Comment on Ulrich Brand et al., “From planetary to societal boundaries”

IF 3.6 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
B. Alcott
{"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.
评Ulrich Brand等人的《从地球到社会边界》
虽然同意Johan Rockström及其同事关于“行星边界”的科学研究,以及他们对将人类经济限制在这些边界内的政治措施的规范性支持,布兰德等人最近在本刊上发表的一篇文章批评了前者,主要理由是他们对资本主义所谓的增长必要性和某些技术官僚和/或全球唯一的解释关注太少,而地球边界框架是危险的开放。我认为布兰德等人并没有反驳或不同意Rockström等人的观点,而是指出了后者所忽略的东西。Rockström等人有意识地限制了他们的工作范围,因此对他们的遗漏的争论性批评是不合理的。我也反对布兰德等人的批判中“资本主义”概念的中心地位,声称增长/去增长分析和去增长战略不需要进入资本主义与替代资本主义的问题,因为增长的驱动因素比这些系统概念允许我们调查的更深。资本主义和社会主义确实解释了一些事情,但最主要的是,它们本身必须在对过度增长的全面分析中加以解释,以及在民主国家如何从政治上解决这一问题。接受物质能源限制的转变必须是心理上的和社会上的,无论经济体系的规则是什么,比如生产资料的所有权、经济权力的平等、货币体系或宏观经济增长的激励。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
27 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信