analytical and evaluative tool consisting of just ends (targets) and just means (levers)
for - definition - Earth system justice - just ends (targets) - just means (levers)
analytical and evaluative tool consisting of just ends (targets) and just means (levers)
for - definition - Earth system justice - just ends (targets) - just means (levers)
The scope of Earth-system justice is framed by three overarching criteria: interspecies justice, intergenerational justice, and intragenerational justice.
for - earth system justice - 3 aspects
earth system justice - 3 aspects - interspecies justice - intergenerational justice - intragenerational justice
date
Executive Summary
We adopt the ‘3 Is of justice’: interspecies justice and Earth system stability; intergenerational justice (between past and present, and present and future); and intragenerational justice (between countries, communities and individuals). These principles derive from the seminal work of Weiss on intergenerational and intragenerational equity64, with additional focus on interspecies justice. In interspecies justice, we include justice that promotes Earth system stability to prevent the collapse of conditions of life for all species. We fold intercommunity, interstate and interindividual justice into a broad category of intragenerational justice, which includes concern for intersectional justice.
// ESJ is therefore characterized by INTERbeing
Within the Earth Commission, we aim to propose ‘safe and just Earth system boundaries’ (ESBs) that go beyond planetary boundaries as they also include a justice perspective and suggest transformations to achieve them3.
Safe and just ESBs aim to:
If justice is not considered,
to protect current generations from significant harm
Comment
Our concept of ESJ assumes fair sharing of responsibilities among different actors, ensuring that those who are most responsible and capable do the most. For example, the Earth Commission has developed principles for sharing responsibilities for cities and companie
Preserving ecosystem area is sometimes critiqued as ‘fortress conservation’ by environmental justice scholars, limiting access for poor or Indigenous people68. An ecosystem area boundary therefore requires careful consideration and involvement of the local communities, for example by not demanding that intact areas preclude human inhabitation and sustainable use and/or recognizing the role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in already protecting these areas.
Safe and just ESBs aim to stabilize the Earth system, protect species and ecosystems and avoid tipping points, as well as minimize ‘significant harm’ to people while ensuring access to resources for a dignified life and escape from poverty. If justice is not considered, the biophysical limits may not be adequate to protect current generations from significant harm. However, strict biophysical limits, such as reducing emissions or setting aside land for nature, can, for example, reduce access to food and land for vulnerable people, and should be complemented by fair sharing and management of the remaining ecological space on Earth4.
Raworth and colleagues have pushed for social issues and equity to underpin the planetary boundaries by highlighting the social foundations in ‘doughnut economics’27. We build on these ideas (Fig. 1) to propose the concept of Earth system justice
Planetary justice scholarship goes further than global justice to call for radical or profound changes to justice understandings in the Anthropocene, critiques anthropocentricism and calls for greater engagement with the non-human world1
Some scholars argue that in the Global North, the view tends to be ‘no humanity without nature’, while in the Global South, the focus is on ‘no nature without social justice’
Paraphrase
Comment