1.3 The Political Ecology of the Bioeconomy
7
The early environmental critique in the 1960s and 1970s pointed to the damages
caused by new technologies and the Earth’s limited carrying capacity in the face
of post-war aspirations for unlimited “progress” (Meadows et al. 1972; Dunlap
and Van Liere 1978). In turn, ecological modernization contends that economic
growth and technological development can advance hand-in-hand with conservation
(Hajer 1995; Buttel 2000; Janicke 2008). Indeed, it argues that further economic
growth is needed to address environmental issues through the development of cleaner
and more resource-efficient technologies, industrial transformation, and new market
mechanisms (e.g., ecological impact accounting, payment for ecosystem services,
carbon markets) (Buttel 2000; Olsthoorn and Wieczorek 2006; Baker 2007; Pataki
2009). As an “ecological rationality” emerges in society, those issues become drivers
of innovation, market opportunities, and potential sources of competitiveness and
profit (Giddens 1998; Mol 2002; Beck 2010). Ecological modernization can thus
be understood as a pro-industry, technology-based, and market-oriented approach to
environmental policy (Weale 1992; Janicke 2008).
That makes ecological modernization different from “end-of-pipe” environmental
management, as it promotes “preventive innovation” (Milanez and Buhrs 2007)
instead of remedial solutions (see also Mol 2000; Cohen 2006). It also contrasts
with more radical approaches to sustainability that aim at more profound—and more
difficult—changes in human behavior or the industrial capitalist system. Instead,
ecological modernization adopts a reformist approach, proceeding through incremental changes from within (Mol 2000, 2002; Pataki 2009). In practice, this means
fostering an enabling institutional environment and gradually shifting production and
consumption patterns towards sustainability. It proposes “reflexive modernity,” one
that continuously assesses the (ecological) risks it creates and evolves by responding
to them (Mol and Spaargaren 1993, 2000; see also Beck 1992).
The relatively conservative stance of ecological modernization on social issues
has been a significant source of criticism. Critics have perceived it as an approach
that pays little attention to structural inequalities and tacitly maintains the socioeconomic and political status quo (York and Rosa 2003; Foster 2012). First, on a
conceptual level, ecological modernization tends to detach the social dimensions
of environmental issues. It sidelines reflections on equity and ethics to promote
eco-efficiency as a solution instead, taming—or, in reality, co-opting—the initial
environmental critique on modern industrial societies (Levy 1997; Langhelle 2000;
Martinez-Alier 2002; York and Rosa 2003; Baker 2007; Foster 2012). Environmental
issues are thus regarded as technocratic problems to be addressed through the market
and technological fixes. Meanwhile, the notion of sufficiency is replaced by renewed
support to modernity premises such as unlimited economic growth and a consumerist
view on human welfare (Christoff 1996; Baker 2007; Blühdorn 2011; Foster 2012).
Second, ecological modernization routinely overlooks social inequalities, politics, and power relations (York and Rosa 2003; Foster 2012). It assumes a conflictfree, harmonious society without political interests or domination structures. All
actors supposedly are equally affected by environmental problems, and “there is no
ecological proletariat” (Beck 1995, p. 3; Pataki 2009; Foster 2012). Therefore, it
can be said there is only limited reflexivity (Eckersley 2004; Warner 2010; Foster
7
The early environmental critique in the 1960s and 1970s pointed to the damages
caused by new technologies and the Earth’s limited carrying capacity in the face
of post-war aspirations for unlimited “progress” (Meadows et al. 1972; Dunlap
and Van Liere 1978). In turn, ecological modernization contends that economic
growth and technological development can advance hand-in-hand with conservation
(Hajer 1995; Buttel 2000; Janicke 2008). Indeed, it argues that further economic
growth is needed to address environmental issues through the development of cleaner
and more resource-efficient technologies, industrial transformation, and new market
mechanisms (e.g., ecological impact accounting, payment for ecosystem services,
carbon markets) (Buttel 2000; Olsthoorn and Wieczorek 2006; Baker 2007; Pataki
2009). As an “ecological rationality” emerges in society, those issues become drivers
of innovation, market opportunities, and potential sources of competitiveness and
profit (Giddens 1998; Mol 2002; Beck 2010). Ecological modernization can thus
be understood as a pro-industry, technology-based, and market-oriented approach to
environmental policy (Weale 1992; Janicke 2008).
That makes ecological modernization different from “end-of-pipe” environmental
management, as it promotes “preventive innovation” (Milanez and Buhrs 2007)
instead of remedial solutions (see also Mol 2000; Cohen 2006). It also contrasts
with more radical approaches to sustainability that aim at more profound—and more
difficult—changes in human behavior or the industrial capitalist system. Instead,
ecological modernization adopts a reformist approach, proceeding through incremental changes from within (Mol 2000, 2002; Pataki 2009). In practice, this means
fostering an enabling institutional environment and gradually shifting production and
consumption patterns towards sustainability. It proposes “reflexive modernity,” one
that continuously assesses the (ecological) risks it creates and evolves by responding
to them (Mol and Spaargaren 1993, 2000; see also Beck 1992).
The relatively conservative stance of ecological modernization on social issues
has been a significant source of criticism. Critics have perceived it as an approach
that pays little attention to structural inequalities and tacitly maintains the socioeconomic and political status quo (York and Rosa 2003; Foster 2012). First, on a
conceptual level, ecological modernization tends to detach the social dimensions
of environmental issues. It sidelines reflections on equity and ethics to promote
eco-efficiency as a solution instead, taming—or, in reality, co-opting—the initial
environmental critique on modern industrial societies (Levy 1997; Langhelle 2000;
Martinez-Alier 2002; York and Rosa 2003; Baker 2007; Foster 2012). Environmental
issues are thus regarded as technocratic problems to be addressed through the market
and technological fixes. Meanwhile, the notion of sufficiency is replaced by renewed
support to modernity premises such as unlimited economic growth and a consumerist
view on human welfare (Christoff 1996; Baker 2007; Blühdorn 2011; Foster 2012).
Second, ecological modernization routinely overlooks social inequalities, politics, and power relations (York and Rosa 2003; Foster 2012). It assumes a conflictfree, harmonious society without political interests or domination structures. All
actors supposedly are equally affected by environmental problems, and “there is no
ecological proletariat” (Beck 1995, p. 3; Pataki 2009; Foster 2012). Therefore, it
can be said there is only limited reflexivity (Eckersley 2004; Warner 2010; Foster