{"title":"Comment on Ulrich Brand et al., “From planetary to societal boundaries”","authors":"B. Alcott","doi":"10.1080/15487733.2022.2082124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While agreeing with the science of the “planetary boundaries” work of Johan Rockström and colleagues, as well as their normative support for political measures to restrict the human economy to the realm inside those boundaries, a recent article by Brand et al. in this journal criticizes the former mainly on the grounds that they pay too little attention to capitalism’s alleged growth imperative and to certain technocratic and/or global-only interpretations to which the planetary boundaries framework is dangerously open. I argue that Brand et al. do not refute or disagree with Rockström et al., as they claim, but rather point out what the latter omit. Rockström et al. consciously limited the scope of their work, and therefore a polemical criticism of their omissions is not justified. I also argue against the centrality of the concept “capitalism” in Brand et al.’s critique, claiming that growth/degrowth analyses and strategies for degrowth do not need to go into the issues of capitalism vs. alternatives to it because drivers of growth are deeper than such systems concepts allow us to investigate. Capitalism and socialism do explain some things, but mainly, they themselves have to be explained in a full analysis of both over-growth and what to do about it politically in democracies. Shifts toward acceptance of material-energy limitations must be psychological and social, whatever the economic system’s rules on such things as ownership of the means of production, economic-power equality, the money system, or macro-economic incentives to growth.","PeriodicalId":35192,"journal":{"name":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2082124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract While agreeing with the science of the “planetary boundaries” work of Johan Rockström and colleagues, as well as their normative support for political measures to restrict the human economy to the realm inside those boundaries, a recent article by Brand et al. in this journal criticizes the former mainly on the grounds that they pay too little attention to capitalism’s alleged growth imperative and to certain technocratic and/or global-only interpretations to which the planetary boundaries framework is dangerously open. I argue that Brand et al. do not refute or disagree with Rockström et al., as they claim, but rather point out what the latter omit. Rockström et al. consciously limited the scope of their work, and therefore a polemical criticism of their omissions is not justified. I also argue against the centrality of the concept “capitalism” in Brand et al.’s critique, claiming that growth/degrowth analyses and strategies for degrowth do not need to go into the issues of capitalism vs. alternatives to it because drivers of growth are deeper than such systems concepts allow us to investigate. Capitalism and socialism do explain some things, but mainly, they themselves have to be explained in a full analysis of both over-growth and what to do about it politically in democracies. Shifts toward acceptance of material-energy limitations must be psychological and social, whatever the economic system’s rules on such things as ownership of the means of production, economic-power equality, the money system, or macro-economic incentives to growth.
期刊介绍:
Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy is a refereed, open-access journal which recognizes that climate change and other socio-environmental challenges require significant transformation of existing systems of consumption and production. Complex and diverse arrays of societal factors and institutions will in coming decades need to reconfigure agro-food systems, implement renewable energy sources, and reinvent housing, modes of mobility, and lifestyles for the current century and beyond. These innovations will need to be formulated in ways that enhance global equity, reduce unequal access to resources, and enable all people on the planet to lead flourishing lives within biophysical constraints. The journal seeks to advance scientific and political perspectives and to cultivate transdisciplinary discussions involving researchers, policy makers, civic entrepreneurs, and others. The ultimate objective is to encourage the design and deployment of both local experiments and system innovations that contribute to a more sustainable future by empowering individuals and organizations and facilitating processes of social learning.