adopted that are appealing to such allies, such as ‘green economy’ or ‘sustainable
intensification’, ‘ecological modernization’ or ‘responsible innovation’. Reformists
will argue that staying on the sidelines is not an option and that the world has
changed over the last 40 years, with new opportunities arising for alliance-building
under new configurations.
Others, of course, argue that such moves inevitably result in co-optation, or at
the minimum a lowest common denominator debate that rarely confronts power,
and indeed too often reinforces interests, allowing a type of ‘greenwash’ under the
guise of corporate or governmental ‘responsibility’ initiatives. Such ‘ecological
modernization’ may reduce the environmental footprint of industry, but it may
not change the power structures that created environmental and social justice prob -
lems in the first instance. By not naming and confronting power and entrenched
interests, true transformation does not happen, and the green agenda thus gets
captured by neoliberal, conservative interests as incumbent forces recon figure to
accom modate and absorb, rather than fundamentally change.
Much of this, of course, comes down to a conflict over the understanding of
what is transformation. Is the challenge, for example, simply reducing carbon emis -
sions or is it a more fundamental structural change in ownership, production and
consumption that delivers a lower carbon future for the long term, but also meets
other objectives of justice, distribution and a wider conception of sustainability?
Is transformation simply reducing deforestation, planting more trees or changing
the chemical impacts of modern agriculture, or is it again a more fundamental shift
in the structure, power relations, ownership patterns and resource access of the
global agri-food system?
As neoliberal and ecological modernization agendas, allied to various com plexions
of corporate social and environmental responsibilities, have gained purchase and
have indeed influenced government and business behaviour and practice, they have
proved difficult to reconcile with a more radical vision of societal economic and
social transformation. As ‘green’ reformist agendas become more mainstream, with
the rhetoric around the ‘green economy’ increasing in recent years, this has pushed
more radical visions of transformation to the fringes. The environmental ‘move -
ment’ (or more accurately diverse movements) has become increasingly fragmented,
making coordinated action more difficult, and the productive relationship between
movements, networks and institutions more challenging to uphold.
This has perhaps become especially so as environmental agendas have moved
from multiple, local actions around particular issues to a much larger global frame.
Tensions have thus intensified between particularism and what it means to effect
wider green transformations. Climate change as a global phenomenon has in
particular influenced this shift, supported by arguments that humanity is hitting
‘green limits’ around other ‘planetary boundaries’ (see Leach, this book). Of
course, since the 1970s, as discussed earlier, environmental issues have been framed
in global terms – ‘spaceship earth’, ‘only one earth’, ‘blueprint for a small planet’.
However, in recent times, the tensions between local mobilizations and global
framings have become more stark. Do the multiple micro-initiatives initiated in
Mobilizing for green transformations 131
intensification’, ‘ecological modernization’ or ‘responsible innovation’. Reformists
will argue that staying on the sidelines is not an option and that the world has
changed over the last 40 years, with new opportunities arising for alliance-building
under new configurations.
Others, of course, argue that such moves inevitably result in co-optation, or at
the minimum a lowest common denominator debate that rarely confronts power,
and indeed too often reinforces interests, allowing a type of ‘greenwash’ under the
guise of corporate or governmental ‘responsibility’ initiatives. Such ‘ecological
modernization’ may reduce the environmental footprint of industry, but it may
not change the power structures that created environmental and social justice prob -
lems in the first instance. By not naming and confronting power and entrenched
interests, true transformation does not happen, and the green agenda thus gets
captured by neoliberal, conservative interests as incumbent forces recon figure to
accom modate and absorb, rather than fundamentally change.
Much of this, of course, comes down to a conflict over the understanding of
what is transformation. Is the challenge, for example, simply reducing carbon emis -
sions or is it a more fundamental structural change in ownership, production and
consumption that delivers a lower carbon future for the long term, but also meets
other objectives of justice, distribution and a wider conception of sustainability?
Is transformation simply reducing deforestation, planting more trees or changing
the chemical impacts of modern agriculture, or is it again a more fundamental shift
in the structure, power relations, ownership patterns and resource access of the
global agri-food system?
As neoliberal and ecological modernization agendas, allied to various com plexions
of corporate social and environmental responsibilities, have gained purchase and
have indeed influenced government and business behaviour and practice, they have
proved difficult to reconcile with a more radical vision of societal economic and
social transformation. As ‘green’ reformist agendas become more mainstream, with
the rhetoric around the ‘green economy’ increasing in recent years, this has pushed
more radical visions of transformation to the fringes. The environmental ‘move -
ment’ (or more accurately diverse movements) has become increasingly fragmented,
making coordinated action more difficult, and the productive relationship between
movements, networks and institutions more challenging to uphold.
This has perhaps become especially so as environmental agendas have moved
from multiple, local actions around particular issues to a much larger global frame.
Tensions have thus intensified between particularism and what it means to effect
wider green transformations. Climate change as a global phenomenon has in
particular influenced this shift, supported by arguments that humanity is hitting
‘green limits’ around other ‘planetary boundaries’ (see Leach, this book). Of
course, since the 1970s, as discussed earlier, environmental issues have been framed
in global terms – ‘spaceship earth’, ‘only one earth’, ‘blueprint for a small planet’.
However, in recent times, the tensions between local mobilizations and global
framings have become more stark. Do the multiple micro-initiatives initiated in
Mobilizing for green transformations 131