Bildtext får vara max två rader text. Hela texten ska högerjusteras om den bara ska innehålla fotobyline! Photo: B. Christensen/Azote
A doubly frustrating exchange
A final reply to Montoya et. al's criticism of the planetary boundaries framework
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 | 2023-02-02
Three quick questions for Marcus Lundstedt, our new head of communications
We welcome Marcus Lundstedt, the centre's new head of communications, and have a quick chat with him about his new role
Research news | 2023-01-30
The best way to deal with shocks is by combining diverse responses
Humankind’s best chance to deal with looming turbulences and crises is by diversifying response strategies
Research news | 2023-01-30
Policymakers need to work more closely with researchers to fight the global food crisis
We are facing the worst food crisis in modern history – Sweden and the EU need to take action to shift how food is produced and consumed. That was the message from researchers to policymakers during a high-level meeting for the Swedish government at Stockholm Resilience Centre
Research news | 2023-01-19
Time for an "IPCC for the ocean"
Leading ocean experts propose a new International Panel for Ocean Sustainability (IPOS) to build consensus and inform policy
Research news | 2023-01-13
Going beyond dichotomies of local versus global food systems
Food systems are becoming increasingly stressed, but whether they are local or global is not the big issue
Research news | 2022-12-22
Overshooting climate targets could significantly increase risk for tipping cascades
Temporarily overshooting the climate targets of 1.5-2 degrees Celsius could increase the tipping risk of several Earth system elements by more than 70 per cent, a new risk analysis study shows