The Planetary Accounting Framework

  • Kate Meyer
  • Peter Newman


There is a need for a poly-scalar approach to Earth-system management. Such an approach should be one which is integrative across different scales, sectors, and timeframes. It should not be controlled by a single body, but could be implemented through governance, privatization, or self-organized management, that is coordinated by a general system of rules which have different mechanisms at different centres of activity. Planetary Accounting enables a poly-scalar approach. It extends the concepts of carbon accounting and science based targets accross all of the Planetary Boundaries. It enables the comparison of the environmental footprints of human activity to a share of scientific global limits. It can be used to report progress towards an “end goal” for sustainability. However, its unique value is its utility as a decision making tool at all scales of human activity. Planetary Accounting creates a framework for innovation and transformative change towards human activity within the Planetary Boundaries.

In order for Planetary Accounting to be possible, we derived a new set of global limits, the “Planetary Quotas” that connect the Planetary Boundaries to environmental accounting in a way that can be scaled and used as the basis of decision-making. Planetary Accounting allows people to quantify what needs to be done to return to and maintain planetary health.

The Planetary Accounting Framework shows how to use the Planetary Quotas and environmental accounting methods to calculate environmental parameters for different scales and types of activity and to compare these to the status quo. One potential output of Planetary Accounting is an impact balance statement which shows the environmental credits or deficits of an activity in each environmental currency.

Planetary Accounting can be used to inform policy and governance, business operations, legislation, design and technology, and behaviour change programs. It is the basis for a new not-for-profit research centre—the Planetary Accounting Network (PAN). Planetary Accounting has the flexibility and high resolution needed to form the general system of rules for a poly-scalar approach to Earth-system management.


  1. Anthesis (2014) what is your ecological footprint [Online]. Available: Accessed 28 April 2018
  2. Beckerman W, Pasek J (1995) The equitable international allocation of tradable carbon emission permits. Glob Environ Chang 5:405–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caney S (2013) Justice and the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions. Global Social Justice. J Glob Ethics 5(2):125–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dao H, Peduzzi P, Chatenoux B, de Bono A, Schwarzer S, Friot D (2015) Environmental limits and Swiss footprints based on planetary boundaries. UNEP/Grid-Geneva & University of Genever, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  5. Dawkins E, Moran D, Palm V, Wood R, Bjork I (2019) The Swedish footprint: a multi-model comparison. J Clean Prod 209:1578–1592Google Scholar
  6. Ewing B, Moore D, Goldfinger S, Ourslet A, Reed A, Wackernagel M (2010) Ecological footprint atlas 2010. Global Footprint Network, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  7. Fang K, Heijungs R, de Snoo GR (2015) Understanding the complementary linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a footprint-boundary environmental sustainability assessment framework. Ecol Econ 114:218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FAO (2016) Global forest resources assessment. NATIONS, F. A. A. O. O. T. U, Rome, p 2015Google Scholar
  9. Franz J, Papyrakis E (2011) Online calculators of ecological footprint: do they promote or dissuade sustainable behaviour? Sustain Dev 19:391–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Global Challenges Foundation (2017) New shape prize [Online]. Available: Accessed 3 March 2019
  11. Global Footprint Network (2018) Footprint calculator [Online]. Global footprint network. Available: Accessed 28 April 2018
  12. Grubb M (1995) Seeking fair weather: ethics and the international debate on climate change. Int Aff 71:463–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ha Y, Teng F (2013) Midway toward the 2 degree target: Adequacy and fairness of the Cancún pledges. Appl Energy 112:856–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoekstra AY (2017) Water footprint assessment: evolvement of a new research field. Water Resour Manag:1–21.
  15. INC (1991) Framework convention on climate change. Intergovernmental Negotiating CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  16. IWGSCC (2013) Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis US governmentGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaza, Silpa, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, Frank VW (2018) What a waste 2.0 : a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lövbrand E, Stripple J (2011) Making climate change governable: accounting for carbon as sinks, credits and personal budgets. Crit Policy Stud 5:187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lucas P & Wilting H (2018) Towards a safe operating space for the Netherlands: Using planetary boundaries to support national implementation of environment-related SDGsGoogle Scholar
  20. Merry SN, Stasiak K, Shepherd M, Frampton C, Fleming T, Lucassen MFG (2012) The effectiveness of SPARX, a computerised self help intervention for adolescents seeking help for depression: randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Br Med J 344:e2598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. N-PRINT (2012) Your nitrogen footprint [Online]. Available: Accessed 28 April 2018
  22. Newman P (2017) Decoupling economic growth from fossil fuels. Mod Econ (8):791–805Google Scholar
  23. Newman P, Beatley T, Boyer H (2017) Resilient cities: overcoming fossil fuel dependence. Island Press/Center for Resource EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  24. Nykvist B, Persson Å, Moberg F, Persson LM, Cornell SE, Rockström J (2013) National environmental performance on planetary boundaries: a study for the Swedish environmental protection agency. AGENCY, S. E. P, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  25. PAN (2019) The planetary accounting network [Online]. Available: Accessed
  26. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS III, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sörlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley J (2009) Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogelj J, Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Kriegler E, Schaeffer M, Krey V, Riahi K (2015) Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat Clim Chang 5:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2015) Using the planetary boundaries framework for setting impact-reduction targets in LCA contexts. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1684–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shue H (1999) Global environment and international inequality. Int Aff 75:531–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, de Vries W, de Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Alexander LV, Allen SK, Bindoff NL, Bréon F-M, Church JA, Cubasch U, Emori S, Forster P, Friedlingstein P, Gillett N, Gregory JM, Hartmann DL, Jansen E, Kirtman B, Knutti R, Krishna Kumar K, Lemke P, Marotzke J, Masson-Delmotte V, Meehl GA, Mokhov II, Piao S, Ramaswamy V, Randall D, Rhein M, Rojas M, Sabine C, Shindell D, Talley LD, Vaughan DG, Xie S-P (2013) Technical summary. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the Fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. UN (2016) Montreal protocol–submission to the high-level political forum on sustainable development (HLPF) 2016. United Nations Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform: UNGoogle Scholar
  33. UNFCCC (2017) The Paris agreement [Online]. Available: Accessed 19 Sep 2017
  34. Water Footprint Network (2018) Personal water footprint [Online]. Available: Accessed 28 April 2018
  35. WHO (2016) Ambient air pollution: a global assessment of exposure and burden of disease. In: World Health Organisation. WHO Press, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  36. World Bank (2019) CO2 Emissions (metric tons per capita) [Online]. Available: Accessed 18 May 2019
  37. WWF (2018) How big is your environmental footprint? [Online]. WWF. Available: Accessed 28 April 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate Meyer
    • 1
  • Peter Newman
    • 2
  1. 1.The Planetary Accounting NetworkAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityWestern AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations