The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked^1–3, yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently^4,5. Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. We propose ESBs for maintaining the resilience and stability of the Earth system (safe ESBs) and minimizing exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change (a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice)⁴. The stricter of the safe or just boundaries sets the integrated safe and just ESB. Our findings show that justice considerations constrain the integrated ESBs more than safety considerations for climate and atmospheric aerosol loading. Seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of global land area are already exceeded. We propose that our assessment provides a quantitative foundation for safeguarding the global commons for all people now and into the future.

Accounting for natural differences in flow variability among rivers, and understanding the importance of this for the protection of freshwater biodiversity and maintenance of goods and services that rivers provide, is a great challenge for water managers and scientists. Nevertheless, despite considerable progress in understanding how flow variability sustains river ecosystems, there is a growing temptation to ignore natural system complexity in favor of simplistic, static, environmental flow “rules” to resolve pressing river management issues. We argue that such approaches are misguided and will ultimately contribute to further degradation of river ecosystems. In the absence of detailed empirical information of environmental flow requirements for rivers, we propose a generic approach that incorporates essential aspects of natural flow variability shared across particular classes of rivers that can be validated with empirical biological data and other information in a calibration process. We argue that this approach can bridge the gap between simple hydrological “rules of thumb” and more comprehensive environmental flow assessments and experimental flow restoration projects.