through all debates about green transformations, reflected in the diversity of per -
spectives of contributors to this book. Much depends on the framing of competing
visions of sustainability, a theme to which we now turn.
Framing green transformations
At the broadest level, therefore, many agree that the world is on an unsustainable
path and that business-as-usual is not an option. ‘Hard’ disagreements exist, for
sure, with those fundamentally opposed to change in sustainable directions – such
as institutions and businesses whose profits and power are fundamentally interlocked
with the status quo. Yet even among those sharing a broad ‘green’ consensus lie
a range of hotly contested visions of sustainability that define the framing of and
approach to green transformations. These ‘soft’ disagreements are also important,
and they too implicate material questions of economy, interest and resource
allocation. Visions of what is to be done reflect starkly conflicting diagnoses of
what the problem is and who is best placed to act on it.
Such visions partly reflect longstanding debates about how to reconcile
environment and development, or growth and sustainability. Current discussions
about green transformations bear the legacy of debates about sustainable develop -
ment in particular. ‘Sustainable development’, of course, has been a rallying call
for those concerned with the relationships between environment and development
over several decades (Adams, 2003). Brundtland’s original formulation was
‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland, 1987). This inspired
the Rio Earth Summit discussions in 1992, and the plans that emerged around
Agenda 21, and many conferences, summits, conventions and policy statements
since.
Mobilized by this idea, the early 1990s saw strong momentum in the form of
environmental legislation, policy, business and community action, locally, nationally
and internationally. However, this had slowed by the early 2000s (Vogler and Jordan,
2003; Redclift, 2005), and attempts to resuscitate the sustainable development vision
at the Rio+20 conference in 2012 largely failed (Bulkeley et al., 2013). Progress
on the major 1992 targets was disappointing, and many national sustainability action
plans became forms of managerialism that failed to challenge the economic and
institutional interests and practices that supported unsustainability (Berkhout et al.,
2003; Scoones, 2007; Jordan and Adger, 2009). Sustainability and sustainable
development could easily be used as empty rhetoric, masking a variety of decidedly
environmentally unfriendly actions through ‘greenwash’ (Rowell, 1996).
One response to this disappointing history would be to recommit to the idea
of sustainable development with renewed vigour, recasting this as a concept to
drive a new round of political and policy change. Indeed, the Rio+20 outcomes
document, The Future We Want (UN, 2012), is framed in these terms and commits
countries to defining and implementing a set of Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). Yet, as the SDG process unfolds, many are questioning whether, again,
The politics of green transformations 9
spectives of contributors to this book. Much depends on the framing of competing
visions of sustainability, a theme to which we now turn.
Framing green transformations
At the broadest level, therefore, many agree that the world is on an unsustainable
path and that business-as-usual is not an option. ‘Hard’ disagreements exist, for
sure, with those fundamentally opposed to change in sustainable directions – such
as institutions and businesses whose profits and power are fundamentally interlocked
with the status quo. Yet even among those sharing a broad ‘green’ consensus lie
a range of hotly contested visions of sustainability that define the framing of and
approach to green transformations. These ‘soft’ disagreements are also important,
and they too implicate material questions of economy, interest and resource
allocation. Visions of what is to be done reflect starkly conflicting diagnoses of
what the problem is and who is best placed to act on it.
Such visions partly reflect longstanding debates about how to reconcile
environment and development, or growth and sustainability. Current discussions
about green transformations bear the legacy of debates about sustainable develop -
ment in particular. ‘Sustainable development’, of course, has been a rallying call
for those concerned with the relationships between environment and development
over several decades (Adams, 2003). Brundtland’s original formulation was
‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland, 1987). This inspired
the Rio Earth Summit discussions in 1992, and the plans that emerged around
Agenda 21, and many conferences, summits, conventions and policy statements
since.
Mobilized by this idea, the early 1990s saw strong momentum in the form of
environmental legislation, policy, business and community action, locally, nationally
and internationally. However, this had slowed by the early 2000s (Vogler and Jordan,
2003; Redclift, 2005), and attempts to resuscitate the sustainable development vision
at the Rio+20 conference in 2012 largely failed (Bulkeley et al., 2013). Progress
on the major 1992 targets was disappointing, and many national sustainability action
plans became forms of managerialism that failed to challenge the economic and
institutional interests and practices that supported unsustainability (Berkhout et al.,
2003; Scoones, 2007; Jordan and Adger, 2009). Sustainability and sustainable
development could easily be used as empty rhetoric, masking a variety of decidedly
environmentally unfriendly actions through ‘greenwash’ (Rowell, 1996).
One response to this disappointing history would be to recommit to the idea
of sustainable development with renewed vigour, recasting this as a concept to
drive a new round of political and policy change. Indeed, the Rio+20 outcomes
document, The Future We Want (UN, 2012), is framed in these terms and commits
countries to defining and implementing a set of Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). Yet, as the SDG process unfolds, many are questioning whether, again,
The politics of green transformations 9