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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Earth System Governance
Published
2025-06-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2025.100263
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Global Energy and Sustainability Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.45

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Nebojša Nakićenović, Peter H. Verburg, Diana Liverman, Ben Stewart‐Koster et al.
4 citations
Earth System Governance
Global Energy and Sustainability Research
1.45
article

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

Nebojša Nakićenović, Peter H. Verburg, Diana Liverman, Ben Stewart‐Koster, Paola Fezzigna, Xuemei Bai, Lisa Jacobson, David Obura, Johan Rockström, Jesse F. Abrams, Lauren Gifford, Syezlin Hasan, Caroline Zimm, G Gentile, Joyeeta Gupta, Tim Lenton, Steven J. Lade, K. Ebi, David I. Armstrong McKay, Detlef Peter van Vuuren, Awaz Mohamed, Aljoscha Karg, Raimon C. Ylla-Català
article en
4 citations

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.

Earth System GovernanceVol. 25
Griffith University (AU), Australian National University (AU), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT), Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NL), University of Arizona (US), Stockholm Resilience Centre (SE), Universität Hamburg (DE), Stockholm University (SE), University of Potsdam (DE), Utrecht University (NL), University of Washington (US), University of Exeter (GB), IHE Delft Institute for Water Education (NL), Leibniz Association (DE), Future Earth (SE), Coastal Oceans Research and Development in the Indian Ocean (KE), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE), University of Amsterdam (NL)
European Commission, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Vetenskapsrådet
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Global Energy and Sustainability Research
1.45
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.