Thresholds of significant harm at global level: The journey of the Earth Commission

Joyeeta Gupta, Jesse F. Abrams, David Armstrong McKay, Xuemei Bai, Kristi L. Ebi, Paola Fezzigna, Giuliana Gentile, Lauren Gifford, Syezlin Hasan, Lisa Jacobson, Aljoscha Karg*, Steven Lade, Tim Lenton, Diana Liverman, Awaz Mohamed, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, David Obura, Johan Rockström, Ben Stewart-Koster, Detlef van VuurenPeter Verburg, Raimon C. Ylla-Català, Caroline Zimm

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The planetary boundary framework proposes ‘safe’ boundaries, but these boundaries are not necessarily ‘just’. Hence, we ask: How has the Earth Commission defined just boundaries building on the concept of minimizing significant harm and how many people are currently exposed to harm above the safe and just threshold? We document the work of the Earth Commission to address these questions using our Earth System Justice framework. We conclude that: (a) from a justice perspective, nine criteria need to be considered when defining just boundaries; (b) the proportions of populations exposed to harm from exceeding safe and just boundaries today range from 11 to 84 % for the five domains studied (climate, biosphere, water, nutrients, aerosols); and (c) argue that the absolute upper limit for significant harm is possibly harm to 1 % of the population, which although not stringent enough to leave no one behind, would require radical transformations, given the populations currently already above the threshold.

Original languageEnglish
Article number100263
Number of pages12
JournalEarth System Governance
Volume25
Early online date9 Jun 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2025

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Thresholds of significant harm at global level: The journey of the Earth Commission'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this