Conclusions
These discursive alignments between green limits and regulatory, planning, techno -
logical or market fixes are tendencies, not necessities. Others have argued, on the
contrary, that planetary boundaries and other green limits ideas simply set the terms
within which transformative interventions of many kinds might be pursued.
Indeed, in some readings, planetary boundaries ideas – with their acknow ledgement
of complex system interconnectedness across scales – demand the very opposite of
top-down fixes; connecting with resilience thinking, they can be mobilized to argue
for polycentric, multiscale, adaptive approaches to governance that recognize and
facilitate local institutions, experiences and responses (Galaz et al., 2012; Galaz, 2012).
Yet the fact that the same concepts can be mobilized to argue for radically different
approaches reinforces the point that there is a discursive politics in play; not just
in how ‘green’ ideas are created, but also how they are used and by whom. Bottomup adaptive approaches may be admissible within planetary boundaries discourses,
but they are far from mainstream.
This chapter has asked a range of critical questions about how green trans formations
– their goals and pathways to achieve them – are defined and legitimized, locating
these questions in a politics of knowledge. It has argued that powerful discourses
around green limits have recently returned to prominence across science and policy,
and are connecting in potent ways with discourses around green econ omies. These
are important, highlighting and justifying the need for green transformations, and
urgently and rapidly at that. Yet without denying this, on closer inspection these
discourses present some serious problems. They rely on and support narrow meanings of ‘green’ that ignore large swathes of human under standing, culture, values and
experience. They align too easily with top-down, control-oriented forms of inter -
vention that attempt to substitute ‘fixes’ for required structural transformations, and
can ride roughshod over people’s rights and livelihoods. And by appearing as objective,
necessary and universal, authorized by the best scientific and economic expertise,
these discourses close out and stifle political debate – about the concepts themselves,
about the goals and pathways they suggest, and about the validity of alternative forms
of knowledge, experience and ways of life.
Why do these politics of knowledge matter? One could argue that they are a
‘soft politics’ distraction from the vital ‘hard politics’ that must tackle and transform
the political–economic and corporate structures and interests that are leading us
towards planetary disaster. Equally, it might be argued that an interest in diverse,
alternative meanings of green and knowledges ushers in a dangerous relativism just
when we can least afford it.
While these are dangers, however, they are not inevitable. As this chapter has
argued, soft and hard are deeply connected – knowledge politics matter because
they are so intimately entwined with material political economy. Appreciation of
alternatives does not mean that ‘anything goes’ – on the contrary, some forms
of knowledge and action are clearly incompatible with sustainable futures and need
to be contested strongly. With these provisos, it is the discursive downplaying of
What is green? 37
These discursive alignments between green limits and regulatory, planning, techno -
logical or market fixes are tendencies, not necessities. Others have argued, on the
contrary, that planetary boundaries and other green limits ideas simply set the terms
within which transformative interventions of many kinds might be pursued.
Indeed, in some readings, planetary boundaries ideas – with their acknow ledgement
of complex system interconnectedness across scales – demand the very opposite of
top-down fixes; connecting with resilience thinking, they can be mobilized to argue
for polycentric, multiscale, adaptive approaches to governance that recognize and
facilitate local institutions, experiences and responses (Galaz et al., 2012; Galaz, 2012).
Yet the fact that the same concepts can be mobilized to argue for radically different
approaches reinforces the point that there is a discursive politics in play; not just
in how ‘green’ ideas are created, but also how they are used and by whom. Bottomup adaptive approaches may be admissible within planetary boundaries discourses,
but they are far from mainstream.
This chapter has asked a range of critical questions about how green trans formations
– their goals and pathways to achieve them – are defined and legitimized, locating
these questions in a politics of knowledge. It has argued that powerful discourses
around green limits have recently returned to prominence across science and policy,
and are connecting in potent ways with discourses around green econ omies. These
are important, highlighting and justifying the need for green transformations, and
urgently and rapidly at that. Yet without denying this, on closer inspection these
discourses present some serious problems. They rely on and support narrow meanings of ‘green’ that ignore large swathes of human under standing, culture, values and
experience. They align too easily with top-down, control-oriented forms of inter -
vention that attempt to substitute ‘fixes’ for required structural transformations, and
can ride roughshod over people’s rights and livelihoods. And by appearing as objective,
necessary and universal, authorized by the best scientific and economic expertise,
these discourses close out and stifle political debate – about the concepts themselves,
about the goals and pathways they suggest, and about the validity of alternative forms
of knowledge, experience and ways of life.
Why do these politics of knowledge matter? One could argue that they are a
‘soft politics’ distraction from the vital ‘hard politics’ that must tackle and transform
the political–economic and corporate structures and interests that are leading us
towards planetary disaster. Equally, it might be argued that an interest in diverse,
alternative meanings of green and knowledges ushers in a dangerous relativism just
when we can least afford it.
While these are dangers, however, they are not inevitable. As this chapter has
argued, soft and hard are deeply connected – knowledge politics matter because
they are so intimately entwined with material political economy. Appreciation of
alternatives does not mean that ‘anything goes’ – on the contrary, some forms
of knowledge and action are clearly incompatible with sustainable futures and need
to be contested strongly. With these provisos, it is the discursive downplaying of
What is green? 37