Guest Editorial: Focusing on What Matters Most-Impact

Vol. 131, No. 9 EditorialOpen AccessGuest Editorial: Focusing on What Matters Most–Impact Richard Fuller, David Hanrahan, Ernesto Sanchez-Triana, Janez Potočnik, and Robert Watson Richard Fuller Address correspondence to Richard Fuller, Pure Earth/Blacksmith Institute, 475 Riverside Dr., 8th Floor, New York, NY 10115 USA. Email: E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4298-5069 Pure Earth, New York, New York, USA Search for more papers by this author , David Hanrahan Pure Earth, New York, New York, USA Search for more papers by this author , Ernesto Sanchez-Triana World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, USA Search for more papers by this author , Janez Potočnik International Resource Panel, United Nations Environment Programme, Brussels, Belgium Search for more papers by this author , and Robert Watson University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom Search for more papers by this author Published:21 September 2023CID: 091001https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12923AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit Climate change, loss of biodiversity, and pollution are recognized as three interconnected crises that put global economic and social well-being at risk.1 There are established priorities within these three core issues,1,2 but new issues are always jostling for attention. Which ones ought to be prioritized? Which historical issues may deserve a revisit?The complex task of setting environmental priorities is not a rational or technocratic process (although a little rational guidance can help). Decision-making takes place in complex settings shaped by multiple actors that often include pressure group campaigns. Public concern can be fed by a press keen to tell stories of doom and gloom, which get our attention (and clicks). As a result, we have not always been successful at prioritizing the most important issues and may have given too much attention to issues that deserve less attention.Instead, we must prioritize attention on the basis of impact (damage caused or expected) rather than just hazard (identifying an issue) or risk (estimating its likelihood). We suggest four deeply interconnected spheres to consider when assessing impact, a strong positive signal in any one being sufficient to suggest that the issue really is a “Big Deal.” We propose these spheres be formally considered in a methodology that can be used for priority setting.Human HealthDoes the issue cause substantial premature death or disability? It is not difficult to attribute even thousands of premature deaths to almost any issue. However, something that is responsible for several hundreds of thousands of premature deaths per year would be a Big Deal at the international level. A similar assessment of disability might explore issues with millions of disability-adjusted life years.BiosphereDoes the issue substantially contribute to biodiversity loss? Does the issue, for example, cause a drastic reduction in the population of a species that is of critical importance, or in a key ecosystem? Or is a substantial amount of biologically important area destroyed by the issue? A few dozen hectares taken away from hundreds of thousands of biologically important areas deserves some attention but is not a Big Deal (unless, perhaps, it is a harbinger of more systematic damage3).Societal SystemsWill the issue undercut societal stability? Will it damage the infrastructure to meet our essential human needs: nutrition, shelter, mobility, water, sanitation, energy? We should focus attention on issues that impede the smooth functioning of our societal systems, especially if damage would be at significant scale that might impact hundreds of millions of people. Issues that might do so within relatively short timelines—say, a decade or so—would qualify as Big Deals.Degree of IrreversibilityDoes the issue involve putting something into the environment that is long-lived and cannot be taken back, and whose effects we do not adequately understand? Are we changing our environment in fundamental and substantial ways that cannot be undone? This constitutes a Big Deal.A methodology for determining impact based on these four spheres, using systems approaches, is a sensible starting point for prioritization. Although metrics will need development, the importance of impact is easy to understand. We recommend this commonsense approach as a way to assess and cost-effectively respond to our collective well-founded worries for the future of our planet and the people who inhabit it.Editor’s Note: This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Environmental Health Perspectives or EHP Publishing.References1. U.N. Environment Programme. 2020. The triple planetary crisis: forging a new relationship between people and the earth. [Speech.]14 July 2020. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/speech/triple-planetary-crisis-forging-new-relationship-between-people-and-earth [accessed 7 September 2023]. Google Scholar2. European Commission. 2023. European Commission and UN Environment Programme agree to join forces to maintain the global momentum of green transition. [News article.]19 June 2023. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/european-commission-and-un-environment-programme-agree-join-forces-maintain-global-momentum-green-2023-06-19_en [accessed 7 September 2023]. Google Scholar3. Lovejoy TE, Nobre C. 2018. Amazon tipping point. Sci Adv 4(2):eaat2340, PMID: 29492460, 10.1126/sciadv.aat2340. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarThe nonprofit Pure Earth (R.F. and D.H.) has received funding historically from Open Philanthropy, GiveWell, Clarios Foundation, Trafigura Foundation, and Takeda Foundation. The other authors declare they have no conflicts of interest related to this work to disclose.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 131, No. 9 September 2023Metrics About Article Metrics Publication History Manuscript received17 February 2023Manuscript revised4 September 2023Manuscript accepted8 September 2023Originally published21 September 2023 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.