Their article appeared in the top-tier journal BioScience, with carefully-worded recommendations emphasizing social justice.
Here are the recommendations from The 2023 state of the climate report: Entering uncharted territory.
To address the overexploitation of our planet, we challenge the prevailing notion of endless growth and overconsumption by rich countries and individuals as unsustainable and unjust. Instead, we advocate for reducing resource overconsumption; reducing, reusing, and recycling waste in a more circular economy; and prioritizing human flourishing and sustainability. We emphasize climate justice and fair distribution of the costs and benefits of climate action, particularly for vulnerable communities. We call for a transformation of the global economy to prioritize human well-being and to provide for a more equitable distribution of resources. We also call to stabilize and gradually decrease the human population with gender justice through voluntary family planning and by supporting women's and girls’ education and rights, which reduces fertility rates and raises the standard of living. — William J. Ripple, Christopher Wolf and Jillian W. Gregg, USA; Johan Rockström, Germany; Thomas M. Newsome, Australia; Beverly E. Law, USA; Luiz Marques, Brazil. Timothy M. Lenton, United Kingdom; Chi Xu, China; Saleemul Huq, Bangladesh. Leon Simons, The Netherlands; Sir David Anthony King, United Kingdom.
Scientists are speaking out for fundamentally reforming the human enterprise to ensure a livable Earth. Last month, a collaboration of scientists from seven countries published a paper that began with the words “Life on planet Earth is under siege.”
What followed was a clear and concise account of our very troubled planet. A large set of graphs showed trends in climate variables, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, fossil fuel subsidies, extreme weather events, and other Earth parameters. Then came their recommendations included in the above quote.
This 2023 report was preceded by earlier Warnings of a Climate Emergency signed by some 15,000 scientists from around the world, calling on governments to aggressively tackle the climate crisis, including ending and reversing population growth.
Their latest report received some coverage by a few news outlets, like ABC News, Forbes, and The Washington Post, but they barely, if at all, mentioned the paper’s reference to resource overconsumption and population growth. (Typically, corporate media focuses narrowly on the usual climate villains, namely the fossil fuel industries.)
Will society heed what scientists have to say on the matter of “life under siege”? I believe so. But only if they play their cards right.
First, scientists need to be honest, transparent, objective, and avoid hyperbole (the actual data on the state of Earth are dire enough as it is). Public trust is everything. We’ve seen from the covid pandemic how the credibility of health and medical scientists suffered because of mistakes that were made.
The authors of Entering uncharted territory are to be commended for their clarity and objectivity. For example, they explained mechanisms, other than human-caused global heating, that may have contributed to recent weather extremes (such as dust from North Africa, increased water vapor from an underwater volcano eruption, and the onset of a strong El Niño event).
Second, scientists should insist that media outlets accurately and fully report their findings. Through carelessness or malice, media can damage professional credibility or hide key research findings and conclusions. I mentioned media reluctance to reveal the paper’s recommendations on overconsumption and population growth. Other problems include “alarmism,” such as hyping findings beyond what research can support, and “false balancing,” by giving too much weight to opposing views that are weakly or unsupported by data.
Third, scientists who urge reduced resource consumption and population should be prepared to counter accusations of imperialism, racism, or (good heavens) prioritizing nature over people. Their analysis can be seriously undermined by ideologically-driven viewpoints that have nothing to do with science, and much to do with social or political philosophy.
I have great respect for William Ripple and colleagues for describing the human predicament as they see it, consistent with scientific analysis and yearly updates, and with a “moral duty [as scientists]…to clearly alert humanity of any potential existential threat and to show leadership in taking action.”
Please read and share Entering uncharted territory. It offers a hopeful, however uncertain, path forward.
My one criticism of the paper is that it is far too anthropocentric, notwithstanding its opening reference to life on Earth under siege (I believe the authors really meant LIFE, not just human life). The paper highlights “untold human suffering” caused by recent climate-related disasters while virtually ignoring impacts on other life. Such neglect is a common mistake made by well-meaning writers living in a self-absorbed culture. Moral exclusion of non-human life leads to an impossible future.
*****
Into my heart an air that kills
From yon far country blows;
What are those blue remembered hills,
What spires, what farms are those?
That is the land of lost content,
I see it shining plain,
The happy highways where I went
And cannot come again.
— A.E. Housman
Thanks for your thoughtful summary of this good vision of how to move to a happier place for humanity and the world. It provides humanity with a framework that is just, but I agree that it is mainly anthropocentric. I wish the other sentient beings could truly rise up and demand their rights, but they can't because we've nearly wiped them all out. We must get our numbers and impacts down before they are all gone.
Another wonderful person working on this topic in a different way, is Barbara Williams. She interacts with Parliament in the UK, providing them with creative input, which can be enjoyed at https://poemsforparliament.uk/?fbclid=IwAR2WNByInGF0UM6d1E574YYOT_NnJfUCccPAJXQVJvaG78TM7NHHxR7JSIQ
We humans are the arbiters of justice on the planet to other humans and to non-human others. Change starts as Maslow's hierarchy, with ourselves.
Thanks, Tony. A bit of hope in this very discouraging situation. Yes, as Dusti says below, human dysfunction is the biggest problem we face. Can we courageously confront and correct our worst tendencies?