Assessing synergies and trade-offs of diverging Paris-compliant mitigation strategies with long-term SDG objectives.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement are the two transformative agendas, which set the benchmarks for nations to address urgent social, economic and environmental challenges. Aside from setting long-term goals, the pathways followed by nations will involve a series of synergies and trade-offs both between and within these agendas. Since it will not be possible to optimise across the 17 SDGs while simultaneously transitioning to low-carbon societies, it will be necessary to implement policies to address the most critical aspects of the agendas and understand the implications for the other dimensions. Here, we rely on a modelling exercise to analyse the long-term implications of a variety of Paris-compliant mitigation strategies suggested in the recent scientific literature on multiple dimensions of the SDG Agenda. The strategies included rely on technological solutions such as renewable energy deployment or carbon capture and storage, nature-based solutions such as afforestation and behavioural changes in the demand side. Results for a selection of energy-environment SDGs suggest that some mitigation pathways could have negative implications on food and water prices, forest cover and increase pressure on water resources depending on the strategy followed, while renewable energy shares, household energy costs, ambient air pollution and yield impacts could be improved simultaneously while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Overall, results indicate that promoting changes in the demand side could be beneficial to limit potential trade-offs.

Resource requirements for ecosystem conservation: A combined industrial and natural ecology approach to quantifying natural capital use in nature.

Socioeconomic demand for natural capital is causing catastrophic losses of biodiversity and ecosystem functionality, most notably in regions where socioeconomic-and eco-systems compete for natural capital, e.g., energy (animal or plant matter). However, a poor quantitative understanding of what natural capital is needed to support biodiversity in ecosystems, while at the same time satisfy human development needs-those associated with human development within socioeconomic systems-undermines our ability to sustainably manage global stocks of natural capital. Here we describe a novel concept and accompanying methodology (relating the adult body mass of terrestrial species to their requirements for land area, water, and energy) to quantify the natural capital needed to support terrestrial species within ecosystems, analogous to how natural capital use by humans is quantified in a socioeconomic context. We apply this methodology to quantify the amount of natural capital needed to support species observed using a specific surveyed site in Scotland. We find that the site can support a larger assemblage of species than those observed using the site; a primary aim of the rewilding project taking place there. This method conceptualises, for the first time, a comprehensive "dual-system" approach: modelling natural capital use in socioeconomic-and eco-systems simultaneously. It can facilitate the management of natural capital at the global scale, and in both the conservation and creation (e.g., rewilding) of biodiversity within managed ecosystems, representing an advancement in determining what socioeconomic trade-offs are needed to achieve contemporary conservation targets alongside ongoing human development.