Skip to main content

Planetary boundaries: at the threshold… again: sustainable development ideas and politics

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    With deeper roots in Malthusian and the romantic discourses.

  2. 2.

    Under contraction and convergence, each country will start out with emission entitlements equal to its current real emissions levels, and then, over time, converge to equal its per capita entitlements, while the overall global budget contracts to accommodate the emissions reduction objective” (Project Team of the Development Research Center of the State Council, 2009, p. 402). It is unclear how this concept could be applied to the range of PBs measures and as far as I know it has not be elaborated with this broader range of sustainability and equity concerns in mind.

  3. 3.

    Shared characteristics include, the precautionary approach; emphasis on the role of science and technological innovation to steer and adapt; institutional reform; central role of experts; the importance of eco-efficiency gains; and the centrality of market based instruments (Hajer 1995; Mol 1995). That said, ecological modernisation like sustainable development has been variously conceptualised and interpreted in practice (Dryzek 2013). The type of ecological modernisation discussed here is characterised as being a 'weak' form rather than say the 'strong' form described by Christoff (1996).

  4. 4.

    Notwithstanding Langhelle’s (2000) arguments concerning the differences between ecological modernisation and sustainable development—even Langhelle (2000) concedes that there are large overlaps between these two concepts and that ecological modernisation is comparable to a weak form of sustainable development at best.

References

  1. Adger, W. N., Brown, K., & Nelson, D. R. (2011). Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change, 2(5), 757–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Biermann, F. (2012). Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: Exploring the links. Ecological Economics, 81, 4–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Biermann, F., & Zondervan, R. (2010). Editorial. Earth System Governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 273–276.

  4. Bookchin, M. (1989). Death of a small planet: It’s growth that’s killing us. The Progressive, 53, 19–23.

  5. 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 

  6. Christoff, P. (1996). Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities. Environmental Politics, 5(3), 476–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clémençon, R. (2012). Welcome to the anthropocene: Rio+20 and the meaning of sustainable development. Journal of Environment and Development, 21(3), 311–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cornell, S., Downy, C., Fraser, E., & Boyd, E. (2012). Preface. In S. Cornell, C. Prentice, J. House, & C. Downy (Eds.), Understanding the Earth System: Global Change Science for Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. DeFries, R. S., Ellis, E. C., Chapin, S, I. I. I., et al. (2012). Planetary opportunities: A social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. BioScience, 62(6), 603–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Devall, B. (1980). Deep ecology movement. Journal of Natural Resources, 20, 299–322.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dobson, A. (1995). Green political thought (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dryzek, J. (2013). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses (3rd ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eastin, J., Grundmann, R., & Prakash, A. (2011). The two “Limits” debates: Limits to growth and climate change. Futures, 43(1), 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

  15. Galaz, V., Biermann, F., Crona, B., Loorbach, D., Folke, C., Olsson, P., et al. (2012a). ‘Planetary boundaries’—exploring the challenges for global environmental governance. Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 80–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Galaz, V., Biermann, F., Folke, C., Nilsson, M., & Olsson, P. (2012b). Global environmental governance and planetary boundaries: An introduction. Ecological Economics, 81, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P., & Folke, C. (2012c). Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries—emerging governance of climate change-ocean acidification-marine biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 81, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU). (2014). SDGs: Human Progress within Planetary Guard Rails. Policy Paper no. 8.

  19. Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Ohman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., et al. (2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495, 305–307.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hannigan, J. (2006). Environmental sociology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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 

  23. 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/.

  24. Kelly, M. (1997). Overcoming obstacles to the effective implementation of international environmental agreements. Georgetown International Environmental Review, 9, 447–488.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kosoy, N., Brown, P. G., Bosselmann, K., Duraiappah, A., Mackey, B., Martinez-Alier, J., et al. (2012). Pillars for a flourishing Earth: Planetary boundaries, economic growth delusion and green economy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 74–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Langhelle, O. (2000). Why ecological modernisation and sustainable development should not be conflated. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2(4), 303–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. Lewis, S. L. (2012). We must set planetary boundaries wisely. Nature, 485, 417.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lovelock, J. (1972). Gaia as seen through the atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment, 6(8), 579–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lövbrand, E., Stripple, J., & Wiman, B. (2009). Earth system governmentality. Reflections on science in the anthropocene. Global Environmental Change, 19, 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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/.

  33. McCurdy, H. E. (1997). Space and the American imagination. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mol, A. (1995). The Refinement of production: Ecological modernization theory and the chemical industry. Utrecht: van Arkel.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 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 

  37. 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.

  38. Ostrom, E. (2008). Polycentric systems as one approach for solving collective—Action problems. Bloomington: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Palsson, G., Szerszynski, B., Sörlin, S., Weehuizenl, R., et al. (2013). Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environmental Science & Policy, 28, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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 

  41. Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live. Within the Doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Paper. Oxfam.

  42. 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.

  43. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S, I. I. I., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009a). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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/.

  45. 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.

  46. Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Vasileiadou, E., Devilee, J., Lebret, E., & Petersen, A. C. (2014). Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

  49. Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever?: Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture and Society, 27, 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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].

  53. 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.

  54. United Nations Development Programme-Human Development Report Office (UNDP). (2013). Human development report 2013. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  55. 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.

  56. World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Xu, L., & Marinova, D. (2013). Resilience thinking: A bibliometric analysis of socio-ecological research. Scientometrics, 96(3), 911–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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 

  59. 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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fred P. Saunders.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saunders, F.P. Planetary boundaries: at the threshold… again: sustainable development ideas and politics. Environ Dev Sustain 17, 823–835 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9577-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Planetary boundaries
  • Sustainable development
  • Limits to Growth