Yet again, we must ask about the politics of this discourse: what it is enabling,
and what meanings of green and associated knowledges it may be excluding. First,
the planetary boundaries discourse can imply that the ‘earth system’ itself sets the
limits and boundaries for human progress (Rockström, 2013). Yet the idea of an
earth system is, to some degree, a social construction, associated with a particular
set of ‘earth system sciences’, while questions of where limits should lie, and what
is safe or dangerous, will always be open to human meanings and interpretations,
and to cultural and personal beliefs (Hulme, 2013). Thus, dramatic loss of
biodiversity in tropical forest landscapes might, in terms of planetary boundaries
discourse, presage a contribution to a dangerous breakdown of interconnected
ecological systems. Yet as West African examples show, some social groups believe
that it is biodiverse forests that harbour danger in terms of wild animals, spirits,
secretive cultural behaviour and disease; clear landscapes are culturally preferable,
providing more ‘open’ social relationships and more productive agriculture and
livelihoods (Fairhead and Leach, 1996). What is safe or dangerous depends on who,
and where, one is.
Of course, one might counter that this is a question of gaze and scale; what is
valued and seen as safe in diverse local places might add up, globally and over the
long term, to planetary scale dangers. Indeed, this is precisely the argument of
the planetary boundaries discourse, asserting the authority of science to know and
predict these bigger dangers for humanity. Equally, it is important not to be overrelativistic; the bigger, longer term implications of human impacts on environmental
processes do matter, and not all ways of life and beliefs are compatible with sustain -
ability. The cultures of commercial logging firms driven by short-term profit, or
of climate sceptics supportive of continued fossil-fuel burning, would be cases in
point where values and beliefs underlie manifestly irresponsible environmental
practices. These, and the economic and power relations associated with them, need
to be challenged, for they threaten to breach even the broadest notion of green
limits. Yet failing even to acknowledge alternative knowledges and perspectives,
and to draw these into negotiation and debate when it comes to justifying policies
and interventions, is a recipe for injustice and resistance.
This becomes clear when we address a second line of questioning. Even while
ruling out some goals around profit and power as threatening planetary boundaries,
the discourse can imply a singularity of green goals that stay within. The notion
of a single, interconnected earth system aligns neatly with the idea of a single
humanity in the Anthropocene, downplaying the real diversity of societies, contexts,
identities and perspectives. Even within the broad ‘green’ of planetary boundaries
lies a diversity of possible futures and pathways, shaped by much more precise, and
varied, meanings of green, relating to particular ways of life, goals and priorities
for ecosystem use.
Take a particular challenge, such as ensuring ‘sustainable food futures’ within
global and regional boundaries of climate change, land use change, biodiversity
loss and nitrogen use. Alternative green visions and futures could include prioritizing
small-scale food production systems; participatory systems and their social benefits;
32 Melissa Leach
and what meanings of green and associated knowledges it may be excluding. First,
the planetary boundaries discourse can imply that the ‘earth system’ itself sets the
limits and boundaries for human progress (Rockström, 2013). Yet the idea of an
earth system is, to some degree, a social construction, associated with a particular
set of ‘earth system sciences’, while questions of where limits should lie, and what
is safe or dangerous, will always be open to human meanings and interpretations,
and to cultural and personal beliefs (Hulme, 2013). Thus, dramatic loss of
biodiversity in tropical forest landscapes might, in terms of planetary boundaries
discourse, presage a contribution to a dangerous breakdown of interconnected
ecological systems. Yet as West African examples show, some social groups believe
that it is biodiverse forests that harbour danger in terms of wild animals, spirits,
secretive cultural behaviour and disease; clear landscapes are culturally preferable,
providing more ‘open’ social relationships and more productive agriculture and
livelihoods (Fairhead and Leach, 1996). What is safe or dangerous depends on who,
and where, one is.
Of course, one might counter that this is a question of gaze and scale; what is
valued and seen as safe in diverse local places might add up, globally and over the
long term, to planetary scale dangers. Indeed, this is precisely the argument of
the planetary boundaries discourse, asserting the authority of science to know and
predict these bigger dangers for humanity. Equally, it is important not to be overrelativistic; the bigger, longer term implications of human impacts on environmental
processes do matter, and not all ways of life and beliefs are compatible with sustain -
ability. The cultures of commercial logging firms driven by short-term profit, or
of climate sceptics supportive of continued fossil-fuel burning, would be cases in
point where values and beliefs underlie manifestly irresponsible environmental
practices. These, and the economic and power relations associated with them, need
to be challenged, for they threaten to breach even the broadest notion of green
limits. Yet failing even to acknowledge alternative knowledges and perspectives,
and to draw these into negotiation and debate when it comes to justifying policies
and interventions, is a recipe for injustice and resistance.
This becomes clear when we address a second line of questioning. Even while
ruling out some goals around profit and power as threatening planetary boundaries,
the discourse can imply a singularity of green goals that stay within. The notion
of a single, interconnected earth system aligns neatly with the idea of a single
humanity in the Anthropocene, downplaying the real diversity of societies, contexts,
identities and perspectives. Even within the broad ‘green’ of planetary boundaries
lies a diversity of possible futures and pathways, shaped by much more precise, and
varied, meanings of green, relating to particular ways of life, goals and priorities
for ecosystem use.
Take a particular challenge, such as ensuring ‘sustainable food futures’ within
global and regional boundaries of climate change, land use change, biodiversity
loss and nitrogen use. Alternative green visions and futures could include prioritizing
small-scale food production systems; participatory systems and their social benefits;
32 Melissa Leach