this will prove to be an ineffective discourse that drives only more rhetoric, bureau -
cracy and managerialism. Meanwhile, though, others have picked up and run with
alternative ‘green’ framings – especially around the green economy and ideas of
green limits or ‘planetary boundaries’, seeing these as more potent in galvanizing
politicians, businesses, policy-makers and publics for real change.
For example, Jacobs (2012a) elaborates on the politics surrounding the rise of
the green economy concept. These have included the perceived need to replace,
for Rio+20, the managerial, statist concept of sustainable development. Many also
recognized that discourses focused on costs and green limits – including the twodegree safety barrier in climate change and planetary boundaries, as well as climate
discourses focused on the costs of mitigation – would struggle to gain political
support in a post-financial crisis world where economic growth and employment
remained the core priority of voters, businesses and governments. In this context,
ideas of ‘green growth’ offer a positive spin, claiming ‘that protecting the environ -
ment can actually yield better growth’ (Jacobs, 2013, p6).
However, ‘sustainable development’ and ‘green economy’, while the most visible
and mainstream, are not the only ways of framing green transformations. Our focus
on politics reveals others and differences and contrasts within these. In the sections
below we identify four broad narratives of green transformation, each reflecting
different framings of problem and solution, and different versions of sustainability. Others have proposed similar typologies of environmental world views on
the question of ‘pathways to a green world’ (Clapp and Dauvergne, 2011; see also
Szerszynski, 1997; Dobson, 1998, 2000; Jamison, 2001; Hopwood et al., 2005)
that correspond in some ways to those we outline here. Each narrative embodies
a different perspective on what it is (if anything) that needs to be transformed; and
each reflects different understandings, prejudices and theories of change, informing
how, when and why transformation is possible. In other words, each narrative
suggests a pathway (or set of pathways) to green transformations, and so a particular
politics of transformation.
The chapters that follow take different positions with respect to these narratives,
often advocating a combination of pathways, and so a diversity of political strategies,
demonstrating that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to green transformations
and their politics.
Technocentric transformations
First, we identify a ‘technocentric’ view of sustainability and transformation. Here
the challenge essentially lies in finding the right combination of technologies to
meet rising demands in greener ways. For example, lower carbon energy, fewer
agricultural inputs but higher yields, less water-intensive systems, and so on. The
aim is to reduce ecological footprints through technological innovation without
altering systems fundamentally. Reorganizing economies or institutions and
unsettling prevailing power relations is less of a priority. The emphasis is much
more on creating incentives and enabling the ‘right’ kinds of technologies to
10 Ian Scoones, Peter Newell and Melissa Leach
cracy and managerialism. Meanwhile, though, others have picked up and run with
alternative ‘green’ framings – especially around the green economy and ideas of
green limits or ‘planetary boundaries’, seeing these as more potent in galvanizing
politicians, businesses, policy-makers and publics for real change.
For example, Jacobs (2012a) elaborates on the politics surrounding the rise of
the green economy concept. These have included the perceived need to replace,
for Rio+20, the managerial, statist concept of sustainable development. Many also
recognized that discourses focused on costs and green limits – including the twodegree safety barrier in climate change and planetary boundaries, as well as climate
discourses focused on the costs of mitigation – would struggle to gain political
support in a post-financial crisis world where economic growth and employment
remained the core priority of voters, businesses and governments. In this context,
ideas of ‘green growth’ offer a positive spin, claiming ‘that protecting the environ -
ment can actually yield better growth’ (Jacobs, 2013, p6).
However, ‘sustainable development’ and ‘green economy’, while the most visible
and mainstream, are not the only ways of framing green transformations. Our focus
on politics reveals others and differences and contrasts within these. In the sections
below we identify four broad narratives of green transformation, each reflecting
different framings of problem and solution, and different versions of sustainability. Others have proposed similar typologies of environmental world views on
the question of ‘pathways to a green world’ (Clapp and Dauvergne, 2011; see also
Szerszynski, 1997; Dobson, 1998, 2000; Jamison, 2001; Hopwood et al., 2005)
that correspond in some ways to those we outline here. Each narrative embodies
a different perspective on what it is (if anything) that needs to be transformed; and
each reflects different understandings, prejudices and theories of change, informing
how, when and why transformation is possible. In other words, each narrative
suggests a pathway (or set of pathways) to green transformations, and so a particular
politics of transformation.
The chapters that follow take different positions with respect to these narratives,
often advocating a combination of pathways, and so a diversity of political strategies,
demonstrating that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to green transformations
and their politics.
Technocentric transformations
First, we identify a ‘technocentric’ view of sustainability and transformation. Here
the challenge essentially lies in finding the right combination of technologies to
meet rising demands in greener ways. For example, lower carbon energy, fewer
agricultural inputs but higher yields, less water-intensive systems, and so on. The
aim is to reduce ecological footprints through technological innovation without
altering systems fundamentally. Reorganizing economies or institutions and
unsettling prevailing power relations is less of a priority. The emphasis is much
more on creating incentives and enabling the ‘right’ kinds of technologies to
10 Ian Scoones, Peter Newell and Melissa Leach