Planetary management is intentional global-scale management ofEarth'sbiological,chemical andphysical processes andcycles (water,carbon,nitrogen,sulfur,phosphorus, and others). Planetary management also includes managinghumanity's influence on planetary-scale processes.[1] Effective planetary management aims to prevent destabilisation ofEarth's climate, protectbiodiversity and maintain or improve human well-being. More specifically, it aims to benefit society and theglobal economy, and safeguard theecosystem services upon which humanity depends – globalclimate,freshwater supply,food,energy, clean air, fertilesoil,pollinators, and so on.
Because of the sheer complexity and enormous scope of the task, it remains to be seen whether planetary management is a feasible paradigm for maintaining globalsustainability. The concept currently has defenders and critics on both sides:environmentalistDavid W. Orr questions whether such a task can be accomplished with human help and technology or without first examining the underlying human causes,[2] while geographerVaclav Smil acknowledges that "the idea of planetary management may seem preposterous to many, but at this time in history there is no rational alternative".[3]
The term has been around in science fiction novels since the 1970s.[citation needed] In 2004, theInternational Geosphere-Biosphere Programme published "Global Change and the Earth System, a planet under pressure."[6] The publication's executive summary concluded: "An overall, comprehensive, internally consistent strategy for stewardship of the Earth system is required". It stated that a research goal is to define and maintain a stable equilibrium in the global environment. In 2009, theplanetary boundaries concept was published in the science journalNature. The paper identifies nine boundaries in the Earth system. Remaining within these nine boundaries, the authors suggest, may safeguard the current equilibrium.
In 2007, France called forUNEP to be replaced by a new and more powerful organization, theUnited Nations Environment Organization. The rationale was that UNEP's status as a programme, rather than an organization in the tradition of theWorld Health Organization or theWorld Meteorological Organization, weakened it to the extent that it was no longer fit for purpose given current knowledge of the state of Earth. The call was backed by 46 countries. Notably, the top five emitters ofgreenhouse gases failed to support the call.[7]
Planetary Ecosystems Accounting models supports that quantifying both emissions sequestration potential as well as emissions productions can provide a better overview on how to render better informed decisions regarding natural ecosystems.[8]
Together with planetary management,stewardship andenvironmental wisdom are different ways to manage the Earth[9] or "environmental worldviews".
In particular:
