For all of us working to get the planet to a safe space - how can we best synergize for greatest impact?
A question inspired by @wimnusselder comments today regarding the launch of https:/// which shows country-by-country Doughnut-style comparisons. This great work of @DrDanONeill & colleagues at the University of Leeds has some similarities with GAPFRAME but at the same time is quite different. I think the important thing is we both work towards providing nations and business with a concrete starting point to discuss planetary boundaries. What are your thoughts?
Thanks for the reference to my tweets about this subject of Feb. 5th & 6st. What are the differences that according you prevent a merger? My thoughts, as expressed in my tweets, are that the country-by-country information being presented in Doughnut or GAFframe form must be very comparable (or either of the two is flawed), so it would be better to choose one format to present them and combine efforts to produce that information. Wouldn't that be the best way to synergize for greatest impact?
Do I understand correctly that there is no GAPframe week this month after all (which you mentioned 4 months ago)/
Hi Wim, thanks for the reply. Well Doughnut doesn't present a country by country view of the world and is not really a measurement tool but we did work out our first GAPFRAME world view based on the doughnut visual and they connect pretty well together. See the attached file. So I suppose GAPFRAME can be used to support Doughnut and Doughnut helps us to explain safe space. I suppose for tools like GAPFRAME there is an ongoing evolution and we will keep it improving it to meet the feedback of the users.
Yes GAPFRAME week is in full swing and Kate is here and we have had a chance to look at the GAPFRAME together. You can read more about what's happening here.
Thanks Belinda, yes Kate just messaged me too that she is there; great!
Couldn't find a reference to this GAPframe week any more here.
I referred to the University of Leeds version (like you) rather than to the original Doughnut (which indeed presents a global picture, including statistics, in some versions).
The attachment is indeed what I hoped for (also country by country)!
Except...: could you consider putting the planet inside and people outside?
I ask because of an inspiring keynote speech I heard Feb. 9th at the Pathways to Sustainability conference of Utrecht University by John Robinson.
While focusing on making universities into testbeds for sustainability and agents for change in wider society towards regeneration of people's health, happiness and productivity as well as the health of ecosystems, his message was also that 'sustainability' ("aiming for zero impact on the environment") was not inspiring enough to make people, organizations and societies move.
People need some perspective to strive for: social goals (health, happiness, productivity) could be reframed as being without maximum.
So if these were positioned on the outside the doughnut could grow (and need not be framed as an anti-growth narrative)!
Not sure if I understand the growth or no growth issue with the original Doughnut or the GAPFRAME. Is it the visual representation? GF safe space is not the final destination ... everyone can strive for the ultimate goal of 'Towards Ideal' but this may be a bit unrealistic. Safe Space will be enough for all of uy to live well within the limits of the planet. Haven't had time to read John Robisnson but will do in the next days.
Yes, the issue I have with (primarily) the Doughnut is a matter of visual representation and how it supports a narrative that can inspire people and make them act, rather than giving them a feeling like 'those environment freaks are trying to confine us'.
People need something to strive for to motivate them and for 'the Doughnut (narrative) to fly' rather than another narrative about the things that go terribly wrong when we continue 'overshooting' our limits.
A lot of people have become immune & averse to negative stories from the environment movement.