Bildtext får vara max två rader text. Hela texten ska högerjusteras om den bara ska innehålla fotobyline! Photo: B. Christensen/Azote
In an article in TREE we have responded in detail to Montoya et al.'s earlier misunderstandings and apparently deliberate misinterpretations of the planetary boundaries framework. TREE allows original authors to have a final reply to rebuttals of articles, which they (Montoya et al.) have used. Their reply is, again, based mainly on personal biases void of objectivity and dominated by personal attacks.
As we have stated before, we find this destructive exchange with Montoya et al. doubly frustrating. Not only because it is factually wrong, but also because we are convinced that there is more that unites us than divides us. We are both scientific communities engaged in sustainability science for human wellbeing. Instead of throwing provocations in public, it would seem much more constructive to focus on sharing scientific evidence, concepts and methods and, through collegial exchange and collaborations, move the global sustainability science frontier forward.
It is very easy to sort out the only attempt at substantive critique in this final reply by Montoya et al., namely that we are accused of using multiple terms and concepts that are not defined properly. We would recommend them to read carefully the 2015 planetary boundaries science paper (Steffen et al., 2015), where we clarify definitions and the overall framework. In particular, Table 1 defines, for each planetary boundary, the Earth System process on which the boundary is based, the control variable(s), the planetary boundary itself (with the zone of uncertainty), and the current value of the control variable. All of these terms are carefully defined in the paper. This has been done in collaboration with leading scientists around the world, e.g., building on the biodiversity/biosphere integrity planetary boundaries advancements made by Mace et al. (2014), which led to the widening of the boundary to include both genetic and functional diversity, both clearly defined in Steffen et al. (2015).
Drawing on such collaborative efforts by leading scientists is how we can best advance the rapidly moving frontier on global sustainability science, with planetary boundaries as one scientific framework to help us understand and navigate the Anthropocene.
Structured order of exchange:
Planetary Boundaries for Biodiversity: Implausible Science, Pernicious Policies
Planetary Boundaries: Separating Fact from Fiction. A Response to Montoya et al.
Why a Planetary Boundary, If It Is Not Planetary, and the Boundary Is Undefined? A Reply to Rockström et al.
References for final reply
G. M. Mace, B. Reyers, R. Alkemade, R. Biggs, F. S. Chapin III, S. E. Cornell, S. Díaz, S. Jennings, P. Leadley, P. J. Mumby, A. Purvis, R. J. Scholes, A. W. R. Seddon, M. Solan, W. Steffen, G. Woodward, Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 289–297 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.009
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., et al., 2015. Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Science, 347 (6223): DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855
General news | 2018-08-14
Event, Tuesday 11 September 2018 in partnership with ICF and the UN Climate Resilience Initiative A2R. A Global Climate Action Summit affiliate event
Research news | 2018-08-13
New analysis reveals connections between tax havens and resource degradation in both the Amazon rainforest and global fisheries
Research news | 2018-08-06
Keeping global warming to within 1.5-2°C may be more difficult than previously assessed
Research news | 2018-07-10
The World in 2050 initiative launches new report outlining synergies and benefits that render the goals achievable
Research news | 2018-06-27
Overfishing, fractured international relationships and political conflicts loom as fish migrate more unpredictably because of climate change. Here is how to deal with it
Research news | 2018-06-26
Profit-maximizing approaches are most likely to produce outcomes that harm people or the environment. But it depends on the circumstances whether a sustainable or a safe approach is most suitable, new study argues