Today, more than ever, ‘Spaceship Earth’ is an apt metaphor as we chart the boundaries for a safe planet1. Social scientists both analyse why society courts disaster by approaching or even overstepping these boundaries and try to design suitable policies to avoid these perils. Because the threats of transgressing planetary boundaries are global, long-run, uncertain and interconnected, they must be analysed together to avoid conflicts and take advantage of synergies. To obtain policies that are effective at both international and local levels requires careful analysis of the underlying mechanisms across scientific disciplines and approaches, and must take politics into account. In this Perspective, we examine the complexities of designing policies that can keep Earth within the biophysical limits favourable to human life.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Boulding, K. E. in Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy (ed. Daly, H. E.) 3–14 (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, 1966). Boulding seems to have been the first economist to publish thoughts on the consequences (in terms of circular economy and policy instruments needed) of the spaceship economy analogy.
Crutzen, P. J. Geology of mankind. Nature 415, 23–23 (2002).
Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009). This paper sets out the scientific basis for the planetary boundaries framework for maintaining the Earth system in a Holocene-like state.
Rockström, J. et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14, 32 (2009).
Hansen, J. et al. Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2, 217–231 (2008).
Azar, C. & Rodhe, H. Targets for stabilization of atmospheric CO2. Science 276, 1818–1819 (1997).
Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J. & Melillo, J. M. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499 (1997).
Lenton, T. M. et al. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786–1793 (2008).
Waters, C. N. et al. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351, aad2622 (2016).
Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115 (2018). This paper describes the high risk of a ‘Hothouse Earth’ future if the planetary boundaries are transgressed and an Earth system threshold is crossed.
Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the Anthropocene Science 345, 401–406 (2014).
Biggs, R. et al. Regime Shifts: Sourcebook in Theoretical Ecology (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 2012).
Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R. & Brock, W. A. Turning back from the brink: detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 826–831 (2009).
Margolis, M. & Nævdal, E. Safe minimum standards in dynamic resource problems: conditions for living on the edge of risk. Environ. Resour. Econ. 40, 401–423 (2008).
Polasky, S., De Zeeuw, A. & Wagner, F. Optimal management with potential regime shifts. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 62, 229–240 (2011).
Smith, V. K. in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science (2017); https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.386
Biermann, F. Planetary boundaries and Earth system governance: exploring the links. Ecol. Econ. 81, 4–9 (2012).
Biermann, F. et al. Navigating the Anthropocene: improving Earth system governance. Science 335, 1306–1307 (2012). This paper delivers important insights into how to understand the societal and political challenges associated with planetary boundaries and suggests viable global institutional architectures necessary for politics and governance to span all planetary boundaries while avoiding undesirable environmental shifts.
Dryzek, J. Institutions for the Anthropocene: governance in a changing Earth system. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 46, 937–956 (2016).
Kotzé, L. Environmental Law and Governance for the Anthropocene (Hart, Oxford, 2017).
Van Asselt, H. in Research Handbook on International Law and Natural Resources (ed. Morgera, E. & Kuloveski, K.) 473–495 (Elgar, Cheltenham, 2016).
Underdal, A. Complexity and challenges of long term environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 386–393 (2010).
Van den Bergh, J., Folke, C., Polasky, S., Scheffer, M. & Steffen, W. What if solar energy becomes really cheap? A thought experiment on environmental problem shifting. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 170–179 (2015).
Barbier, E. B. Capitalizing on Nature: Ecosystems as Natural Assets (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2011).
Crépin, A. S. & Folke, C. The economy, the biosphere and planetary boundaries: towards biosphere economics. Int. Rev. Environ. Econ. 8, 57–100 (2014).
Sims, C. & Finnoff, D. Opposing irreversibilities and tipping point uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 3, 985–1022 (2016).
Lipsey, R. G. & Lancaster, K. The general theory of second best. Rev. Econ. Stud. 24, 11–32 (1956).
Goulder, L. H. et al. The cost-effectiveness of alternative instruments for environmental protection in a second-best setting. J. Public Econ. 72, 329–360 (1999).
Parry, I. W. A second-best analysis of environmental subsidies. Int. Tax Public Finance 5, 153–170 (1998).
Sterner, T. Fuel Taxes and the Poor: The Distributional Effects of Gasoline Taxation and Their Implications for Climate Policy (Routledge, Washington, 2012).
Barbier, E. B. Nature and Wealth: Overcoming Environmental Scarcity and Inequality (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2015).
Von Blottnitz, H., Rabl, A., Boiadjiev, D., Taylor, T. & Arnold, S. Damage costs of nitrogen fertilizer in Europe and their internalization. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 49, 413–433 (2006).
Bosquet, B. Environmental tax reform: does it work? A survey of the empirical evidence. Ecol. Econ. 34, 19–32 (2000).
Sterner, T. Fuel taxes: an important instrument for climate policy. Energy Policy 35, 3194–3202 (2007).
Nelson, E. et al. Modelling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and trade-offs at landscape scales. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 4–11 (2009).
Lévay, P. Z., Drossinos, Y. & Thiel, C. The effect of fiscal incentives on market penetration of electric vehicles: a pairwise comparison of total cost of ownership. Energy Policy 105, 524–533 (2017).
Sterner, T. & Coria, J. Policy Instruments for Environmental and Natural Resource Management 2nd edn (RFF, Washington DC, 2012). This work provides a comprehensive and accessible overview of different environmental policy instruments and their pros and cons in various settings, including institutional and political contexts.
Somanathan, E. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds. Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch.15 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014).
Azar, C. & Schneider, S. H. Are the economic costs of stabilising the atmosphere prohibitive? Ecol. Econ. 42, 73–80 (2002).
Stern, N. H. et al. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2006).
Bateman, I. J. et al. Bringing ecosystem services into economic decision making: land use in the United Kingdom. Science 341, 45–50 (2013).
Köke, S. & Lange, A. Negotiating environmental agreements under ratification constraints. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 83, 90–106 (2017).
Barrett, S. & Dannenberg, A. Tipping versus cooperating to supply a public good. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 15, 910–941 (2017).
Crocker, T. D. & Tschirhart, J. Ecosystems, externalities, and economies. Env. Resource Econ. 2, 551–567 (1992).
Sovacol, B. Reviewing, reforming, and rethinking global energy subsidies: toward a political economy research agenda. Ecol. Econ. 135, 150–163 (2017).
Wesseh, P. & Lin, B. Refined oil import subsidies removal in Ghana: a ‘triple’ win? J. Clean. Prod. 139, 113–121 (2016).
Biggs, R. et al. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 421–448 (2012).
Levin, S. et al. Social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: modelling and policy implications. Environ. Dev. Econ. 18, 111–132 (2013).
Crépin, A. S. Using fast and slow processes to manage resources with thresholds. Environ. Resour. Econ. 36, 191–213 (2007).
Heijdra, B. J. & Heijnen, P. Environmental abatement and the macroeconomy in the presence of ecological thresholds. Environ. Resour. Econ. 55, 47–70 (2013).
Weitzman, M. L. Prices vs. quantities. Rev. Econ. Stud. 41, 477–91 (1974).
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990).
Bateman. et al. Conserving tropical biodiversity via market forces and spatial targeting. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7408–7413 (2015).
Sedjo, R. Property rights, genetic resources, and biotechnological change. J. Law Econ. 35, 199–213 (1992).
Costello, C. et al. Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 5125–5129 (2016).
Farley, J. Ecosystem services: the economics debate. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 40–49 (2012).
Vatn, A., Barton, D. N., Lindhjem, H., Movik, S. & Ring, I. Can Markets Protect Biodiversity? An Evaluation of Different Financial Mechanisms. Noragric Report No. 60 (Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian Univ. Life Sciences, 2011).
Meckling, J., Sterner, T. & Wagner, G. Policy sequencing toward decarbonisation. Nat. Energy 2, 918 (2017).
Campos, N. F. & Giovannoni, F. Lobbying, corruption and political influence. Public Choice 131, 1–21 (2007).
Harstad, B. & Svensson, J. Bribes, lobbying, and development. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 105, 46–63 (2011).
Fischer, C. & Salant, S. Balancing the carbon budget for oil: the distributive effects of alternative policies. Eur. Econ. Rev. 99, 191–215 (2017).
Aidt, T. S. in Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics (ed. Shogren, J. F.) 296–299 (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2013).
Bertram, C. et al. Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 235–239 (2015).
Aghion, P., Dechezleprêtre, A., Hemous, D., Martin, R. & Van Reenen, J. Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: evidence from the auto industry. J. Polit. Econ. 124, 1–51 (2016).
Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L. & Hemous, D. The environment and directed technical change. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 131–66 (2012). This paper analyses how policies should be designed to simultaneously strengthen innovation in technologies that facilitate sustainable growth and weaken the development of technologies that threaten it.
Popp, D. Induced innovation and energy prices. Am. Econ. Rev. 92, 160–180 (2002).
Hasselmann, K. et al. The challenge of long term climate change. Science 302, 1923–1925 (2003).
Bongaarts, J. & O’Neill, B. C. Global warming policy: is population left out in the cold? Science 361, 650–652 (2018).
We are grateful for funding from the Stockholm Resilience Centre and BECC (Biodiversity and Ecosystem services in a Changing Climate) as well as Mistra Carbon Exit. Comments from S. Barrett, P. Dasgupta and B. Groom are gratefully acknowledged.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Sterner, T., Barbier, E.B., Bateman, I. et al. Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nat Sustain 2, 14–21 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0194-x
Exploring consumption-based planetary boundary indicators: An absolute water footprinting assessment of Chinese provinces and cities
Water Research (2020)
One Earth (2020)
A framework for selecting and designing policies to reduce marine plastic pollution in developing countries
Environmental Science & Policy (2020)
A Bayesian modeling framework for estimating equilibrium soil organic C sequestration in agroforestry systems
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment (2020)
The Boundaries of the Planetary Boundary Framework: A Critical Appraisal of Approaches to Define a “Safe Operating Space” for Humanity
Annual Review of Environment and Resources (2020)