Why a planetary commons is better than a global commons, how cities and businesses can respect earth-system boundaries, and more
From Wired
We found much of interest in this month’s newsletter from r3.0 (standing for “Redesign for Resilience and Regeneration. as a global common good not-for-profit platform”). Here are some very big picture perspectives and resources on eco-macro-economics and -systems.
For example, they draw attention to this paper from Johan Rockstrom and others, arguing that we must think of a planetary commons now, as opposed to a global commons. The latter refers to lands and territories that lie beyond the claims of states - but are declared as “commons” so that access to their resources can be regulated.
The writers’ assert that this is only relevant for a much more stable era, climatically. The upheavals and interdependencies that we expect from climate crisis now, and in the future, demand a planetary approach - where flows of change are heedless of national boundaries and conventions. As they conclude:
The core of the problem is that the global commons, like international law more generally, have been negotiated by states within the context of the Holocene epoch. This has mainly been about regulating resource access and use, geopolitical interests, and environmental protection.
The assumption here has been a continuously stable Earth system; abundant resources to sustain life indefinitely; and predictable and relatively minor environmental disruptions, to which humans can easily adapt, through incremental interventions of governance.
Given this conceptualization, the political and legal construct of global commons is unable to recognize and address governance challenges of an interlinked, continuously changing, and disrupted Earth system…
…We are confronted by rapidly rising risks of triggering irreversible and increasingly unmanageable Earth system–wide impacts and persistent shifts in life support systems. This requires a new approach to safeguard Earth’s critical biophysical systems—these contribute to regulate planetary resilience and livability on Earth.
This approach must be fully in sync with Anthropocene dynamics, as well as the most recent scientific evidence of eroding planetary resilience. It must recognize the integrated nature of the Earth system, and the importance of its functions to sustain planetary resilience. At the same time, It must create obligations for planetary stewardship and addressing injustices.
Planetary resilience is in the common interest of everyone, everywhere. It’s central to sustaining the foundations of all life and ensuring justice. A global commons approach to govern collective nonexcludable resources in the best interest of the world community therefore remains valid.
But it must be expanded to include critical Earth regulating systems. Doing so will open up a more comprehensive and innovative path to safeguard planetary resilience and global justice.
The planetary commons will require moving away from global commons as a means of governing resource use of natural resources beyond national borders—and towards universal rules of how to collectively secure critical biophysical Earth system functions. These regulate liveability on Earth for everyone, irrespective of where these functions are located.
We believe that the planetary commons framework has the potential to initiate the long overdue paradigm shift that we urgently need to safeguard the Earth system as we move deeper into the Anthropocene.
Another essential paper they cite (and indeed explore with a recording, transcript and presentation deck), concerns how one might “translate” the demands of planetary boundaries (what the writers call Earth System Boundaries, or ESBs) into specific targets and goals for businesses and cities.
The paper is complex, but repays patient reading, and provides at least a picture (in some of its graphics) of how these specific targets might be formulated - see below for their “ten principles of translation”:
Below is a graphic which attempts to chart out the stages of how to translate the demands of the big ESBs to the “share” burdened by a city or business:
