What are the levels of sustainable development within each country and can these levels be quantified and compared to other countries?

Although complex, a standardized sustainability index per country, comparable to other countries, should be researched and presented. This would indicate levels of sustainability within countries, taking population growth/age, natural resources, pollution levels, etc. into account. Based on this, areas for education/action can be identified. This is both a earth system & social science topic combined, and the final outcome should be to raise awareness within these problem sectors.

How can the world community achieve a shared, new, understanding of the complex, interactive and non-linear nature of the Earth System, against the prevailing, misleading and policy-impeding assumption of a mechanistic ‘Newtonian’ world, amenable to reductionist technical fixes applied in incremental fashion?

Modern societies, and their governments, typically view the natural world in essentially mechanistic fashion — imagining that piecemeal technical solutions can be found for specific aspects of environmental disruption or depletion. Systems thinking and analysis, including an understanding of ecological processes, has not been part of our schooling, culture and world-view. We are thus failing to grasp the potential seriousness of exponential change functions, synergistic stressors, natural limits, critical thresholds and surprises.

Obstacles to achieving such change include the familiar difficulties in ‘re-educating’ existing adult generations, failure of imagination, resistance from those with vested interests in prevailing views/models (including conservative religious and schooling authorities), and the difficulties and diffidences that afflict scientists in their potential public role as communicators and educators. Governments’ (electoral) preoccupation with balancing the budget rather than the biosphere is a natural consequence of the above — and therefore a further major impediment.

How can decision makers, the media, and the general public be made aware of the future’s unexpected problems?

Scientists work diligently in their labs and publish in scientific journals results of their work. However, the media pick only stories about the man who bit the dog, neglecting the background. How can media be made aware of the importance of telling the truth, the whole, truth, and nothing but the truth?

How can we develop empathy for a global environmental system?

In the past conflicts and wars were mainly about self-determination and food (18th and 19th Century) and space and resources (19th and 20th Century). Looking to the future and the 21th Century we will see more and more conflicts due to the overuse of environmental resources and systems. We are now living in the Anthropocene and human interference is reaching into nearly every natural system. This will lead to major changes in those systems with possible catastrophic consequences. The increasing world population will become more vulnerability to environmental threads.

Since the 1960s an environmental movement has established. Notable cornerstones are the book “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson and the foundation of the “Club of Rome”. Only a small percentage of the western world population is aware of their environmental impact yet. It will be a major task for the 21th Century to establish a global awareness and empathy for nature. This is not anymore a blurred hippie idea, but a necessary step to enable a global sustainable development. We will have to achieve that every person realizes the environmental consequences and systemic impact of its action.

The question is, in which way can Earth System Research contribute to this.
Education and outreach need to be enhanced. Research results need to be translated to the public in a comprehensive way.

Why, considering the meaning of humans (A), also the integrity of the Earth system (B), the results and its use of ESR (C) and the lessons learned in development(D), we are not getting the appropriate global, continental and national sustainable well-being?

With humility, we recognize that we were not prepared for the above challenge; leadership was absent even with the availability of guidelines to set real role models. It means that we should be better prepared to deal with (A), (B), (C) and (D), to go the extra mile with new paradigms, models and actions, but this time all the conditions/drivers are in our favor (habitability of Earth is at stake).

The “tune up” required will need to see and foresee our reality with a unified conception, using the Earth language, an universal language understood by anyone that occupies an space on Earth. This “template” could be converted to a three dimensional figure (systems, realms and information)that could help navigate U.S.A.L. (understanding/scheme/action/love) and also could be the forerunner of a Strategic Framework for ESR and Development(SFESRD). It could also facilitate the involvement of multidisciplinary teams to detect the gaps and connect the dots when we superimpose the “template” on any ecosystem of Earth.

And last but not the least, we need to break the current inertia. The potential of ESSP to involve a significant part of our collective intelligence is there. The advances made(MA/MDG/IPCC, CGIAR/CRSP, NLEducation, etc)should lead to cover the remaining realms and systems but at the continent/region/country levels(part of SFESRD).Our education/research system should also be involved, at least the enthusiasm and success of our youth, as part of the K-1 to K-51 landscape(future stewards of planet Earth).

To get faster results(before 2015), we could announce that every member of the scientific community is donating one hour/week for the next 10 years, that could trigger involvement of our civil society and give meaning to the splendor of the human species.

How to model future scenarios considering anthropocentric activities and suggest solutions which are strategic, targeted, and more fundamental in nature which will have positive outcomes/results for ecosystems, their services and human well-being?

Human activities threaten the Earth’s ability to sustain future generations. Increasing population obtains its resources has caused irreversible changes that are degrading the natural processes that support life on Earth. This burgeoning world population drove an unsustainable rush for these natural resources. To decrease stress on earth systems requires changes in consumption patterns, better education, new technologies and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems. The range of current responses is not commensurate with the nature, the extent or the urgency of the situation that is at hand.

Would human well being goal and operational mechanism be able to motivate the human society to transcend anthropocentric view for valuing biodiversity?

Through out the civilization process human beings have tried to organize themselves. Human well being goal has given rise to political system, economic system, social institutions. But all are governed by time bound action programmes which does not look beyond life time of maximum of two generations as private motive, time preference for present over future dominate. Non human biodiversity, their space in the ecosystem, role in human well being are least understood . This knowledge gap makes precautionary principle also fail to get defined and accepted. It is not technology, legislation or cooperation but education, ethics, that may lead to a smooth paradigm shift. Challenge is how to build that eco-centric goal which will embed in it anthropocentric goals. But theoretical solution will not be enough unless operational rules are laid out. Anthropocentric goals have led to human habitat design, mobility design etc. but without considering if that is in conflict with ecosystem’s well being. So challenge is how can the bigger picture be organised?

How soon can each of the country board on a low GHG pathway?

Development today is following the footsteps of the predecessors. Can we define an alternative development pathway in a carbon constrained world? Who would /should lead the way? Developed or developing countries? How can this be consistent with sustenance of human well being? A shelf full of technologies are known that can move the world on low carbon pathway but important question is what institutional structure, local capacity, education, international cooperation mechanism, financial assistance, political will for prioritizing the issues are defining realities with as many varieties as there are countries, states etc. so to be realistic enough about stabilization and peaking major question is can we map each country’s reality and get an envelope to decide on adaptation plan and protocol. This exercise will infact show who can commit how much in terms of global good delivery unilaterally , bilaterally, multtilaterally. Ideally it will be realistic to imagine that no single world order for cooperation will prevail.