personal consumption and lifestyle choices. Much contemporary ‘green growth’
thinking fits this view (Jacobs, 2012a). In contrast, ‘dark’ or deep-green positions
see ecosystems as much more vulnerable, interconnected and prone to damage,
thus emphasizing a more conservationist, preservationist or precautionary approach
that may require fundamental structural change (Sessions, 1995). Recently, the term
‘bright’ green has been deployed to distinguish optimistic approaches relying on
technology and social innovation (Steffen, 2009).
Interplaying with these distinctions, versions of green also differ in how far they
prioritize social and justice concerns. Thus, green socialist and Marxist positions
associate green with fundamental restructuring of (capitalist) social relations (Benton,
1996). Green is also linked with social equity – as well as democracy and partici -
pation – in the political positioning of many Green political parties (Wall, 2010),
as well as in various approaches to ‘green development’ (Adams, 2009). Overlapping
with these are positions valuing community resources and institutions, and ways
of life that have co-developed in interdependence with ecologies and nature (Guha
and Martinez-Alier, 1997). Indigenous people’s movements, and some versions of
ecofeminism, emphasizing the interdependence of gender equality and ecological
sustainability (MacGregor, 2006), broadly follow such meanings of green.
Yet cross-cutting such distinctions are questions of knowledge and power. Whose
knowledge counts in defining ‘green’ goals and values? Who defines what a ‘good’
future might be and how to get there? Here again we can identify distinctions in
types of knowledge, across spectra from expert science to citizen science; official
to experiential expertise; formal to informal; global to local; and the many disciplines and subfields that contribute to each of these (see Leach et al., 2005). Different
ways of knowing are often associated with different ways of being, including
different ways of living with and valuing ‘nature’. People, institutions and
knowledges often interact and combine in actor-networks (Latour, 2005) or
discourse coalitions (Hajer, 1995) that can serve to represent or promote particular
views, values or interests. There is no necessary affinity between any particular
meaning of green and particular type of knowledge. Yet in practice, powerful actornetworks and discourse coalitions often converge strongly around certain green
meanings and goals, while marginalizing or crowding out others.
How are these discursive dynamics playing out today? What versions of green
are coming to dominate? A particular constellation of meanings has acquired growing
power in the last few years and are the focus of this chapter: those around ‘green
limits’, in particular ideas of ‘planetary boundaries’ and ‘safety barriers’ in climate
change, linked with notions of ‘the green economy’. The chapter traces how these
provide novel, compelling justifications for the urgency of transformation to meet
green goals, offering powerful arguments against planet-threatening ‘business as
usual’. Yet each has a history, produced by particular actors and institutions. In
coming to be settled as powerful discourses, they risk marginalizing and crowding
out other knowledges, as well as other meanings of green.
Centrally, the chapter argues that these discourses align all too neatly with topdown approaches that rely on regulatory, planning, technical or market ‘fixes’.
26 Melissa Leach
thinking fits this view (Jacobs, 2012a). In contrast, ‘dark’ or deep-green positions
see ecosystems as much more vulnerable, interconnected and prone to damage,
thus emphasizing a more conservationist, preservationist or precautionary approach
that may require fundamental structural change (Sessions, 1995). Recently, the term
‘bright’ green has been deployed to distinguish optimistic approaches relying on
technology and social innovation (Steffen, 2009).
Interplaying with these distinctions, versions of green also differ in how far they
prioritize social and justice concerns. Thus, green socialist and Marxist positions
associate green with fundamental restructuring of (capitalist) social relations (Benton,
1996). Green is also linked with social equity – as well as democracy and partici -
pation – in the political positioning of many Green political parties (Wall, 2010),
as well as in various approaches to ‘green development’ (Adams, 2009). Overlapping
with these are positions valuing community resources and institutions, and ways
of life that have co-developed in interdependence with ecologies and nature (Guha
and Martinez-Alier, 1997). Indigenous people’s movements, and some versions of
ecofeminism, emphasizing the interdependence of gender equality and ecological
sustainability (MacGregor, 2006), broadly follow such meanings of green.
Yet cross-cutting such distinctions are questions of knowledge and power. Whose
knowledge counts in defining ‘green’ goals and values? Who defines what a ‘good’
future might be and how to get there? Here again we can identify distinctions in
types of knowledge, across spectra from expert science to citizen science; official
to experiential expertise; formal to informal; global to local; and the many disciplines and subfields that contribute to each of these (see Leach et al., 2005). Different
ways of knowing are often associated with different ways of being, including
different ways of living with and valuing ‘nature’. People, institutions and
knowledges often interact and combine in actor-networks (Latour, 2005) or
discourse coalitions (Hajer, 1995) that can serve to represent or promote particular
views, values or interests. There is no necessary affinity between any particular
meaning of green and particular type of knowledge. Yet in practice, powerful actornetworks and discourse coalitions often converge strongly around certain green
meanings and goals, while marginalizing or crowding out others.
How are these discursive dynamics playing out today? What versions of green
are coming to dominate? A particular constellation of meanings has acquired growing
power in the last few years and are the focus of this chapter: those around ‘green
limits’, in particular ideas of ‘planetary boundaries’ and ‘safety barriers’ in climate
change, linked with notions of ‘the green economy’. The chapter traces how these
provide novel, compelling justifications for the urgency of transformation to meet
green goals, offering powerful arguments against planet-threatening ‘business as
usual’. Yet each has a history, produced by particular actors and institutions. In
coming to be settled as powerful discourses, they risk marginalizing and crowding
out other knowledges, as well as other meanings of green.
Centrally, the chapter argues that these discourses align all too neatly with topdown approaches that rely on regulatory, planning, technical or market ‘fixes’.
26 Melissa Leach