English references

The term ‘Anthropocene’ was coined in recognition that human activities have ended the relatively stable environment of the Holocene epoch. However, its widespread adoption across the humanities, arts and sciences has led to diverse and sometimes incompatible definitions. In this Perspective, we argue for a stabilized definition of the Anthropocene epoch to help address contemporary environmental challenges, and explore various applications of the Anthropocene across disciplines. The Anthropocene epoch, with a proposed start point in 1952, underscores that human-driven global-scale environmental disruption differs from earlier human impacts of the Holocene, which did not cause such profound destabilization. This clear distinction enables quantitative and qualitative comparisons between the Holocene and Anthropocene epochs, as already utilized, for instance, within the planetary boundaries framework. As the Anthropocene Earth system transformation is systemic, political responses also need be systemic, rather

The fluoropolymer industry is at it again. The industry’s most notable products are non-stick industrial coatings such as Teflon, made using forever chemicals (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: PFAS). But as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) starts to wind up its second public consultation on the proposed EU PFAS ban, the fluoropolymer industry is once again mobilising its customers to criticise alternatives to their products.

Climate regime shifts (CRSs), characterized by abrupt and persistent transitions between alternative stable states in the climate system, pose serious threats to ecosystems and human well-being. Understanding the potential drivers of CRSs is crucial, particularly in a warming world where CRSs are becoming more frequent.

Climate change is causing measurable harm globally1,2. Political and legal efforts seek to link these damages with specific emissions, including in discussions of loss and damage (L&D)3,4; however, no quantitative definition of L&D exists5,6, nor is there a framework to link past and future emissions from specific sources to monetized, location-specific damages. Here we develop such a framework, which is integrated with recent efforts to estimate the social cost of carbon7. Using empirical estimates of the non-linear relationship between temperature and aggregate economic output, we show that future damages from past emissions—one component of L&D—are at least an order of magnitude larger than historical damages from the same emissions. For instance, one tonne of CO2 emitted in 1990 caused US$180 in discounted global damages by 2020 ($40–530) and will cause an additional $1,840 through 2100 ($500–5,700). Thus, settling debts for past damages will not settle debts for past emissions. In other illustrative esti

These are difficult times indeed, with terrible news on many fronts. What are the prospects for the degrowth1 alternative as we move through 2025? Dark times: the current context First, we need to understand what is going on around us: what is the evolving context with which degrowth has to contend, and to which it has to present a viable alternative?