concept, interpreting it as limiting their economic growth. The planetary bound -
aries term was excluded from the final Rio+20 Outcome document, and only
hesitantly used in formal intergovernmental processes post-Rio. Questions of
justice have also surfaced in debates about what might constitute a ‘good’ Anthro -
pocene (Peterson, 2013). In this vein, Raworth (2012) has adapted the concept of
planetary boundaries, adding an inner circle to represent a ‘social foundation’
incorporating well-being, gender equality and human rights. Between the circles
there lies a ‘safe and just operating space’. Green transformations to remain within
it are thus helpfully reconceived as ‘green and just’, with meanings of green
more akin to socialist or green political versions, with social justice at their core.
Importantly, this framework also invites attention to the social inequalities and power
relations that leave many millions of people without the essential resources they
need, while allowing excessive resource use by others to push humanity across
multiple planetary boundaries. However, to be used effectively, it must also open
up consideration of the diversity of possible ‘green and just’ goals and pathways,
the social meanings attached to these, the possible tensions and contestations
between them, and who stands to gain or lose (Leach et al., 2013).
Pathways of intervention and change: green limits and
green economies
We have focused thus far on goals and futures – where humanity is going – and
the meanings of green and associated knowledges embodied in, but also excluded
by, contemporary green limits discourses in this respect. However, further key
questions turn on how to get there. What sorts of intervention and change – path -
ways for reaching green goals or steering within green limits – are envisaged? What
sorts of intervention, by whom, are suggested and supported by green limits
discourses – both of a two-degree climate safety barrier and of planetary boundaries
– and which are marginalized? Other chapters address transformation processes in
detail, so treatment here is brief. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight how
green limits discourses are justifying attempted ‘fixes’ of various kinds: whether
through regulation, planning, technologies or markets. In this respect, green limits
intersect with other powerful contemporary discourses such as around ‘green
economies’. Notably, there is no necessary determinism of concept and approach
here, but several tendencies and alignments in practice have become so evident
as to be worth raising.
First, green limits discourses interlock with attempts at ‘regulatory fixes’. The
two-degree climate target emerged, as already discussed, in the particular context
of international efforts to construct binding regulatory agreements to curb carbon
emissions. Lack of success over the last decade might suggest that the two-degree
target has not been particularly helpful, but more fundamentally, points to the
broader problems of regulatory fixes amid far more complex climate change pol -
itics. Despite – or perhaps because of – this experience with climate change, planetary
boundaries have been linked with arguments for a much strengthened power to
34 Melissa Leach
aries term was excluded from the final Rio+20 Outcome document, and only
hesitantly used in formal intergovernmental processes post-Rio. Questions of
justice have also surfaced in debates about what might constitute a ‘good’ Anthro -
pocene (Peterson, 2013). In this vein, Raworth (2012) has adapted the concept of
planetary boundaries, adding an inner circle to represent a ‘social foundation’
incorporating well-being, gender equality and human rights. Between the circles
there lies a ‘safe and just operating space’. Green transformations to remain within
it are thus helpfully reconceived as ‘green and just’, with meanings of green
more akin to socialist or green political versions, with social justice at their core.
Importantly, this framework also invites attention to the social inequalities and power
relations that leave many millions of people without the essential resources they
need, while allowing excessive resource use by others to push humanity across
multiple planetary boundaries. However, to be used effectively, it must also open
up consideration of the diversity of possible ‘green and just’ goals and pathways,
the social meanings attached to these, the possible tensions and contestations
between them, and who stands to gain or lose (Leach et al., 2013).
Pathways of intervention and change: green limits and
green economies
We have focused thus far on goals and futures – where humanity is going – and
the meanings of green and associated knowledges embodied in, but also excluded
by, contemporary green limits discourses in this respect. However, further key
questions turn on how to get there. What sorts of intervention and change – path -
ways for reaching green goals or steering within green limits – are envisaged? What
sorts of intervention, by whom, are suggested and supported by green limits
discourses – both of a two-degree climate safety barrier and of planetary boundaries
– and which are marginalized? Other chapters address transformation processes in
detail, so treatment here is brief. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight how
green limits discourses are justifying attempted ‘fixes’ of various kinds: whether
through regulation, planning, technologies or markets. In this respect, green limits
intersect with other powerful contemporary discourses such as around ‘green
economies’. Notably, there is no necessary determinism of concept and approach
here, but several tendencies and alignments in practice have become so evident
as to be worth raising.
First, green limits discourses interlock with attempts at ‘regulatory fixes’. The
two-degree climate target emerged, as already discussed, in the particular context
of international efforts to construct binding regulatory agreements to curb carbon
emissions. Lack of success over the last decade might suggest that the two-degree
target has not been particularly helpful, but more fundamentally, points to the
broader problems of regulatory fixes amid far more complex climate change pol -
itics. Despite – or perhaps because of – this experience with climate change, planetary
boundaries have been linked with arguments for a much strengthened power to
34 Melissa Leach