Meaning Fulfilment – An Existential Approach to Transformative Change

Re-defining Sustainability: Living in Harmony with Life on Earth

The 59th LCA forum was held on 12 June, 2015 to discuss the situation with regard to national environmental footprints and their relation to planetary boundaries and to the global carrying capacity. This conference report presents the highlights of the LCA forum. Several approaches of how to quantify a safe operating space of the Earth were presented, such as the planetary boundary concept published by Rockstrom et al. (Nature 462:472–475, 2009) and the ecological footprint (Bastianoni et al. 2013). Several presenters showed how they transformed environmental planetary boundaries to national and per capita allowances. In a research project funded by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment safe and unsafe areas were determined by combining the level of overshoot, the level of confidence in the information and the trend in the environmental load. The areas of climate change, biodiversity losses and nitrogen losses show a large overshoot on a global level but also from the point of view of Swiss consumption. Other organizations use the planetary boundary concept to identify companies which qualify for environmentally sustainable funds. Finally, life cycle impact assessment methods are being developed using the planetary boundary concept. The weighting step is based on the level of overshoot, which is close to “distance to target” approaches. It was discussed that the nine planetary boundaries face some consistency and operationalisation problems. For instance, land use changes cause biodiversity losses, which is a planetary boundary parameter in its own. Chemical pollution on the other hand is a general topic, for which a quantification approach has to be developed first (load as well as its planetary boundary). The discussion forum showed that individual countries and political entities like the European Union start monitoring their consumption based environmental footprint. Within this context, approaches and concepts are needed to define the environmentally safe operating space. The LCA forum showed that there is still basic research needed to reliably and consistently quantify relevant planetary boundaries (avoiding overlapping indicators) and to transfer these boundaries to per capita allowances.

Dramatic alterations to the natural environment due to human activity have produced a permanent rupture in the Earth system; the relative stable epoch of the Holocene has given way to a volatile Anthropocene. Acceptance of these claims means that we now live in this altered physical reality, inviting us to rethink how we conceptualise disasters. Yet, disaster scholars have been hesitant to apply the Anthropocene label and to acknowledge the profound changes that it can bring to the study of disasters. This paper queries whether this label is a necessary adage or unnecessary baggage for disaster studies by examining the possibilities and the challenges associated with engaging with the Anthropocene. An analysis of the concepts, causes, and consequences of disasters reveals how the Anthropocene provides, as the very least, a theoretical heuristic for challenging linear temporal assumptions, the epistemological status of uncertainty, and the location of agency in disaster studies.

Offline: Progress towards planetary health

Current widespread and intensive soil degradation in India has been driven by unprecedented levels of population growth, large‐scale industrialization, high‐yield agriculture, urban sprawl and the spread of human infrastructure. The damage caused to managed and natural systems by soil degradation threatens livelihoods and local services and leads to national socio‐economic disruption. Human‐induced soil degradation results from land clearing and deforestation, inappropriate agricultural practices, improper management of industrial effluents and wastes, careless management of forests, surface mining, urban sprawl, and ill‐planned commercial and industrial development. Of these, inappropriate agricultural practices, including excessive tillage and use of heavy machinery, over‐grazing, excessive and unbalanced use of inorganic fertilizers, poor irrigation and water management techniques, pesticide overuse, inadequate crop residue and/or organic carbon inputs, and poor crop cycle planning, account for nearly 40% (121 Mha) of land degradation across India. Globally, human activities related to agriculture contribute to the transgression of four of the nine Planetary Boundaries proposed by Rockström et al. (2009): Climate Change, Biodiversity Integrity, Land‐system Change, and altered Phosphorus and Nitrogen Biogeochemical Flows. This review focuses on how knowledge of soil processes in agriculture has developed in India over the past 10 years, and the potential of soil science to meet the objectives of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 2: Zero Hunger (End hunger, achieve food security, improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture), using the context of the four most relevant Planetary Boundaries as a framework. Solutions to mitigate soil degradation and improve soil health in different regions using conservation agricultural approaches have been proposed. Thus, in this review we (1) summarize the outputs of recent innovative research in India that has explored the impacts of soil degradation on four Planetary Boundaries (Climate Change, Biodiversity Loss, Land‐system Change, and altered Biogeochemical Flows of Phosphorus and Nitrogen) and vice‐versa; and (2) identify the knowledge gaps that require urgent attention to inform developing soil science research agendas in India, to advise policy makers, and to support those whose livelihoods rely on the land.

This paper affirms the continuing importance of full employment, as the best prospect for most people of the goods of meaningful work and of self-respect, and welcomes the failure of new technology in Western societies to engender mass unemployment, despite predictions to the contrary. It also replies to criticisms from John White (in Education and the End of Work) of a previous paper of mine, ‘Work and the Human Essence’ (1984). Employing a different sense of ‘meaningful work’ related to agents’ major goals in life, White claims that little work is meaningful, or capable of becoming so, and that social policy should recognise this and exonerate most people from expectations of employment. His argument embodies a distinctive understanding of human flourishing, and a critique of my earlier argument from the human essence. This paper defends that argument, plus a separate argument of my earlier paper from self-respect, which White apparently ignores, for meaningful work as crucial to human flourishing. Most employment, I maintain, is capable of being modified so as to become meaningful work, and since this is most people’s best prospect of that good, policies of full employment should not be discarded, either in the West or in the Third World.

It is difficult to exaggerate the scale of contemporary ecological crises. These challenges, particularly climate change, necessitate new modes of politics and policy, even potentially new institutions, that seem anathema to the emphases of traditional accounts of environmental political science. In this paper, we explore contemporary ecopolitics research in Australia that is attempting to come to terms with the reality of ecological crises and the geological epoch of the Anthropocene. Showcasing a range of scholarship in this area, we argue that contemporary Australian ecopolitics research identifies and engages with a wide range of sites of politics and a significant number of (consequential) political actors. It recognises the need to engage directly with key institutions while also extending our gaze to the environment movement, community groups, financial institutions, local governments, and consumers. It acknowledges that sites of politics extend from the way ecological crises are framed in public debate to policy management, practices of private corporations and even to individual patterns of consumption. And it argues for an expansive conception of ethics beyond currently living human communities, a vision which arguably better meets the reality of ecological crises and the Anthropocene epoch.

Planetary boundaries (PB) is a novel conceptual framework that assesses the state of processes fundamental to the stability of the Earth system. Studies argue a non-linear relationship between economy and environmental degradation, known as the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC). We postulate this inverted-U association between PB and economic output in a worldwide sample. This paper, therefore, examines the correlation between changes in environmental conditions and global economic growth, incorporating the growth rate of key control variables (population, financial development, merchandise trade and regulations). Thus, we intend to identify and address the main gaps in these EKC studies and analyse the impacts of worldwide economic growth on global environmental change. PB variables are identified as the more integrated perspective with regard to this change. These planetary boundaries include various proxies: global CO2 concentration as a climate change proxy, threatened species for biodiversity loss, the total ozone for ozone depletion, mean surface ocean hydrogen ion concentration for ocean acidification and global fertiliser consumption for biochemical cycles. Under this integrated perspective, the EKC hypothesis is supported for climate change and ocean acidification panels using a dynamic system generalized method of moments (GMM) approach. Meanwhile, biochemical cycles, ozone depletion and freshwater use, land change and biodiversity loss boundaries do not support the existence of the EKC shape using the same methodology. The results provide an additional and novel view to be factored into the decisions of policymaker and investment institutions to contribute to sustainable development in all countries.

To date, statues and trajectories of planetary boundaries have mostly been investigated separately, without fully quantifying if and to what extent transgression of one or more boundaries affects the status of respective others. To address this research gap, we have configured the state-of-the-art LPJmL Dynamic Global Vegetation Model so as to represent the terrestrial planetary boundaries (for land-system change, biosphere integrity, freshwater change, and biogeochemical/nitrogen flows) in an internally consistent, process-based framework. As the model simulates these boundaries’ underlying processes and control variables in a spatially explicit and dynamic manner, and as it also accounts for effects of climate change (a fifth planetary boundary considered through external forcing), it enables systematic studies of interactive effects among any of the five boundaries considered. In a scenario study focused on here, we employed the model to systematically quantify the effects of different transgression levels of the climate change boundary (using gridded climate output from ten CMIP6 models for distinct atmospheric CO2 levels from 350 ppm to 1000 ppm) upon the land-system change boundary (areal extent of temperate, boreal and tropical forest biomes). Changes are analysed both by the end of this century and, to account for long-term legacy effects, by the end of the millennium, respectively. The simulations indicate that staying within the 350 ppm climate change boundary would stabilize the land-system change boundary, not inducing notable expansions or contractions of forest biome extent (on top of the historical shifts that have been brought about by anthropogenic deforestation). However, transgressing the climate change boundary beyond its zone of increasing risk (>450 ppm) is simulated to lead to increasingly substantial forest biome shifts, the higher the ppm level rises and the more time passes. Specifically, this involves a poleward tree-line shift, boreal forest dieback, expansion of temperate forest into today’s boreal zone, and a slight tropical forest expansion. We furthermore find that these one-way interactions imply changes of the status of other planetary boundaries as well, as shifts in their control variables (e.g. large soil moisture and runoff anomalies) are simulated for the very areas where the forest biome shifts occur. Moreover, the vegetation changes are likely to provide feedback to the climate change boundary itself. In additional simulations (making use of a planetary boundary simulation package linked to the LPJmL model), we investigate the historical evolution of the terrestrial planetary boundaries’ statuses during the past century. This examination suggests that the timing and spatial location of transgressions differs strongly among boundaries, with multiple boundaries crossed in the late 20th century, and transgression of the climate change boundary gaining increasing impact. Possible cascading and compound effects of these simultaneous transgressions, and particularly their likely aggravation in the future, require comprehensive analyses in further studies.

Humanity currently faces an ecological crisis with devastating consequences to all living species. While climate change is estimated to lead to 250,000 extra deaths per year between 2030 and 2050, pollution is known to cause 9 million premature deaths: a figure much greater than the deaths caused by AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined. The healthcare sector is both burdened by, and contributes to, the impact of climate change and environmental degradation. Amidst glaring evidence of the interdependence of human health and the eco system, there is an urgent call for healthcare professionals to concern themselves with the triple planetary threat humanity currently faces. Without immediate mitigative measures, the future seems uncertain. Some healthcare systems at local, national and global levels have taken numerous initiatives to address, mitigate and adapt to these changes, however, these are not sufficient. A lack of awareness among healthcare professionals of the ecological crisis, its interconnectedness, and the role of healthcare in it, plays a significant role in the lack responsibility of healthcare professionals in this space. Therefore, this paper presents a discussion of the current landscape of the triple threat of climate change, loss of biodiversity, and pollution, while emphasising the contribution of healthcare professionals to it. Furthermore, interrelated concepts such as planetary health and eco-anxiety are briefly discussed. This perspective paper also presents several key prospective research areas that may lay the foundation for motivating healthcare professionals to play an active role in preventing and mitigating the ecological crises humanity currently faces.

Photo by Darth Liu on Unsplash INTRODUCTION Human consumption of meat sits at the intersection of culture and health and has profound bioethical implications. Here, we discuss how meat is interwoven with human history and traditions. We review the varied negative impacts of widespread modern meat consumption on health and the environment. Finally, we address the role that the principle of justice plays in allocating this resource. We argue that reducing meat consumption has health and environmental benefits. I. Historical Background Throughout history, some cultures have integrated meat into their traditions, from hunting rituals to religious celebrations to summer barbecues. While intimately connected to the human experience, meat consumption is not without consequences, ranging from increased incidence of chronic illness to environmental degradation. The mass production of meat began in the late 17th century as the rise of globalization led to widespread trade of goods, including meat products. While the sale and distribution of meat grew rapidly throughout the 18th century, it was not until 1818 that Elisha Mills opened the first mass-production plant to process pork. The advances made during the Industrial Revolution led to substantial technological improvements and greater efficiencies in meat processing and packing. During the 19th century, meat-packing plants flooded the United States, and eventually, meat became a staple grocery item for many Americans. While consumers enjoyed plentiful access to meat, skeptics such as Upton Sinclair detailed the horrors of the meat-packing industry and the associated health threats to the consumer. This new awareness resulted in the institution of federal regulations and a new era of quality control. Although meat safety has improved over the years, both human health and the environment remain profoundly affected by the externalities associated with meat consumption.[1] While mass production of meat is a relatively new phenomenon, regular yet limited meat consumption was an essential component of human evolution. Historians characterize the diets of hunter-gatherer tribes as varied and highly nutritious foods, including meat, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and whole grains. Anthropologists studying extant tribes have noticed significantly lower rates of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, among other chronic illnesses when compared to populations with Western diets. In contrast, as agriculture has expanded and flourished, people have become increasingly dependent on the food and cattle produced by farmers. They were less inclined to eat the highly nutritious and varied meals their ancestors did. This shift in diet has led to periodontal disease, novel infections and parasites from cattle, iron deficiencies, and other health challenges. As communities adopt Western diets, rates of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes rise.[2] II. A Global Health Crisis A global human health crisis has resulted from excessive meat consumption and its health impacts. Recent research has found that the ten-year mortality risk for meat consumers increased by over a third and by almost 50 percent for those who consumed excessive quantities of red meat. Other analyses demonstrated the relationship between meat consumption and colorectal cancer. Oncologists have noticed an increased incidence of colorectal cancer and a shift in the age demographic most impacted by it. In one study, consumption of more than two ounces per day of processed meat correlated with an 18 percent increased risk of colorectal cancer.[3] These adverse impacts on human health highlight the systemic complications that arise from meat consumption and the human cost. III. Environmental Degradation In addition to impacting human health, these dietary changes have contributed to environmental degradation. Humans conducted animal farming at a staggering scale: in 1961, the world had a standing population of 4.4 billion chickens, a number that increased to 37 billion chickens in 2020. Livestock far outnumbers humans, with a standing population of roughly 46 billion today.[4] Deriving immense quantities of protein from animal sources consumes similarly large amounts of resources. In doing so, rearing animals for meat encroaches upon several planetary boundaries, defined as “boundaries within which we expect that humanity can operate safely,” and includes limits on global freshwater use, land-system change, and climate change.[5] Producing just 1,000 calories of beef consumes an estimated 1,600 liters of water, requires the occupation of an estimated 147 square meters of land for an entire year, and releases 10 kilograms of CO2 equivalent.[6] Additionally, beef production consumes land that farmers could use to produce other protein sources, such as vegetables and grains. Such strains on planetary boundaries and excessive use of environmental resources to produce protein is not sustainable, especially as the global population continues to expand. The United States has one of the highest rates of meat consumption, with the average American consuming over 250 pounds of meat per year.[7] If the global population consumed meat at this rate, there would be a devastating impact on both global health and planetary boundaries. Protein sources should be viewed as a health resource, as proper protein intake is vital to human health. If over-consuming communities such as the US decreased their intake of meat, the health of both over-consumers and those with limited access to dietary protein and meat would greatly benefit.[8] IV. Ethical Analysis Since food is a limited resource, ethicists and physicians should approach conversations regarding meat through the lens of justice. The principle of distributive justice demands that “the benefits and burdens” of meat be “fair, equitable, and appropriate.”[9] Currently, marginalized communities bear the environmental burdens of meat-heavy diets, while not always having access to the benefits. Encroachments upon planetary boundaries caused by meat production and poor health outcomes due to excessive consumption disproportionately impact the most disadvantaged communities. If we, as ethicists, are to encourage equitable distribution of resources around the world, we must also limit the distribution of harm. Though we do not always abide by or apply utilitarian perspectives, in crisis we often adopt a harm reducing principle and work to maximize good and pleasure. When balancing the benefits and burdens of meat consumption, it is vital that we choose a path forward that produces the greatest good or pleasure for the greatest number of people. Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, an advocate for animal rights and vegan diets, argues that decreasing meat consumption is “a means toward reducing both human and animal suffering, and leaving a more habitable planet for future generations.”[10] By drastically decreasing the number of cattle, fish, and birds killed and consumed every year, we limit greenhouse gas emissions and create a more sustainable environment—a benefit not only for ourselves, but also for subsequent generations. As we limit human intake of meat and improve the environment, we decrease the acute and chronic disease burden among the population. It is essential to approach discussions regarding meat consumption with an appreciation of both the benefits and burdens to create equitable and health-conscious meat policy that maximizes benefits for the greatest number of people. CONCLUSION Meat consumption is causing a crisis in human health and hurting the environment. While meat is often attached to cultural celebrations and daily traditions, decreasing meat consumption and directing land use to more efficient, healthy food production would help both human health and the environment. Excessive consumption of animal protein negatively impacts public health both directly and indirectly through climate change, environmental degradation, and pollution. Current innovations, such as cultured agriculture and plant-based meats, provide promising alternatives, yet these novel technologies face numerous hurdles in widespread global implementation. An ethical and holistic approach to medicine demands that we advocate for the health of humanity through a balanced and climate-conscious approach to diet. - [1] Lisa, Andrew. History of America's Meat-Processing Industry. 18 Aug. 2020, https://stacker.com/stories/4402/history-americas-meat-processing-industry. [2] Gibbons, Ann, and Matthieu Paley. “The Evolution of Diet.” National Geographic, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/. [3] Battaglia Richi E, Baumer B, Conrad B, Darioli R, Schmid A, Keller U. Health Risks Associated with Meat Consumption: A Review of Epidemiological Studies. Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 2015;85(1-2):70-8. doi: 10.1024/0300-9831/a000224. PMID: 26780279. [4] Chure, Griffin, et al. “Anthroponumbers.org: A Quantitative Database of Human Impacts on Planet Earth.” 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.04.483053. [5] Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a [6] Chure, Griffin, et al. “Anthroponumbers.org: A Quantitative Database of Human Impacts on Planet Earth.” 2022, https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.04.483053. [7] Kuck, G. and G. Schnitkey. "An Overview of Meat Consumption in the United States." farmdoc daily (11):76, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, May 12, 2021. [8] Watts, Nick, et al. “The 2020 Report of The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change: Responding to Converging Crises.” The Lancet, vol. 397, no. 10269, 2021, doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32290-x. [9] Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Childress. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2009. [10] Singer, Peter. Ethics in the Real World. Princeton Univ

Youth research has, for decades, focused on examining current societal conditions and their potential shortcomings for young people in areas such as education, income, work, and gender equality. However, it has been less common to integrate planetary boundaries and so-called “overshoot” areas—such as biodiversity loss or climate change—into youth research. This paradigm shift is increasingly necessary, as six out of nine planetary boundaries have already been crossed, and the planet remains on track for approximately 2.7 degrees Celsius (°C) peak warming by 2100. In addition to planetary threats, Morocco faces social challenges, particularly high unemployment. Unemployment is highest among young people aged 15 to 24, reaching 25% over the past decade, nearly double the global youth unemployment rate. This article analyzes a case study we refer to as the “Gardening School” in Morocco, a country facing significant climate stress. It aims to (a) explore new methods for conducting more globally oriented youth research that is ethical and environmentally friendly and (b) examine the wellbeing of young people and their environment, as well as how to support and strengthen both. The findings of this article highlight the potential for youth research to develop new approaches, especially when conducted alongside young people and educational and sustainable environments. These environments enable younger generations to deepen their connection to and understanding of biodiversity, sustainability, and climate change, while learning to use natural resources in a sustainable and ethical manner. This approach ultimately aims to ensure a livable future for the coming generations and foster sustainable employment opportunities.

Planetary boundaries is an Earth systems science concept that aims to comprehensively assess human-caused disturbances on the planet. First developed in 2009, the basic premise is that there are thresholds for a series of Earth systems—such as ocean acidification, freshwater depletion, and climate change—that, if crossed, will cause abrupt and potentially catastrophic environmental change. As such, planetary boundaries is useful to frame sustainability objectives and practices. This review investigates the scholarly diffusion of planetary boundaries. How did it take off and spread? Using academic databases, I trace the growth of the concept over time, by the geographic location of scholars, as well as their disciplinary affiliations. Using citation counts, the most influential papers that have diffused the concept are identified. Moreover, the temporal expansion of planetary boundaries is compared to older, well-established sustainability concepts. The results indicate that the planetary boundaries concept has penetrated a wide variety of different academic disciplines, although such research is predominantly European. Fewer studies currently involve planetary boundaries compared to the related sustainability concepts Anthropocene and ecological footprint; however, the growth rate of planetary boundaries research is comparable to trends when those concepts were new. Most research that addresses planetary boundaries uses it as a background idea to frame their research questions. Although quantitatively fewer, some research studies continuously assess and refine the planetary boundary concept itself.

The use of co-approach work is growing for its ability to tackle complex contemporary societal issues. These ‘wicked’ multiscalar issues are predominantly human-centric in their origins. They negatively manifest across multiple systems (e.g., natural and anthropological), causing negative impacts to our oceans, land, and air including land degradation, loss of biodiversity, and climate change. Such outcomes challenge our planetary boundaries and negatively affect our capability as humans to thrive. Marine-based plastic pollution is one such issue. The fisheries and aquaculture sectors are globally responsible for much of this pollution through the production, use, and disposal of plastic products and equipment. This complex issue can no longer be resolved through existing societal structures and methods. Moving from current linear service model value chains to more sustainable circular economic approaches will contribute to resolving this problem. This chapter presents the Shift-Plastics co-approach work in tackling plastic pollution mitigation in the Norwegian fisheries and aquaculture sectors. More specifically, we present an SCE transition framework derived from insights from the Shift-Plastics co-approach work which can help shift these sectors towards a more sustainable circular economy.

In the face of the ongoing biodiversity crisis, questions are arising regarding the success, or lack thereof, of biodiversity offset schemes, where biodiversity losses from human development are compensated by producing equitable gains elsewhere. The overarching goal of offsetting is to deliver no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity. Assessing whether offsetting does indeed deliver NNL is, however, challenging because of a lack of clear and reliable information about offset schemes. Here we consider barriers in tracking NNL outcomes, outline criteria of public offset registers to enable accessible and credible reporting of NNL, and show how existing registers fail to satisfy those criteria. The lack of accessibility and transparency in existing registers represents a fundamental gap between NNL targets and a valid tracking system, which challenges the impetus to enact the transformative changes needed to reverse biodiversity decline.