Planetary boundaries: at the threshold… again: sustainable development ideas and politics
- 1.5k Downloads
The implications of the planetary boundaries (PBs) proposal involves scientific, moral and political dimensions. The core of the PBs idea is that humankind is transgressing global environmental tipping points resulting in changed conditions that threaten to unravel human progress. The growing status of the proposal potentially makes it a highly influential organising concept that seems to contain within it aspirations to dramatically reconstitute the relationship between society and the environment—thereby transforming the politics of sustainable development. This paper situates PBs in contemporary green thinking. Key planning events and related documents supporting the Post-2015 Development Agenda process are then examined to identify strategies and reactions to the PB proposal. The findings show that divisions reminiscent of older North/South environment and development tensions related to the role of experts, democracy and the Right to Development threaten to prevent PBs from being mainstreamed in key UN environment and development programmes and fora.
KeywordsPlanetary boundaries Sustainable development Limits to Growth
I would like to acknowledge the generous contributions to the development of this paper by my Södertörn University colleagues; particularly those by Associate Professor Sara Sjöling, Lise-Lotte Hallman, Dr. Jonas Bylund and Professor Kari Lehtilä. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and considered feedback on earlier versions of this work. That said, I take full responsibility for the content of this paper.
- Biermann, F., & Zondervan, R. (2010). Editorial. Earth System Governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 273–276.Google Scholar
- Bookchin, M. (1989). Death of a small planet: It’s growth that’s killing us. The Progressive, 53, 19–23.Google Scholar
- Boulding, K. E. (1966). The economics of the coming Spaceship Earth. In H. Jarrett (Ed.), Environmental quality in a growing economy: Essays from the Sixth RFF Forum (pp. 3–14). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Devall, B. (1980). Deep ecology movement. Journal of Natural Resources, 20, 299–322.Google Scholar
- Dobson, A. (1995). Green political thought (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Dryzek, J. (2013). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses (3rd ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Ellison, K. (2014). Rio+20: How the tension between developing and developed countries influenced sustainable development efforts. Global Business & Development Law Journal, 27(1), 107–128.Google Scholar
- German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). (2014). SDGs: Human Progress within Planetary Guard Rails. Policy Paper no. 8.Google Scholar
- Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Hannigan, J. (2006). Environmental sociology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hecox, W. E. (1976). Limits to growth revisited: Has the world modelling debate made any progress? Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 5, 8.Google Scholar
- Johnson, L. (2013). Rio+20 rejects notion of ‘planetary boundaries’—are there consequences for the EPI? Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy. Retrieved from http://environment.yale.edu/envirocenter/blog/2012/08/.
- Kelly, M. (1997). Overcoming obstacles to the effective implementation of international environmental agreements. Georgetown International Environmental Review, 9, 447–488.Google Scholar
- Leach, M. (2014). Limits revisited? Planetary boundaries, justice and power. Institute of Development Studies Transforming Development Blog. May 2014. Retrieved from http://www.transformingdevelopment.com/2014_05_01_archive.html.
- Leach, M., Raworth, K., & Rockström, J. (2013). Between social and planetary boundaries: Navigating pathways in the safe and just space for humanity. This is a chapter. In World social science report. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
- Luke, T. W. (2013). Anthropocene and freedom: Terrestrial time as political mystification. Platypus Review 60, October 2013. Retrieved from http://platypus1917.org/2013/10/01/anthropocene-and-freedom/.
- McCurdy, H. E. (1997). Space and the American imagination. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
- Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
- Mol, A. (1995). The Refinement of production: Ecological modernization theory and the chemical industry. Utrecht: van Arkel.Google Scholar
- Mol, A. P. J., Sonnenfeld, D. A., & Spaargaren, G. (Eds.). (2009). The ecological modernisation reader: Environmental reform in theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Nordhaus, T., Blomqvist, L., & Shellenberger, M. (2012). Planetary boundaries hypothesis: A review of the evidence. The Breakthrough Institute. Retreived from http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Planetary%20Boundaries%20web.pdf.
- Ostrom, E. (2008). Polycentric systems as one approach for solving collective—Action problems. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
- Project Team of the Development Research Center of the State Council. (2009). Greenhouse gas emissions reduction: A theoretical framework and global solution. In R. Garnaut, L. Song, & W. T. Wood (Eds.), China’s new place in a world in Crisis (pp. 389–408). Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
- Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live. Within the Doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Paper. Oxfam.Google Scholar
- Rockström, J., & Sachs, J. D., (2013). Sustainable development and planetary boundaries: Background research paper. With Öhman, M. C., Schmidt-Traub, G. Submitted to the High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Retrieved from http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Rockstroem-SachsOehmanSchmidt-Traub_Sustainable-Development-and-Planetary-Boundaries.pdf.
- Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., III, Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009b). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/.
- scidev.net. (2012). Your guide to science and technology at Rio+20. scidev.net. Retrieved from http://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/feature/your-guide-to-science-and-technology-at-rio-20-1.html.
- Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Steffen, W., Rockström, J., & Costanza, R. (2011). How defining planetary boundaries can transform our approach to growth. Solutions 2(3). Retrieved from http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/935.
- United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability. (2012). Resilient people, resilient planet: A future worth choosing. New York: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/gsp/sites/default/files/attachments/GSP_Report_web_final.pdf.
- Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN). (2013). An action agenda for sustainable development. Report for the UN Secretary-General. Retrieved from http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/06/130613-SDSN-An-Action-Agenda-for-SustainableDevelopment-FINAL.pdf.
- United Nations. (2013). A new global partnership: Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development: The report of the high-level panel of eminent persons on the Post 2015 Development Agenda. New York: United Nations Publications. Retrieved from http://www.ungei.org/files/High_Level_Panel_Report_June_2013.pdf [14 October 2013].
- United Nations High-level Panel on Global Sustainability. (2011). Report of the meeting of the GSP Sherpas, held in Madrid, Spain, 13–14 April 2011; [cited 2013 October 2]. http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/gsp/docs/Madrid%20Sherp%20Meeting%20Report%20%5B3%20May%202011%5D.pdf.
- United Nations Development Programme-Human Development Report Office (UNDP). (2013). Human development report 2013. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- United Nations Environment Program. (2012). Global Environment Outlook 5. Nairobi: UNEP. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/geo/pdfs/geo5/GEO5_report_full_en.pdf.
- World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2010). Ecological modernization theory: Theoretical and empirical challenges. In M. R. Redclift & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The international handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 77–90). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Zelli, F., Biermann, F., Pattberg, P. H., & van Asselt, H. D. (2010). The consequences of a fragmented climate governance architecture: a policy appraisal. In F. Biermann, P. H. Pattberg, & F. Zelli (Eds.), Global climate governance beyond 2012: Architecture, agency and adaptation (pp. 25–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar