Ecological Modernization Essay ⋆ Environment Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This Ecological Modernization Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic, please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Ecological modernization is a diverse body of literature that has emerged from environmental sociology. It focuses on the institutional response of industrialized countries to environmental challenges. Arthur Mol understands ecological modernization to be the third wave of environmental concern and reform, following from nature conservation and limits to growth approaches. F. H. Buttel sees ecological modernization as “a new, and in many ways improved, synonym for sustainable development” and recognizes the appeal of optimism within ecological modernization, something that he contrasts with the pessimistic connotations of other approaches for “thinking about the problems of metropolitan transformative industry in the North.”

According to Michael Carolan, the ecological modernization approach is said to have attained “near paradigmatic status within socioenvironmental circles,” and Renato Orsato and Stewart Clegg view it as the “dominant approach in today’s environmental policy, practice and theorization.” Joseph Murphy’s introduction to a theme issue about ecological modernization in the journal Geoforum said of geographers and other social scientists, “most of those working on the relationship between environment and society and focussing on the state, production and consumption are likely to be aware of it.” This familiarity is also acknowledged by Buttel, who noted that “Ecological modernization was unknown to virtually all North American environmental scientists half a dozen years ago” but within a short span of time has “come to be regarded on a virtual par with some of the most longstanding and influential ideas and perspectives in environmental sociology.”

Debate Over Origin

The origins of ecological modernization are debated. Some authors say that it is an idea that originated in the corporate sector in the United States in the 1980s, spread to Europe following the 1987 publication of Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland report), and had a significant impact on national environmental planning in countries such as the Netherlands. Other authors claim that the German sociologist Joseph Huber should be credited as its founder and that the theory was first developed in a small number of western European countries, notably Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

The theory emerged as a critique of both neo-Malthusian approaches and neo-Marxism (which was popularly represented in debates with ecological modernists through the “treadmill of production” thesis). The ecological modernization approach does not reject industrial production and consumption processes, but accepts their inevitability and instead considers it desirable to focus on the changing character of these processes using ecological criteria as a measure of quality.

Ecological modernization is a perpetuation of the modernist values of rational thinking and the application of knowledge to problem solving. It recognizes that modern states can, if they are willing, incorporate environmental concerns into their regular activities. That is, the environment can be institutionalized and accorded similar treatment to social and economic issues. Since the mid-1990s, this approach has been increasingly challenged by multilateral trade agreements that make it more difficult for states to regulate environmental issues within their boundaries. The formation of trade blocs has also meant that the focus of ecological modernization research is no longer on national economies, but increasingly considers how environmental regulation may contribute to trade advantages for a country. The global nature of some important environmental issues and their policy responses, for example the issue of climate change, has also enabled ecological modernization to develop more of an international perspective in recent years.

Three Faces

Peter Christoff noted that the increasing popularity of the term ecological modernization “derives in part from the suggestive power of its combined appeal to notions of development and modernity and to ecological critique.” According to Christoff, ecological modernization has been used in three main ways: as a technical adjustment, as a policy discourse, and as a belief system.

The technical adjustment approach is often restricted to those sectors of the economy where such a change is profitable. Importantly, unless the economic gains from technical improvements in pollution control or energy use, for example, are reinvested in ecological modernization processes, then what has been created is greater capacity to have an impact upon the planet. In this version of ecological modernization, one of the ways environmental improvement (and hence economic gain in most cases) is achieved is through the adoption of a systems approach to resources, energy, and waste. It has similarities with the industrial ecology approach to improving environmental outcomes of production and consumption processes. Arthur Mol and David Sonnenfeld identify the early writings of authors such as Joseph Huber as being “characterised by a heavy emphasis on the role of technological innovations in environmental reform, especially in the sphere of industrial production.” They indicate that from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, the influence of technological innovation declined relative to institutional dynamics and cultural dynamics in the ecological modernization literature.

The policy discourse version of ecological modernization is most clearly represented in the writings of Albert Weale and Maarten Hajer. Similar to the corporate perspective, the key ideas of this version of ecological modernization are that economic growth and environmental responsibility are not irreconcilable, and in fact they make good economic sense for three reasons. First, improved environmental technology can generate economic savings that benefit a corporation financially, but also an urban area, state, country, or the world. Second, governments that enforce more stringent environmental regulations and encourage technological development to meet these regulations become the leaders in a sector and are able to establish valuable new industries that can earn export income. Third, there is a public relations benefit as these countries are able to project themselves as being environmentally responsible global citizens. Again, the change in policy is incremental and does not require the overthrow of existing political and economic structures.

A more radical approach is the concept of ecological modernization as a belief system. In this approach, rather than being a policy discourse to maintain existing economic relationships but to make them “greener,” ecological modernization is a challenge to the market-based emphasis on efficiency. Carolan is particularly critical of the emphasis on efficiency and argues that it does not necessarily lead to sustainability. The idea of environmental modernization as a belief system is what Christoff identifies as being strong ecological modernization. In contrast, the weak version of ecological modernization Christoff identifies perpetuates existing relationships and narrow, technological-oriented thinking. This distinction is also employed by George Gonzalez to highlight the perceived limitations of the approach to climate change by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the International Chamber of Commerce. In this example, “these groups propose to reform the operation of capitalism through the development and deployment of technology rather than by promoting environmentally sensitive land management planning techniques.” From an ecological perspective, the strong approach will likely generate the greatest ecological benefits. From cultural and economic perspectives, the implementation of a strong version of ecological modernization is fraught with challenges because it does require genuine, meaningful, and lasting change.

Other Perspectives

It is debatable whether the strong version of ecological modernization is really ecological modernization at all. This debate centers on who gets to define the terminology and the parameters of an idea. Depending on who is doing the labeling, the strong version of ecological modernization either refers to broad changes to institutional structures in society, democratic decision making, and an open approach to the environment and economy relationship based on what David Gibbs calls “multiple possibilities with ecological modernisation providing orientation” or it appears to include elements of neo-Marxist, neo-Malthusian and limits-to-growth thinking. While some authors see it as a strand of ecological modernization theory, it could also be interpreted as a conflicting theory or theories. This is apparent in debates between Michael Carolan on the one hand and Arthur Mol and Gert Spaargaren on the other. Ecological modernization is essentially an incremental and reformist approach, and the strong version of ecological modernization calls for more fundamental changes.

A notable attempt at bridging these divides is found in the work of Orsato and Clegg in their notions of radical reformism and “critical Ecological Modernization. These authors argue that in order to make ecological modernization a progressive force for moving toward sustainability, it is necessary that radical technological changes be made. This is often not possible unless incremental institutional changes are made, an approach that contrasts with the strong version of ecological modernization that calls for radical institutional change. According to these authors, “radical technological innovations and incremental institutional reform, together, constitute the concept of radical reformism, which may have important implications for the development of ecological modernization theory and its normative application.”

Future Trends

Traditionally, the challenges to the ecological modernization approach have mainly come from neo-Marxists (“treadmill of production” literature) and from authors concerned about limits to growth. These approaches are predominantly concerned with physical conditions. The recent work of Mol and Spaargaren attempts to move beyond these debates by incorporating ideas from what John Urry describes as a sociology of flows into the ecological modernization literature. This would enable the literature to develop a more multinational approach as it questions the ability of states to regulate flows of money, capital, people, and material substances, but there is a tension about the issue of control and how much planned change can effectively be implemented in the contemporary world. This tension between the modernism inherent in ecological modernization (which is similar to neo-Marxist and deindustrialization approaches in this regard) and the recognition, and sometimes celebration, of chaos in postmodern approaches is likely to be one oftheimportant debates within the ecological modernization literature in the near future.

The usefulness of ecological modernization is still being debated. As Gibbs noted, while it may offer some hope for better environmental outcomes, the concept”canequally serve as a cover for business-as-usual withaslightgreen tinge.” This partly depends on what one perceives as being useful,and whetherthe perceived limitations of variousstrands of ecological modernization can be overcomeorif theyare inherent and intractable. Various options for strengthening the body of literature to overcome perceived shortcomings include bringing in notions of strategic capacities, structural frameworks, andthe roleofactorsand notions of embedded autonomy, civil society, and state-society synergy theoriesderivedfrom the Weberian tradition. Ecological modernization is likely to be developed into the future as academicsand policymakers continue to articulate nature-society-economy relationships in ways that areatleastmore environmentally benign than previous versions of these relations.

Bibliography:

F.H. Buttel, “Ecological Modernization as Social Theory,” Geoforum (v.31/1, 2000);
Michael Carolan, “Ecological Modernization and C onsumption: AReplytoMol andSpaargaren,”Society and Natural Resources (v.17,2004);
Michael C arolan, “Ecological Modernization Theory: What aboutConsumption?”Society and Natural Resources (v.17,2000);
Peter Christoff, “Ecological Modernisation, Ecological Modernities,” inStephen Young,ed.,The Emergence of Ecological Modernisation: Integrating the Environment and the Economy? (Routledge,2000);
David Gibbs, “Ecological Modernisation, Regional Economic Development and Regional Development Agencies,” Geoforum (v.31/1, 2000);
George Gonzalez, (2005) “Urban Sprawl, Global Warmingandthe Limits of Ecological Modernisation,” Environmental Politics (v.14/3, 2005);
MaartenHajer, The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process (OxfordUniversity Press, 1995);
Annica Kronsell, “A ‘Sustainable Impact’ontheEU? An Analysis of the Making of the Fifth Environmental Action Program,” in Stephen Young, ed., The Emergence of Ecological Modernisation: Integrating the Environment and the Economy? (Routledge,2000);
Arthur Mol,Globalization and Environmental Reform: The Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy ( MIT Press, 2001);
Arthur Mol and David Sonnenfeld, “Ecological Modernisation around the World: An Introduction,”Environmental Politics (v.9/1,2000);
Arthur Mol and Gert Spaargaren, “Ecological Modernization and Consumption: A Reply,” Society and Natural Resources (v.17, 2004);
Arthur Mol and Gert Spaargaren, “From Additions and Withdrawals toEnvironmental Flows: Reframing Debates in the EnvironmentalSocial Sciences,”Organization and Environment (v.18/1, 2005); Joseph Murphy, “Ecological Modernisation,” Geoforum (v.31/1, 2000);
Renato OrsatoandStewart Clegg, “Radical Reformism: Toward Critical Ecological Modernization,” Sustainable Development (v.13,2005);
John Urry,Global Complexity (Polity, 2003);Albert Weale,The New Politics of Pollution (ManchesterUniversity Press, 1992);
Stephen Young, “Introduction: The Origins and Evolving Nature of Ecological Modernisation,” in Stephen Young, ed.,The Emergence of Ecological Modernisation: Integrating the Environment and the Economy? ( Routledge, 2000).