth system governance? In what
concrete directions should human agency develop? What are the normative
assumptions that underlie earth system governance?
PBs determined to leverage ample space “for different political choices and socio-economic
development trajectories” – a set of socio-economic evelopment trjectors which are
confined within the safe operating safe of the PBs thus open to democratic political process
and intergovernmental negotiation
o Neutral towards human values and aspirations, hence representative of a set of
well-supported hypotheses about causal relationships in Earth’s system
o Do not determine ‘limits to growth’ but instead places the limits for the total human
impact on planetary systems.
Limitations to PBs: lack of precision, lack of reversibility, and complexity and interlinkages
(concept is normatively neutral)
o Lack of precision will be marginal if the boundaries are supported by a wide scientific
and political consensus
o Quantification remains contested, with several boundaries identified but not quantified.
o Political use is still limited – need for more integrated scientific assessments to translate
concept into a basis for concrete political negotiations
Strength of the PBs; the ability to quantify PBs despite uncertainties and problems (yet
never fully certain) – offers simplicity in reasonings, and a precise base for calculation and
reasoning.
Politics of PB
Assumes “the actions of the human species as a collective that is able, and willing, to take
joint action” when in reality deep divides exist along the indicators deifning wellbeing such
as wealth, health, living standards, education.
o For example “Three billion people live on less than 2.5 USD per day” (Chen and
Ravallion, 2008)
1. The huge global inequalities in resources and entitlements is where the definition of
planetary boundaries needs to be agreed upon as it can translate into conflicting
perspectives on underlying uncertainties and risks
o “The planetary boundaries are, despite all accuracy in our measurement, in the end
also a social construct.”
2. Definition of boundaries is more complex, and politically more problematic, in some areas
than in others”
o For example, sufficient access and fair allocation fo water with 2.6bn with no basic
sanitation (UNDP, 2006)
Scientists must rise as political actors who question the legitimacy and accountability of
scientific assessment processes
Consequences for Governance
