Comments on: Can we live inside the doughnut? Why the world needs planetary and social boundaries

By: Steven McQuinn

Steven McQuinn — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 02:59:29 +0000

The essay to which I am referring is Kate’s, not Rajan’s. Kate provokes thought. Rajan instills numbness from pseudo information overload, a typical denier tactic. Just skip down to the last paragraph about lap dogs and clowns to understand the real message. Pretty much voids the author’s credibility and saves you from parsing the rant.

By: Steven McQuinn

Steven McQuinn — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 02:46:31 +0000

Look at this and think in two ways about it simultaneously: how it will play out over the next decade and how it will play out over the next several centuries. The thoughts in this essay provide a sound foundation for building a new civilization from the ashes of the current one. I vote for the Long View, and ashes are fertile. The power to shape humanity’s fate belongs to those who can envision the span of millenia, and who act now upon that vision knowing they will not live long enough to see the tree bear fruit. In the long run, only a long view can prevail. We can bring to bear the full force of generations to come, if we dare.

By: Rajan Alexander

Rajan Alexander — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:29:53 +0000

Did a critique of the paper.

http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.in/2012/02/oxfams-discussion-paper-on.html?z

By: Sonja Vermeulen

Sonja Vermeulen — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:42:11 +0000

This is a very useful metaphor for structuring global and national conversations on environment and development – thanks very much indeed for the timely paper Oxfam. One use will be to look deeper into the interactions between the fllors and the boundaries. For example, you say that 13% of people who are currently malnourished could be fed adequately on just 1% of current food production. Growing more food most likely means more climate change, less water availability for other uses, more land use change and more biodiversity loss… so it makes a big difference if we supply that 1% from current food production (which we could, through fairer distribution) or from additional food production. These challenges will only multiply in future as there are more people alive and needing to eat. The Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change has taken on just this one bite of the doughnut (food availability under climate change) and, in nice synergy with your work, has come up with a a “safe operating space” concept: how we can eat adequately and equitably without further impacts on our climate. This will be released shortly as an animation – anyone interested can keep an eye on the Commission’s web page at http://ccafs.cgiar.org/news/category/commission-sustainable-agriculture-and-climate-change. My guess is that many of us will find many opportunities to take these doughnut-shaped ideas forward – so thanks again!

By: Malcolm W

Malcolm W — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:47:59 +0000

The paper makes a cohesive summary of the perilous state we are in but leaves me with an empty feeling about the future we are leaving to the planet.As economic progress brings our intermingled lives come closer to each other, the future prospect for us becomes a scene from hell. There is no political party in power that is seriously engaged in a policy to resolve the social and environmental issues that you identify. The nation state system we have for the planet sets up the problem by dividing the planet into nations as silos to be defended to Armageddon. This crazy system has to be radically changed before any real attention will be paid to social and environmental issues .
. The task of making this change is fpivotal and requires a fundamental change to the concept of democracy before there is any hop e of success. Your paper underlines the need for social and environmental change,the necessary mechanism for that to be accomplished is an even bigger challenge to be met.
On a more mundane note,I think that you are limiting the scope of the vision of our predicament by using a doughnut. THe details of how we perceive,examine and establish solutions will be much better corelated if they can be related to the basic vision statement. Also a linear representation of by two lines is a more practical way of representing the social target and the planetary limit and does not require skills in reading upside down text.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:24:55 +0000

thanks P, I’ll check – blog upgrade imminent which should sort out these glitches

By: P Baker

P Baker — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:14:12 +0000

Duncan – is it just me, or is this page jumping about all over the place when you try to reply?

By: P Baker

P Baker — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 07:12:52 +0000

Kate’s report is extensively covered here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/feb/13/protecting-environment-social-justice?commentpage=all#start-of-comments

with some great posts below the line from Teratornis.

By: jickemp

jickemp — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:27:12 +0000

Perhaps this could serve as the basis for a version of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock (minus the Dr Strangelove branding).

With the right designers, it would be a neat app too (containing fundraising / more info / get involved features at the touch of a button or boundary).

By: Externalities

Externalities — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:48:29 +0000

“Achieving sustainable development for nine billion people has to be high on the list of humanity’s great uncharted journeys.” It would of course be easier to provide food, water and energy for all, whilst staying within planetary boundaries if we didn’t hit 9 billion. The UN’s medium and high population projections both go beyond 10bn, but we should be aiming for the low scenario of peaking around 8bn. Given that access to reproductive health tools also goes hand-in-hand (both ways) with increased income, health, gender equality, and education, it makes a lot of sense to prioritise meeting unmet demand for contraception etc.. I do like the doughnut. It’s a simple message but it’s a good framework for new development goals. But is it possible to display both metrics at once? And might some misinterpret it to mean that we can’t simultaneously be below the ’social foundation’ and above the ‘environmental ceiling’? Similarly, one should emphasise that high income and energy use etc. don’t have to mean heading up to or beyond the environmental boundaires – we just need to decouple human development/prosperity from environmental damage (e.g. through cleaner energy).