We are in need of governance solutions to ecological crises that respect Planetary Boundaries. By re-embedding the economy into biophysical and social processes we can democratically promote degrowth that is both equitable and sustainable.
We are faced with a growing ecological crisis, yet our anemic response fails to respect planetary boundaries (PBs), and this can augur tipping points from which we may not be able to recover. Researchers have proposed various approaches to address this issue including re-embedding the economy into biophysical and social processes, but it is unclear why they have not been implemented. I will review the literature and define PBs and what it means to re-embed the economy focusing on the biophysical foundations of social-economic systems. I will then review the concept of degrowth and its relationship to traditional economics. I hypothesize that we have failed to respect PBs due to the lack of political will and social awareness and this may be due to normalized neoclassical assumptions that impede our understanding of the issues and our ability to act on these issues in meaningful ways. To respect PBs, and avoid tipping points, new governance arrangements are required.
The ecological crises that threaten life on Earth (Wironen & Erikson, 2020) are measured by 9 planetary boundaries,[1] these indicators have been defined as safe, stable guardrails.[2] Succinctly stated they are “nonnegotiable planetary preconditions” (Angus, p. 59, 2016). PBs represent the limits of the Earth’s life systems (Brown & Timmerman, p. 170, 2015), and the transgression of these boundaries is a function of the human-Earth relationship.[3] Research indicates that we are on the verge of breaching[4] (ibid, p. 160) these “tightly linked” (Angus, p. 76, 2016) complex,[5] boundaries[6] which is pushing us ever closer to tipping points,[7] that augur an “irreversible deviation” from conditions conducive to presently existing life on Earth (Brown & Timmerman, p. 157, 2015).
PBs root solutions in biophysical realities and ecological thresholds which should take precedence over socioeconomic or political concerns (ibid, p. 176). Thus far PBs have failed to produce the required changes (ibid, p. 176) and this is due in part to normalized capitalist assumptions that have been inculcated into the ways that we frame our efforts to solve ecological issues (Wironen & Erikson, 2020). For example, the triple-bottom-line accounting framework characterizes the environment, society, and the economy as three distinct, but sometimes overlapping entities (figure 1). Prior to the imposition of the capitalist economic paradigm, the economy was embedded in, and not distinct from, society and nature (Adaman et al., 2010), visually depicted as the nested model (figure 2).
Theorists have proposed returning to the nested model, re-embedding the economy in society and nature (ibid). This implies that economic activity is characterized as both a biophysical and a social process (Wironen & Erikson, 2020).
Theorists have proposed returning to the nested model, re-embedding the economy in society and nature (ibid). This implies that economic activity is characterized as both a biophysical and a social process (Wironen & Erikson, 2020).
Derived as it is from thermodynamics, ecological economics (EE) has always espoused a biophysical understanding of economic systems, however, this focus has been diluted by methodological pluralism causing some researchers to call for a return to EE’s biophysical roots. This entails the study of energy and material flows that incorporate both inputs and outputs (Melgar-Melgar & Hall, 2020). This is distinct from the reductionist approach in environmental law we see in neoclassical economics (Brown & Timmerman, p. 160, 2015) which eschews the laws of thermodynamics.[8]
Neoclassical economics has proven to be incapable of respecting PBs. To work within PBs we need an ecological economy, which means degrowth needs to scale, conflicts need to be resolved, and theoretical challenges need to be addressed (Wironen & Erikson, 2020). However, degrowth is fundamentally at odds with the core tenants of the capitalist system. The ubiquitous fixation on growth is yet another example of a capitalist assumption that prevents us from being able to live within PBs.
We can’t seem to shake our obsession with growth even though we know it does not necessarily contribute to social betterment (ibid). According to researchers like Barbier and Jackson, biophysical sustainability is about “prosperity without growth,” a more “coherent identity” for degrowth, and what Kallis called a degrowth social movement (ibid).
Brown and Timmerman (p. 161, 2015) argue for PBs that examine biogeophysical systems, meaning that in addition to being biophysical, they are also concerned with relationships between humans and between humans and ecosystems (ibid, p. 128). In essence, this is about replacing neoclassical economics with biophysical socio-economics.[9]
The social component is critical both as a way of understanding (framing) the issues and in terms of promoting widespread uptake. We need to ground our efforts in social and political theories as well as disciplines that deal with political and social change (Wironen & Erikson, 2020).
Akbulut’s conception of degrowth is focused on ethics[10] and this includes criteria based on justice, particularly as they apply to governance (Brown & Timmerman, p. 127, 2015). Governance should be based on the “right relationship”.[11] [12]
The originators of PB saw the need for comprehensive governance systems (ibid, p. 65) like regulation, and incentives (ibid, p.164). which are currently lacking (ibid, p. 155). While there are frameworks for developing policy-relevant indicators (ibid, p. 175), there is good reason to be skeptical about politics and politicians [13] and there is also reason to be concerned about the perniciousness of deeply entrenched flawed assumptions about capitalism.[14] This view is shared even by those who subscribe to a market economy.[15]
PBs could benefit from more nuance[16] and normative criteria,[17] and correlating energy flows using a systems approach (ibid, p. 162). Despite uncertainty leading to questions about the utility of PBs (ibid, p. 152) and concerns about overreliance on thresholds,[18] [19] planetary boundaries combined with social boundaries,[20] offer an approach to the collective action problems (Wironen & Erikson, 2020).
We require a social transformation (ibid) that brings the economy under social control (Adaman et al., 2010). To do this we must replace normalized neoclassical assumptions through education (Brown & Timmerman, p. 142, 2015) and governance arrangements that augur social tipping points that will allow us to move collectively towards a mindset that respects PBs (Angus, p. 64, 2016). Pirgmaier, (2021) argues that a deeper dive into value theory[21] is required to challenge EE’s assumptions about the value derived from traditional economics.[22] As we explore theories of social change we must consider their desirability, viability, and achievability (Ruccio, 2011).
There are many solutions to the ecological crises we face.[23] If the economy is to operate within planetary and social boundaries., we need to develop an understanding of economics that reflects the interchange between natural and social environments. To effectively respond to ecological crises, we need governance arrangements that uproot traditional economic assumptions and promote biophysical socioeconomics.
END NOTES
[1] 1. Stratospheric ozone depletion. 2. Loss of biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and extinctions). 3. Chemical pollution and the release of novel entities. 4. Climate Change. 5. Ocean acidification. 6. Freshwater consumption and the global hydrological cycle. 7. Land system change. 8. Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans. 9. Atmospheric aerosol loading (Steffen et al. 2015).
[2] Planetary boundaries identify and safeguard Earth processes that are critical to the stability of the planet (Angus, p. 71, 2016). The quantified observations serve as indicators of safe planetary function (Brown & Timmerman, p. 128-129, 2015) that delineate the planetary limits for the Earth to function in a stable “Holocene-like state” (Angus, p. 72, 2016). Moving beyond these ‘guardrails’ (Angus, p. 74, 2016) threatens the survival of many species, including humans (Brown & Timmerman, p. 128, 2015).
[3] “[T]he interactions of the human enterprise, consisting of the global entirety of human endeavors, with the ecosphere, the global entirety of the biotic and abiotic elements, and characteristics, that makeup Earth and its atmosphere and support life on Earth (Huggett 1999). Other related boundaries are also possible” (Brown & Timmerman, p. 151, 2015).
[4] Research has revealed two definite tipping points temperature increase and decreasing agricultural yields (Angus, p.102, 2016). Unabated warming temperatures are expected to cause the climate to undergo sudden change (Angus, p. 104, 2016).
[5] PBs interact in complex ways connected by feedback loops (Brown & Timmerman, p. 129, 152, 2015).
[6] As of 2009 three planetary boundaries (climate change, nitrogen pollution, and biodiversity loss) were deemed to be in peril with three more headed in the same direction. As of 2015 researchers have concluded that four out of nine boundaries have been passed (Angus, p. 76, 2016).
[7] In scientific thought periods of rapid transition, are colloquially known as tipping points. “[A] term originally used by physicists for the point at which adding weight or pressure to a balanced object suddenly causes it to topple into a new position. In the Earth System, tipping points are not unusual—they are the norm. Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that largescale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime” (Angus, p. 64, 2016). Drawing on Galz et Al, Brown and Timmerman (p. 165, 2015). explain how the interaction of humans and the Earth’s biophysical systems, “do not always follow linear, predictable patterns” and there are warranted concerns about “tipping points, emergent properties, chaotic behavior, and stochastic events”.
[8] Neoclassical economics fails to properly include the laws of thermodynamics and planetary boundaries. It ignores anergy (a term most used in immunobiology describing a lack of reaction by the body’s defense mechanisms to foreign substances) and in economic terms, this is illustrated by the failure to appreciate that increases in GDP also result in increases in inexpensive yet environmentally and socially costly energy consumption.
[9] Biophysical socio-economics is a field of ecological economics that addresses conditions that threaten planetary boundaries. It is an economy that operates within sustainable levels. It is derived from embodied energy theory of economic value whereby the quantity of energy is, directly and indirectly, used to track the value of goods and services. Cultural development occurs when the amount of energy harnessed by people per capita; per year is increased; technology putting energy to work becomes more efficient; or both (technology, sociological and ideological). It is part of a de-growth paradigm and it studies energy return on energy used (EROI) and uses frameworks for performing biophysical analyses of socio-economic systems. It is focused on planetary and human well-being (systems not behaviors) and it is rooted in a biophysical understanding of socio-economics. It rejects traditional economics and strives to exert influence through education and management policy. It provides models to study transformations of nature to wealth, energy, and material flows. It also provides a bridge between social and natural sciences.
[10] Akbulut (4:07-4:55, 2019) explains that degrowth is a move away from traditional economic notions of competition, profitability, and efficiency towards ethical concerns and social commitments like solidarity, equity, and sufficiency alongside an understanding of our interdependence with nature.
[11] Brown and Garver (2009) defined the right relationship with reference to Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, updated as follows: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, resilience and beauty of the commonwealth of life” (Brown and Garver 2009:5). Right relationship refers to a “guidance system for functioning in harmony with scientific reality and enduring ethical traditions” (Brown and Garver 2009:4). In its full essence, it captures entirely the notions of membership, householding, and entropic thrift. It is also essential to consider how an indicator will be used. Beyond creating an early-warning system based on boundaries (Brown & Timmerman, p.155, 2015). The ethical reality of right relationship is derived from the principles of membership, householding, and entropic thrift, which provide guidance for managing human affairs to maintain integrity, resilience, and beauty at any point within the boundaries (ibid, p.155). Right relationship has ethical foundations that provide normative criteria related to distribution, in that it “include[s] the fair sharing of the earth’s life support capacities with all of life’s commonwealth”, including notions of interspecies, interhuman, and intergenerational fairness that are not clearly implicit in PBs. “[R]ight relationship implies a shared sense of well-being and capacity for fulfillment within the commonwealth of life that transcends fairness” (ibid, p. 161).
[12] Brown & Timmerman, (p. 168, 2015) advance 10 key criteria for considering governance applications and add the issue of the climate change boundary is ultimately about the amount of fossil fuels that can be extracted to maintain the “right relationship” and “safe operating space” (ibid, p. 171).
[13] The problem of politics is succinctly laid out in the Crises of Capitalism (RSA Animate, 10:24-10:30. 2010) “everything’s going to be okay here next year if you vote for me. You know it’s crap, you should know it’s crap”. The conclusion reached in this video is that academics have a duty to “actually change our mode of thinking” (RSA Animate, 10:30-10:39. 2010).
[14] Nick Hanau is a billionaire who makes the point that capitalism is not geared toward equality it is geared toward exploitation. He goes on to argue that it is in the interest of the billionaire class to work toward a more equitable distribution of wealth (Hanauer, 2014). These issues led RSA Animate (9:15-9:19, 2010) to conclude, “any sensible person right now would join an anti-capitalist Organization”
[15] As Hanauer explained, (13:51-14:38. 2019), “The greatest grift in contemporary economic life is the neoliberal idea that the only purpose of the corporation and the only responsibility of executives is to enrich themselves and shareholders. The new economics must and can insist that the purpose of the corporation is to improve the welfare of all stakeholders: customers, workers, community and shareholders alike.” He adds, “greed is not good. Being rapacious doesn’t make you a capitalist, it makes you a sociopath.”
[16] “Indicators based on planetary boundaries must therefore leave room for additional refinements needed to reach a more nuanced set of ecological and societal outcomes” (Brown & Timmerman, p. 161, 2015).
[17] “Also missing from the planetary boundaries concept are normative criteria for developing indicators of efficiency” (ibid, p. 161).
[18] “At least one critique of the planetary boundaries concept warns that overreliance on thresholds in general can support justification of behavior right up to the threshold—the edge of the cliff—when other criteria might provide reasons for staying well back” (Schlesinger 2009) (ibid, p. 160).
[19] “More critical narratives emphasize signs of earth systems collapse (Steffen et al., 2018), mass extinction and “defaunation” (Dirzo et al., 2014), and surpassing planetary boundaries that define a “safe operating space” for humanity” (Wironen & Erikson, 2020).
[20] Brown & Timmerman, (pp. 163-164, 2015) review how planetary boundaries can be combined with social boundaries (food security, income, water and sanitation, health care, education, gender equality, equity, voice, jobs, and resilience), which creates a “just space for humanity…relevant to questions of distribution and efficiency”.
[21] Differing interpretations of value have profound impacts on our understanding of ecological crises (ie the theories we propose and the solutions we advance). While mainstream marginal utility theory focuses on strategies that put a price on nature, a Marxian approach seeks to overcome the system. Thus Pirgmaier (2021) suggests that value theory is the key to making informed decisions regarding prospective solutions.
[22] Classical and neoclassical economics
[23] There are many different solutions to the ecological crises we face. This includes the Green New Deal, UN Sustainability Goals (Melgar-Melgar & Hall, 2020), and public education (Brown & Timmerman, p. 142, 2015). Actions required for biophysical sustainability can be divided into socio-economic changes (stabilizing population size, stabilizing economic size at a sustainable scale, just distribution of incomes and wealth, and prioritizing quality of life and happiness), technology changes (improving energy efficiency, moving towards renewable energies, developing mass transportation and changing ourselves) and raising consciousness (embodied energy, labels of energy and resource requirements, restoring the dignity of meaningful work, adjusting our expectations and developing an ethic of respect for other living things).
References
Adaman, F., Devine, P., & Ozkaynak, B. (2010). Reinstituting the economic process: (Re)embedding the economy in society and nature. International Review of Sociology, 13(2), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/0390670032000117326
Angus, I. (2016). Facing the anthropocene: Fossil capitalism and the crisis of the earth system. Monthly Review Press. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.lib-ezproxy.concordia.ca/lib/concordia-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4470749.
Brown, P. G., & Timmerman, P. (2015). Ecological Economics for the anthropocene: An emerging paradigm. Columbia University Press.
Hanauer, N. (Aug 12, 2014) Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming. [Video] Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8
Hanauer, N. (Oct 18, 2019) The dirty secret of capitalism — and a new way forward. [Video] Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th3KE_H27bs
Melgar-Melgar, R. E., & Hall, C. A. S. (2020). Why ecological economics needs to return to its roots: The Biophysical Foundation of Socio-Economic Systems. Ecological Economics, 169, 106567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106567
Post-Capitalist Possibilities (Jul 11, 2018). Transition to Post-Capitalist Futures – Jason W. Moore. [Video] Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpCZbqqIYlg
Post-Capitalist Possibilities (Aug 23, 2018). Diverse Economies and Alternative Capitalist Practices – Ethan Miller. [Video] Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxWa7zG8td0
Post-Capitalist Possibilities (Jan 3, 2019). Post Capitalist Possibilities – Bengi Akbulut. [Video] Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtGoHNZFqK4
Post-Capitalist Possibilities (Jan 3, 2019). Transitions to Post Capitalist Futures – Dru Oja Jay A segment of an larger interview with Dru Oja Jay. [Video] Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOYMxlziOmQ
Post-Capitalist Possibilities (January 5, 2019). Post Capitalist Possibilities – Dr. Marguerite Mendell. [Video] Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-H1JZw0otU
Pirgmaier, E. (2021). The value of value theory for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 179, 106790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106790
RSA Animate, (2010, June 28). Crises of Capitalism, [Video] Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0
Ruccio, D. F. (2011). Envisioning real utopias, Erik Olin Wright, London: Verso, 2010. Historical Materialism, 19(4), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1163/156920611×611759
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Wironen, M. B., & Erickson, J. D. (2019). A critically modern ecological economics for the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review, 7(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619884485
