![]() |
clearly safe |
![]() |
safe |
![]() |
unsafe |
![]() |
clearly unsafe |
The indicators have been selected to be compatible with the framework called "Planetary Boundaries". The Planetary Boundaries can be envisaged as the most promising alternative to the Ecological Footprint. The methodology to allocate the global limits to countries has been developed jointly by UNEP GRID-Geneva, the University of Geneva and the NGO Shaping Environmental Action in a mandate for the Swiss Federal Office of the Environment.
While Climate Change is the most known (and validated) global priority, other environmental aspects are potentially an issue. The Planetary Boundaries framework enables the identification and quantification of these environmental challenges. In the future multi-indicators assessments will very probably replace the current focus on Climate Change.
The conversion of problematic global limits to limits at smaller scales enables setting absolute science-based targets for everyone. Going beyond the current approach of relative targets, e.g. a 20% reduction, by applying similar metrics at any level enables true benchmarking and the identification of best actors and practices.
Both the Planetary Boundaries framework and the methodology for the allocation are however recent. While the interest by researchers and corporations for the Planetary Boundaries framework is manifest, a broad acceptance by the scientific community is still lacking and many discussions are going on about its feasibility. The methodology for the allocation has just been developed and has not been publicly discussed so far. Assuming that data is available, other rationales, e.g. social justice, rights or responsibilities could be applied for the allocation, providing potentially different results.
Look at the big picture !
Current results represent first estimates of the performances of countries with respect to Planetary Boundaries. Computations are based on international datasets included in world input-output models (WIOD and exiobase 2.0) which we complemented with additional sources and basic assumptions.
The overall perspective is assumed to be correct but errors could exist for specific countries. Results will be improved in the follow-up projects.