Natural capital approaches for the optimal design of policies for nature recovery.

By embedding a spatially explicit ecosystem services modelling tool within a policy simulator we examine the insights that natural capital analysis can bring to the design of policies for nature recovery. Our study is illustrated through a case example of policies incentivising the establishment of new natural habitat in England. We find that a policy mirroring the current practice of offering payments per hectare of habitat creation fails to break even, delivering less value in improved flows of ecosystem services than public money spent and only 26% of that which is theoretically achievable. Using optimization methods, we discover that progressively more efficient outcomes are delivered by policies that optimally price activities (34%), quantities of environmental change (55%) and ecosystem service value flows (81%). Further, we show that additionally attaining targets for unmonetized ecosystem services (in our case, biodiversity) demands trade-offs in delivery of monetized services. For some policy instruments it is not even possible to achieve the targets. Finally, we establish that extending policy instruments to offer payments for unmonetized services delivers target-achieving and value-maximizing policy designs. Our findings reveal that policy design is of first-order importance in determining the efficiency and efficacy of programmes pursuing nature recovery. This article is part of the theme issue 'Bringing nature into decision-making'.

European Technical Democracy? How Consumer Associations Did-or Did Not-Shape the 1980s Automotive Environmental Standards.

Did the 1980s automotive standards reflect the European Economic Community's move toward a "technical democracy" or a broader democratic deficit? In the early 1980s, Europe's automotive sector faced multiple challenges: the European Commission's desire to harmonize technical standards and achieve greater European integration, intense competition between manufacturers, and environmental issues like acid rain. Debates on reducing air pollution focused on unleaded petrol and catalytic converters. Two associations representing civil society in Brussels responded to the increase in environmental concerns with a 1982 joint campaign. Despite a rich historiography on pollutant emission standards, highlighting the strategies of governments and companies, no study has dealt with the role nongovernmental organizations played. Based on public and private archives, particularly those of the European Bureau of Consumers' Unions, this article argues the new regulations did not result from the EU's consultation with civil society organizations like consumer groups but rather with the automotive industry.

Ending extreme poverty has a negligible impact on global greenhouse gas emissions.

Growing consumption is both necessary to end extreme poverty1and one of the main drivers of greenhouse gas emissions2, creating a potential tension between alleviating poverty and limiting global warming. Most poverty reduction has historically occurred because of economic growth3-6, which means that reducing poverty entails increasing not only the consumption of people living in poverty but also the consumption of people with a higher income. Here we estimate the emissions associated with the economic growth needed to alleviate extreme poverty using the international poverty line of US $2.15 per day (ref. 7). Even with historical energy- and carbon-intensity patterns, the global emissions increase associated with alleviating extreme poverty is modest, at 2.37 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year or 4.9% of 2019 global emissions. Lower inequality, higher energy efficiency and decarbonization of energy can ease this tension further: assuming the best historical performance, the emissions for poverty alleviation in 2050 will be reduced by 90%. More ambitious poverty lines require more economic growth in more countries, which leads to notably higher emissions. The challenge to align the development and climate objectives of the world is not in reconciling extreme poverty alleviation with climate objectives but in providing sustainable middle-income standards of living.

Aligning climate scenarios to emissions inventories shifts global benchmarks.

Taking stock of global progress towards achieving the Paris Agreement requires consistently measuring aggregate national actions and pledges against modelled mitigation pathways1. However, national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) and scientific assessments of anthropogenic emissions follow different accounting conventions for land-based carbon fluxes resulting in a large difference in the present emission estimates2,3, a gap that will evolve over time. Using state-of-the-art methodologies4 and a land carbon-cycle emulator5, we align the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-assessed mitigation pathways with the NGHGIs to make a comparison. We find that the key global mitigation benchmarks become harder to achieve when calculated using the NGHGI conventions, requiring both earlier net-zero CO2 timing and lower cumulative emissions. Furthermore, weakening natural carbon removal processes such as carbon fertilization can mask anthropogenic land-based removal efforts, with the result that land-based carbon fluxes in NGHGIs may ultimately become sources of emissions by 2100. Our results are important for the Global Stocktake6, suggesting that nations will need to increase the collective ambition of their climate targets to remain consistent with the global temperature goals.