Is The Concept of Planetary Boundaries Compatible With Development Rights and Historical Responsibility Discourse?

1/9/20230 min read

The nine planetary boundaries represent the limits of certain cycles, processes, and features within the Earth System which, if surpassed, may result in destructive and fatal consequences for humanity (Rockström et al 2009). They are quantitative boundaries within which humanity may continue to survive and flourish (Stockholm Resilience Centre).

The boundaries formulated in 2009 relate to climate change (specifically, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide as well as energy imbalances at the Earth’s surface); ocean acidification (specifically, concentrations of carbonate ions and aragonite saturation); depletion of ozone in the stratosphere; atmospheric aerosol loading; biogeochemical flows and interference with phosphorus and nitrogen cycles; global use of freshwater (specifically blue water); land-system change (specifically, the proportion of land cover now under agricultural use); rates of biodiversity loss and species extinction; and chemical pollution (Rockström et al 2009).

As of 2022, the definition of freshwater has been updated to include green water, and the boundary pertaining to chemical pollution was relabelled to refer to novel entities (Stockholm Resilience Centre).

In the view of Rockström et al in 2009, the 3 planetary boundaries relating to the global nitrogen cycle, biodiversity loss, and climate had been transgressed. In 2022, researchers opined that the boundary relating to novel entities had also been infringed (Persson et al 2022), and that, by the inclusion of green water in the boundary relating to freshwater use, that boundary had also been crossed in 2022 (Wang-Erlandsson 2022).

The transgression of planetary boundaries may disrupt essential Earth processes, leading to sudden, undesirable, and potentially permanent changes in the environment on continental and global scales (Rockström et al 2009), and likely rendering the planet uninhabitable for humanity.

From a climate justice perspective, the concept of planetary boundaries may be controversial or problematic to developing countries and least developed countries (“LDCs”).

Parties’ “common but differentiated responsibilities” in relation to climate change are a pillar of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change. This operationalises the ‘historical responsibility’ approach toward climate justice; in other words, the states responsible for the crisis ought to bear the costs (Schlosberger and Collins 2014: 365).

The ‘historical responsibility’ approach is to be read in conjunction with the ‘development rights’ framework, which suggests generally that individuals with incomes below a certain level are excused from bearing the costs of climate mitigation and adaptation (Baer 2012); in other words, a “right to develop at an individual level” (Fisher 2015 at 76).

Applied on a national scale, and in tandem with the ‘historical responsibility’ theory, an argument could be made that developing countries and LDCs ought to be exempt from climate adaptation and mitigation efforts and that this responsibility should fall on the shoulders of historical emitters.

Consequently, it is debatable as to whether any limits to growth proposed within the planetary boundaries discourse ought also apply to developing countries and LDCs.

References:

  • Baer, P. (2012). ‘The greenhouse development rights framework for global burden sharing: reflection on principles and prospects’. 20 November 2012. http://gdrights.org/2012/11/20/the-greenhouse-development-rights-framework-for-global-burden-sharing-reflection-on-principles-and-prospects/#more-1839

  • Fisher, S. (2015) ‘The Emerging Geographies of Climate Justice’. The Geographical Journal 181(1) 2015, pp.73–82.

  • Persson, L., B.M.C. Almroth, C.D. Collins, S. Cornell, C.A. de Wit, M.L. Diamond, P. Fantke, M. Hassellöv, M. MacLeod, M.W. Ryberg, P.S. Jørgensen, P. Villarrubia-Gómez, Z. Wang, and M.Z. Hauschild. (2022). ‘Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities’. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 3, 1510–1521. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158

  • Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F.S. Chapin III, E. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H.J. Schellnhuber, and B. Nykvist. (2009). ‘Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity’. Ecology and society 14(2) 2009.

  • Schlosberger, D. and L.B. Collins. (2014). ‘From environmental to climate justice: climate change the discourse of environmental justice’. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Climate change. 2014, 5(3), pp 359-374

  • Stockholm Resilience Centre. ‘Planetary boundaries’ (n.d.). https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

  • Wang-Erlandsson, L., A. Tobian, R.J. van der Ent, I. Fetzer, S. te Wierik, M. Porkka, A. Staal, F. Jaramillo, H. Dahlmann, C. Singh, P. Greve, D. Gerten, P.W. Keys, T. Gleeson, S.E. Cornell, W. Steffen, X. Bai, and J. Rockström. (2022). ‘A planetary boundary for green water’. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-022-00287-8. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment volume 3, pp 380–392 (2022)