Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Narrow pasts and futures: how frames of sustainability transformation limit societal change

Narrow pasts and futures: how frames of sustainability transformation limit societal change Two frames dominate present-day interpretations of sustainability and approaches to sustainability transformation in national and global policy arenas. One frame relates to transformation in global environmental governance that promotes goal-oriented agendas. The other frame relates to earth system sciences where sustainability transformation means breaking the devastating trends of the Anthropocene. In this paper, we examine the historical and cultural underpinnings of these two frames, each invoking particular relations and approaches to sustainability transformation. Our contribution is to discuss the role of the past in these frames and to illuminate how current outlooks toward the future still rely on principles that emerged in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe and thus hinder alternative approaches to transformation in the present. . . . . . . Keywords Sustainability History Sustainability transformation Frame Climate change Agenda 2030 Sustainable development goals Earth system sciences Introduction the functioning of ecosystems and human health would re- quire “rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, in- Calls for societal transformation toward sustainability have dustry, buildings, transport and cities” (IPCC 2018). come from all levels of public and corporate policy-making The vision of sustainability transformation, a profound and in recent years. Non-governmental organizations as well as fundamental change in how society relates to nature, is seen as research suggest that climate and ecological crises require an the only possible way out of the downward spiral. The future unprecedented effort and societal change (Adloff and Neckel pathways shaped in the current discourse, however, run the 2019;UN 2015). The IPCC special report released in October risk of limiting actual transformation because they either lack 2018, as a response to the United Nation’s Paris Agreement legitimacy, reduce the diversity of actors and knowledge signed in 2016, pointed out that limiting global warming to types, or represent business-as-usual approaches (Blythe 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and ensuring et al. 2018;Colocousiset al. 2017). Two frames in particular dominate present-day interpreta- tions of sustainability and approaches to initiating sustainabil- * Janina Priebe ity transformation. One frame relates to transformation in janina.priebe@umu.se global environmental governance that promotes goal- oriented agendas. The other frame for sustainability transfor- Erland Mårald mation relates to earth system sciences, where sustainability erland.marald@umu.se transformation means breaking the devastating trends of the Annika Nordin Anthropocene. annika.nordin@slu.se Overall, the ambiguities and limitations of these two frames as well as the tensions between them are well explored. We Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå also recognise earlier research on the emergence of the con- University, Umeå, Sweden 2 cept of sustainability in environmental policies in the second Arctic Research Centre, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden half of the twentieth century and the critique of the ambivalent Department of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Swedish notion of sustainable development (Caradonna 2014; University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden Robinson 2004). What is missing from these discussions, J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 77 however, is an examination of the historical and cultural un- the understanding of linguistic frames to frames as they are derpinnings of the dominating frames that fail to deliver real understood in the social sciences. The latter uses the concept change toward sustainability. of frame to illuminate interpretative practice, and actors’ per- The debate about transformation is strongly oriented to- ceptions about reality, as well as what ways of communicating ward the future, whereas perceptions of the past and the ways about and organising society this entails, for instance, regard- these enable or impede change are barely considered. Yet, the ing climate change responses (Blue 2016). understandings of the past, though oblique, are reflected in the In brief, the two frames that this article highlights and that metaphors and imagery as well as in the logic of the promoted are repeatedly activated in the present-day debate about sus- approach to climate change and ecological crises. To expound tainability transformation can be delineated as follows. The upon these understandings of the past, we examine what role frame of global environmental governance consists, among is assigned to the past and how historical developments are others, of the roles of global institutions and nation states. interpreted and used to argue for change in the present in the Relations considered meaningful within this frame are, for prevailing frames of sustainability transformation. By instance, the global institutions, such as the United Nations analysing how meaning is given to particular approaches to (UN), that provide agendas for coordinated action to be im- sustainability transformation, our contribution is to critically plemented by the states, which in turn hand down this agenda discuss the central but problematic role of the past in these to regions and municipalities. Sustainability transformation is frames. framed as the reward for successful progress through the agen- da for sustainable development (UN 2015)that ensures away Framing sustainability transformation to stay “on track” toward predetermined goals. This frame delineates clearly how sustainability transformation can be The notion of sustainability transformation has spawned a initiated. It confines action to actors connected on a global whole research field (e.g. Clark and Harley 2019; Linnér level, and determines action as being directed from the top and Wibeck 2019), and it has replaced the much-debated con- level. Besides the UN member states, the UN also consists cept of sustainable development with “transformation” as the of the so-called third UN, which includes experts, private leading principle of policies on the local, national, and global economy actors, and large non-governmental institutions that level. are globally connected (Koehler 2015). The latter actors have The language of the current sustainability discourse is sat- acquired meaningful roles in the frame of global environmen- urated with metaphors of great leaps and humankind’s tal governance, and they are presented to have key positions transforming power, thereby activating certain frames of in- for sustainability transformation. In contrast, citizens and issue terpretation and action. As we will elaborate on in this paper, alliances, or unexpected and uncoordinated behaviour, are not part of this frame, despite their growing importance for cli- we find that references to two frames clearly dominate ap- proaches to sustainability transformation. The term “transfor- mate action in practice (MacLean 2020). mation” itself activates frames relating to human industrious- The second frame we critically explore is that of earth ness and the ability to shape both society and environment systems sciences, which includes the roles of natural scien- alike. tists, governmental bodies, and the Earth’s natural systems. In The cognitive linguist George Lakoff defines frames as the the twentieth century, earth system sciences brought together conceptual structures that link language to meaning (Lakoff natural sciences about planetary processes, like hydrology, 2010). The frames are part of a system of individual human climatology, and geology, with social sciences that engaged perceptions, which functions as a framework for interpreta- with processes seen to function on a global level, too, such as tions (Lakoff 2010;Goffman 1974). Lakoff focusses on how economics and population dynamics. The perspective of earth expressions, and the narratives that are evoked within partic- system sciences was born out of the increased computational ular frames, activate (or block) strategies for change in peo- capacity to process large amounts of quantitative data, and it ple’s behaviour. We are aware that researchers have criticized, encouraged the interpretation of changes according to those among other aspects, Lakoff’s role as a climate change and trends that became identifiable (Robin et al. 2018). environmental communications expert with a publicly pro- The earth systems perspective emphasises inertia and long- gressive stance (e.g. Brulle 2010). term statistical trends with devastating effects (Bretherton As the purpose of this paper is to trace assumptions about 1985). By digging down in ice cores and sediment layers, the past in frames that shape the currently prevailing discur- earth systems science uncovers rhythms and aberrations over sive frames of sustainability transformation, Lakoff’stheory millions of years of past trajectories (Jouzel et al. 2007; needs to be connected to a wider understanding of frames, Zachos et al. 2001). This frame assigns key roles to longitu- especially in cases where scientific knowledge is integrated dinal graphs concerning, for instance, populations, energy use, into frames and leads to different responses (Pinker and transportation, carbon dioxide, methane, ocean acidification, Lakoff 2007). In our analysis, we thus relate insights from tropical forest loss, and terrestrial biosphere degradation that 78 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 should act as motivators for change (Hampton et al. 2013; philosopher and legal scholar Karl Marx (1818–1883) saw Steffen et al. 2015). The earth systems sciences’ framing of the past, the present, and the future as being driven by the sustainability transformation focuses on turning around trends prevailing mode of production, thereby forging social classes, of, for instance, particle concentrations, but does not demand a ideologies, and ways of thinking (Marx 1867). Material con- questioning of societal structures or agency, or the practices ditions, economic relations, power struggles, and drastic trans- driving the identified trends. formations are thus at the core of this philosophy of history, where socialism finalises societal progress. Although with a very different political-ideological back- Understandings of transformations in history drop, a similar teleological perspective, liberalism, was a shaping force in the first half of the twentieth century. The The term “sustainability transformation” in national and glob- British historian Herbert Butterfield (1900–1979) criticized al policy arenas reflect the principles and values defined dur- the retrospect interpretation of societal development as prog- ing the European industrialisation and relating to, broadly ress toward liberal democracy in his “Whig interpretation of speaking, keeping up the material basis of industrial develop- history” (1931). The retrospect construction of progress, ment. In recent transformations literature, too, the role of in- Butterfield concluded, neglected the perspectives of contem- digenous and placed-based knowledge is marginalized, and, if poraries on the changes of their own time and their options for examined, focusses mainly on regions historically considered change. The view on history as development along the lines of remote from centres of industrial development, such as the progress, however, became popular once again with the end of Arctic (Lam et al. 2020). As a result of this lack of diversity, the Cold War. With the seeming victory of liberal democracy, calls for alternative approaches to sustainability transforma- the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama declared tion have grown over the past decades, including the acknowl- “the end of history” (Fukuyama 1992). edgement of different types of knowledge and cultural con- Another strand of thinking interpreted societal change as texts (Brown et al. 2013;Ives et al. 2020), and the focus on being an adjustment to inevitable circumstances that could not local instead of global perspectives (Balvanera et al. 2017). be influenced by societies. The French historian Braudel However, the understanding of sustainability transformation (1902–1985) developed the concept of la longue durée,the in global institutions and economic system is firmly rooted in long duration, that connects historical events into societal and the Western scientific paradigm, and it still resonates with the geological changes over millennia (Braudel 1982). The other notion of sustainable development that has prevailed since the two timespans identified by Braudel are the short-term second half of the twentieth century. événements, focussing on specific individuals and events, Throughout human history, different understandings and and the medium-term conjunctures, describing societal shifts interpretations of profound societal change have laid the foun- over decades and centuries. It is, according to Braudel, the dations for different approaches to inform, guide, and facilitate long duration that has the ultimate explanatory power, and this transformation, or to maintain business as usual and prevailing view has dominated the natural sciences since the late eigh- power structures. These understandings have always been teenth century. The major interests of natural scientists re- formed in a specific context, and they have reflected people’s volved around how long, drawn-out geological changes hopes as much as they have mirrored fears, and this repertoire shaped the basis for the diversity of life, as explained, for of interpretations continues to define our approaches to sus- instance, in Charles Darwin’s theory of biological evolution tainability transformation. (Bowler 1992; Toulmin and Goodfield 1982). One long-standing approach to societal change is the no- The British cleric and political scholar Thomas tion of human societies striving toward a telos—a destiny or a Robert Malthus (1766–1834) provides another promi- state of completion—like the realisation of liberalism or mo- nent example for seeing explanatory power in the dernity. Forged in continental Europe, this teleological think- long-term trends of history. At the turn of the nine- ing has inspired different interpretations of the past and the teenth century, Malthus derived from the observation future to very different ends. The belief in the progress of of past developments that population growth was expo- human society toward the better was, however, always at the nential, while food supply growth was linear—a condi- centre of this way of thinking (Scott 1998). This has been a tion that inevitably pointed at a coming collapse well-known historiographical outlook since the eighteenth (Malthus 1798). This way of connecting the past and century, and it provided the philosophical underpinning of the future became prevalent in social planning and fu- industrialisation. German philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel ture studies during the second half of the twentieth cen- (1770–1831) understood the ideals of European civilisation tury (Andersson 2018). These understandings of how as possessing a formative power, moving through history profound change in society takes place and can be from East to West, where Hegel believed it reached its com- brought about merged into the underpinnings of sustain- pletion (Friese 2010;Lumsden 2018). The German ability transformation. J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 79 Underpinning the frames of sustainability governance and was handed down to national and local policy transformation arenas. We can easily recognise that seeing the future as an agenda Warnings of environmental and societal decline were frequent we set up firmly relates to a teleological understanding of his- in the nineteenth century, with the fall of the Roman Empire as tory and future that was a known understanding of change the prime example (Gibbon 1776–1789;Diamond 2005). The throughout history (Sardar 1993). In the case of global environ- narrative of how environment and society are bound to each mental governance, however, this approach entails maintaining other if one tumbles toward the abyss is the origin of the idea an idea of progress that emerged during industrialisation—a of sustainability (Warde 2018). The concept of sustainability historical period that is now deemed to be the origin of unsus- itself, meaning the keeping human endeavours within the limit tainable structures, practices, and habits in society and econom- of nature’s resources and replenishment rates, originated from ics. The language of goals, development, and progress mani- German scientific forestry’sidea of Nachhaltigkeit in the mid- fests in a frame that leads to envisioning sustainability transfor- eighteenth century. The idea of sustainable yield was about mation as the continuing progress of society along the known keeping timber extraction and forest growth in balance be- path of development. cause the shortage of wood would massively impede industri- Moreover, while adopting the language of organisation and al development (Caradonna 2014). The concept of sustainabil- management realms, both corporate and public actors increas- ity more broadly was further triggered by the observation of ingly approach the transformation toward sustainability as a nature’s degradation in the wake of industrialisation in “business case” or “strategy”, meaning the alignment of ac- Europe. tions to reach a specific goal (e.g. Epstein and Rejc Buhovac The notion of “paradise lost”,nature’s decline at the hands 2010). In corporate sustainability strategies, however, the pro- of humans, has over the years seen different underlying nar- cess to attain the goal of sustainability is commonly subordi- ratives where Christianity (White 1967), science (Merchant nated to previously prioritised ends and embedded in existing 1981), or capitalism (Moore 2017) were seen as the culprits structures (Landrum and Ohsowski 2018). that have compromised the ecological foundation and Research, too, has turned to engage with “sustainability pristineness of our world. Similar narratives have laid the challenges” and “problem-solving”. Tapping new sources of foundation for environmentalism since the 1960s and 1970s, knowledge, for instance, through engaging with stakeholders but they have a much longer history in, for instance, the in transdisciplinary projects or developing tools to enhance European and American nature conservation movements in problem-solving creativity, are focus areas of these recent ap- the nineteenth century that followed diverse objectives proaches to “tackle” or “solve” sustainability problems (Warde et al. 2018). (Carlsson et al. 2015; Klenk and Meehan 2015;Polk 2014). Ensuring that nature would continue to provide for industrial Considering the historical understandings of societal growth and development was again at the centre of the sustain- change, there is another facet of how sustainability transfor- able development discourse during the second half of the twen- mation is approached. Earth systems science is a key to tieth century, while other objectives of sustainability were side- interpreting environmental changes, which are increasingly tracked and contained in the sphere of non-governmental actors translated into what should be done in society to accommo- and environmental interest groups (Robinson 2004). This frame date these changes. The past appears as the origins of trends, is an antidote to the declensionist narratives described above anchoring the approach to sustainability transformation in a (McNeill 2003;Melosi 2010). Paradoxically, though, especially large-scale temporal and spatial perspective. the understanding of sustainability transformation in the arena of Following the Malthusian idea of exponentially increasing environmental governance also feeds on narratives of decline that threats, the Club of Rome, a group of world-leading econo- conjure up the approaching catastrophe if current rates of con- mists and scientists, published the report “The Limits to sumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and acidification are not Growth” (1971). The publication of the report led to intense radically cut. debate in the 1970s when it used computer models to put the The aim of environmental governance is to set up an agen- limelight on the critical line between human growth and the da that gets society off of the downward spiral of unsustain- planet’s carrying capacity. The report applied the Malthusian able practices. In 1992, the United Nations’ Earth Summit conception of the past (Meadows et al. 1972). Only shortly resulted in the establishment of Agenda 21, the first clearly after, the idea of ecological overshoot, the crossing of the goal-oriented global environmental strategy and the predeces- limits of earth’s carrying capacity to support the human pop- sor to both the Millennium (2000) and Sustainable ulation, developed on the same grounds (Catton 1982). The Development Goals (2015). Finalising and uniting progress notion of long-term statistical trends that could extend from on all levels of development in society, economy, and the the past into a catastrophic future remained at the centre of the environment within a manageable timeframe of a few years sustainability discourse during the late twentieth century. This or decades became the guiding idea of global environmental understanding of history laid the groundwork for defining 80 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 sustainability as the effort to stay within planetary limits and to limit the global average temperature rise to below 2 degrees handle the scarcity of resources (Bushel et al. 2015). Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The argument was based on With the conception of the past as the origin of long-term the assumption that limiting emissions would weaken economic trends, future developments are derived from historical data, development in the USA, using the link established between the leading to the identification of irreversible developments and past long-term trends of economic development and CO emis- tipping points based on past conditions. Visually, the data take sions as the prime argument (Tollefson 2017). This argument on the shape of a sharply rising curve, be it population growth resembles what has since the late nineteenth century been under- or parameters of ecological decline, pointing at the coming stood as the link between energy consumption and societal ad- collapse. In recent years, the image of the curve’s sharp rise vancements, brought forward by the British intellectual Herbert from the 1950s onward has become known as the “hockey Spencer. Still, and despite the models offering alternative views stick”, continuing its climb into the future as human impacts on production and consumption, the thesis of energy flow that on ecological systems increase even more (Mann 2013). translates into societal development has remained a powerful This salient visualisation of trends and tipping points indi- frame throughout the twentieth century until to date (Rosa et al. cates an emergency and the need for an urgent response 1988). (Russill and Nyssa 2009). Researchers claim that the pace of In the same way, the critique that accompanied the “Limits to human impact on the ecological systems on a planetary scale Growth” report targeted the linking of long-term trends. The hasinrecenttimes takenupspeed—a shift referred to as the report’s major flaw did not lay in the prediction of population Great Acceleration (McNeill and Engelke 2014; Steffen et al. growth itself, critics pointed out, but in the assumed direct corre- 2015). The Great Acceleration can be understood as the inten- lation between the earth’s carrying capacity and land area, and sifying phase of the Anthropocene, the geological period the focus on physical instead of societal factors (Cole 1999). marking the significant impacts of human activities and spe- Rather than as the only conceivable correlation, these critiques cific economic structures on global ecosystems and geology suggested that the relation should be regarded as just one of many (Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy 2015; Lewis and possible interpretations where two different developments— Maslin 2015). population growth and land use—are directly and causally linked. The choice of relations between parameters to identify “trends” establishes explanations and connections, and these, in One-dimensional outlooks—failing turn, can manifest in values that are difficult to change and that transformation inhibit radical new ways of thinking. Today, too, the two prevailing frames of sustainability trans- Environmental governance and earth systems sciences have built formation offer only limited types of actions that are promoted as up frames that create one-dimensional outlooks on the future. suitable and effective answers to imagined pasts and futures. The Imagining trend lines that extend from the past into the future, actions that are represented as being central are, on the one hand, as it is evoked by the earth systems science frame, is the creation the aversion of catastrophe, and, on the other hand, following the of meaningbyselectingparameterstobemeasuredasproxies for predetermined roadmap toward sustainability. In the frame of substantial societal changes. For example, the measurement of earth systems science, the curves that visualise the global-scale greenhouse gases and the impact assessment of industrial pollution impacts of industrial activities since the Great Acceleration take on the earth’s climate undoubtedly deal with reality, regardless of on the role of early warning signs or act as clear evidence that the perspective on the consequences or implications for actions. planetary boundaries of humanity’s safe operating space have Combining trend lines also means interpreting correlations already been crossed (Dryzek and Pickering 2019; Rockström between different parameters as causal relations and establishing et al. 2009; Schneider 2014). The metaphor of the tipping point, axiomatic agendas as a result. The UN Paris Agreement (2016) visualised by the abruptly rising curves in climate and environ- and the UN 2030 agenda (2015) both emphasise the link be- mental service data, lets us imagine we are standing at the abyss tween CO emissions and historical economic development of (Karlsson 2016). From here departs the idea of the climate crisis the industrial states. This direct link was true for the past, and still as an “imminent peril”, and to ensure sustainability and avert today, the narrative established by these trends, combining the catastrophe actions beyond what societies have established as rising CO curve with growing economic wealth, implies the acceptable decision-making processes are silently accepted idea that a reduction of the former inevitably leads to a reduction (Lakoff 2007;Markussonetal. 2014). of the latter. This conclusion, in turn, weakens ways of thinking The earth system science frame with its focus on long-term of economic development as being decoupled and independent trends creates a stark ambivalence between the perceived urgen- from emissions (Kallis 2018). Donald Trump, the president of cy to act and the ineffectiveness of the actions initiated in this the USA, announced in June 2017 that the USA had withdrawn frame (Strunz et al. 2019). Trend thinking fuels emergency rhe- from the Paris Agreement in which the signing member states toric, while implying that local actions in the present are ineffec- tive because the dangerous trend of climate change began long committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in order to J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 81 ago and has already reached a scale beyond individual or com- transformation. Understandings of the past, we argue, are crucial munity control. for what options are considered to be viable to initiate transfor- Understanding the past as the origin of trend lines emphasises mative change. The present-day debate is dominated by just two inertia by highlighting the evolutionary buildup, or the gradual frames that diminish alternative understandings and narratives, and inexorable decline (or progress) of structures, institutions, thereby offering only limited creativity and innovation for and regimes (Bijker et al. 1989;Geels 2002; Mahoney 2000). change. The last decades have also seen a streamlining of re- This frame manifests the lock-ins and gridlocks societies have sponses to climate change and ecological crises with the struggled with since the onset of the overwhelming unsustainable institutionalisation of environmentalism (Robin et al. 2018). trends, and it even inhibits transformative changes that could end The frames of environmental governance and earth systems sci- the conflicts and deficiencies originating in the past (Liebowitz ence both rely on simplified imaginary and language, illustrated and Margolis 1995; Matutinovic 2007). One example of how by the hockey stick curves and the colourful seventeen boxes permanent the frames for thinking and the promoted combination containing the Sustainable Development Goals. of trend lines and values into fixed agendas can become comes Most crucially, however, the roots of these future outlooks from late nineteenth century Britain and the early-industrial town build on the proposition of interconnected industrial and soci- of Manchester. The environmental historian Stephen Mosely etal development that came to be widely accepted in the eigh- identifies the “correlation between pollution and prosperity” teenth and nineteenth century Europe. Today, it remains axi- where coal smoke in the house and the city was seen to indicate omatic that societal development relates to satisfying the the wealth and well-being of its inhabitants (Mosley 2001). needs of an industrialised society, still manifesting imagined Initiatives to promote other types of energy, coming from differ- connections between progress, economic growth, emissions, ent business and NGO backgrounds, used human health, envi- natural resource extraction, and wealth. These understandings ronmental pollution, and urban aesthetics as main arguments to exclude alternative notions of what sustainability transforma- support a narrative that linked coal smoke to inefficiency and tion can entail, and they stalemate attempts to overcome worn waste. These arguments did not, Mosley concludes, diminish out ideas. the coal smoke’s appeal as a familiar indicator of wealth at that The systems that are activated by references to environ- point. Coal smoke and the pollution resulting from it were al- mental governance and earth systems science frames do not ready part of another, more compelling narrative that connected provide any useful tools or reactions to initiate sustainability the coal hearth and smoke-blackened surfaces and walls in transformation in the context of present-day society. Instead, homes with both prosperity and the agency to choose their “goals these frames create feelings of insufficiency and “climate in life” (Mosley 2001, 116). angst”, or fatalism and denial (Norgaard 2011). We see a A similar dynamic is observable in the ongoing energy tran- focus on either catastrophic tipping points or the management sition in the twenty-first century, and “petrocultures” have recent- of off-track challenges. Figure 1 shows how the past is used as ly come into focus in research. During the last century, fossil oil, a basis for how future challenges are interpreted and how these and the products made from it, has shaped our societies’ identities interpretations, for instance, seeing either tipping points or off- to a considerable extent, giving way to a “petroculture”. Fossil oil track challenges, lead to a certain framing of solutions. has connected us to global commercial networks, transformed The repertoire of understandings of and approaches to trans- the material world around us, altered our bodies, and formed formative change seems to oscillate between limitations and our understandings with seemingly infinite progress and global boundlessness. The historical roots of sustainability, closely mobility (Wilson et al. 2017). The term “petromelancholia” has linked to increasing uses of renewable natural resources, centred been suggested to describe the grieving of oil resources and the on identifying the limits of sustainable yield of a resource’sex- pleasures they sustain (LeMenager 2013). At its heart lies the traction level. The 1970s saw an acute awareness of limits, and a same close association of wealth and environmental pollution renewed critique of economic and population growth, spurred by that Mosely identified for smoke-blackened walls and furniture. the oil crisis and environmental justice movements sending rip- The examples of petromelancholia and late nineteenth century ples through the global system. However, the discourse turned, Manchester’s coal smoke show how the dimensions of history within years, to revolve around the formula that would create a and future are attached to the present, continually affecting our “win-win” scenario, and the balance of social, economic, and understandings, deliberations, and decision-making. environmental sustainability as a save way to continue on the growth pathway (Purvis et al. 2019). A further reduction of the facets of sustainability occurred with the substitution of “sustain- Why do both frames fail to initiate able” with “green” practices and products, which further transformative change? narrowed the focus to individuals as consumers in the sustain- ability discourse of the last decade and distracted from systemic In this paper, we use the concept of frames to analyse, in partic- failures to ensure sustainability (Yanarella et al. 2009). The latest semantic turn toward “transformation” does not necessarily ular, the role of the past in current frames of sustainability 82 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 Concluding remarks Our current understanding of the past can turn sustainability transformation into either an authoritarian nightmare or an unachievable dream. In the time of global climate change and ecological crises, it is often argued that we can only look toward the future because all points of reference established in the past are void in the face of the unprecedented challenges to humanity in the twenty-first century, leaving us with no helpful experience to fall back on in the face of an uncertain and threatening future (Beck 2004;Giddens 2003;McNeill 2001). The frames that are activated in the current discourse on sustainability transformation lead us to believe that our agency in the present is reduced to quick responses that override democratic, deliberative, and local options in order to avoid tipping points. Today, it is not a lack of knowledge or technical solutions that inhibits societal transformation. Instead, studies in sustainability science frequently point out that current attempts to advise, guide, and implement sustainability suffer from an inability to examine and challenge prevailing values, habits, and ways of thinking Fig. 1 This figure shows the prevailing references to the past in the two prevailing frames of sustainability transformation, and which kind of (Cornell et al. 2010; Dryzek and Pickering 2019; Horcea-Milcu solutions these understandings entail; own figure in reference to Steffen et al. 2019; Stirling 2014). This resonates with ideas that our et al. (2015) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015) society at the “end of history” (Fukuyama 1992), being stuck in an eternal now, cannot imagine a future that radically differs imply new ways of thinking, tools, and approaches either, con- from the present (Hartog 2015). trary to its appearance (Moretti and Pestre 2015). The roots of We may, however, break free from the “eternal now” by find- this problem, as we have shown in this paper, lie in the role that is ing new points of reference for what is thinkable and doable in the assigned to the past. here and now. Researchers, too, can create space for different Facing a lack of public response and effective political versions of societal change through an empowering and liberating action to handle the urgent situation, attention is drawn to view on the past, the future, and the present (Fazey et al. 2018; global-scale solutions like geoengineering for industrial car- Harvey 1996). By questioning what we have been taking for bon capture and solar radiation management (Markusson et al. granted in our perspectives on the past and the future, we can 2014; Victor et al. 2009). These solutions, however, premise identify the transformative potential that lies in the present, eco-authoritarian governance and preclude democratic pro- allowing us to create space for sustainability transformation that cesses (Shahar 2015; Shearman and Smith 2007;Ophuls rests on responsibility and accountability on all levels of action. 1977; Wigley 2006). The favouring of top-down solutions Acknowledgements Open access funding provided by Umea University. has resulted in a strand of denialism regarding the science of We thank our colleagues in the project Anna Sténs, Elsa Reimerson, climate change that presents itself as a defender of liberal and Camilla Sandström, Eva-Maria Nordström, Isabella Hallberg-Sramek, democratic rights (Mann and Wainwright 2018). and Annika Mossing. We also want to thank Daniel Nyström for giving Moreover, both frames disconnect options for transforma- constructive comments on the manuscript. tive change from the here and now (Jamieson 2014;Morton Funding This research was funded through the interdisciplinary research 2013) and fail to motivate and legitimise sustainability trans- project “Bring down the Sky to the Earth: How to use forests to open up formation because it is “out of sync with the timelines expe- for constructive climate change pathways in local contexts” supported by rienced by and meaningful to people” (Lynch and Veland FORMAS, the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development 2018, 83). They also promote sustainability solutions defined (dnr. 2017-01956). and steered through top-down processes. The neglect of social Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons and local dimensions illustrates how the current discourse Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- struggles to provide new views on present-day social struc- tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- tures and how it leaves aside questions about transforming vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were structures of finance and economy that have, to a great extent, made. The images or other third party material in this article are included led to the sustainability crises societies face today (Horcea- in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a Milcu et al. 2019; Markard et al. 2012; Stirling 2014;Scoones credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by et al. 2015). J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 83 statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain Epstein MJ, Rejc Buhovac A (2010) Solving the sustainability implemen- permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this tation challenge. Organ Dyn 39:306–315 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Fazey I, Moug P, Allen S, Beckmann K, Blackwood D, Bonaventura M, Burnett K et al (2018) Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda. Clim Dev 10:197–217 Friese H (2010) Times, histories and discourse. Rethink Hist 14:405–420 Fukuyama F (1992) The end of history and the last man. Simon and References Schuster, New York Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfigura- tion processes: a multi-level perspective and a case study. Res Policy Adloff F, Neckel S (2019) Futures of sustainability as modernization, 31:1257–1274 transformation, and control: a conceptual framework. Sustain Sci Gibbon E (1776-1789) The history of the decline and fall of the Roman 14:1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00671-2 Empire. Strahan and Gadell, London AnderssonJ(2018)Thefutureoftheworld:futurology,futurists,andthestruggle Giddens A (2003) Runaway world: how globalization is reshaping our for the post Cold War imagination. Oxford University Press, Oxford lives. Routledge, New York Balvanera P, Calderón-Contreras R, Castro AJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis. Harper, New York Geijzendorffer IR, Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Arbieu U, Speranza Hampton SE, Strasser CA, Tewksbury JJ, Gram WK, Budden AE, CI, Locatelli B, Harguindeguy NP, Mercado IR, Spierenburg MJ, Batcheller AL, Duke CS, Porter JH (2013) Big data and the future Vallet A, Lynes L, Gillson L (2017) Interconnected place-based of ecology. Front Ecol Environ 11:156–162 social–ecological research can inform global sustainability. Curr Hartog F (2015) Regimes of historicity. Presentism and experiences of Opin Environ Sustain 29:1–7 time (S. Brown, trans.). Columbia University Press, New York Beck U (2004) A critical introduction to risk society. Pluto Press, London Harvey D (1996) Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ (eds) (1989) The social construction of Blackwell, Oxford technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history Horcea-Milcu AI, Abson DJ, Apetrei CI, Duse IA, Freeth R, Riechers M, of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge Lam DPM, Dorninger C, Lang DJ (2019) Values in transformation- Blue G (2016) Framing climate change for public deliberation: what role al sustainability science: four perspectives for change. Sustain Sci for interpretative social sciences and humanities? J Environ Policy 14:1425–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00656-1 Plan 18:67–84 IPCC (The International Panel on Climate Change) (2018) Summary for Blythe J, Silver J, Evans J, Armitage D, Bennett NJ, Moore ML et al Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 C (2018) The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary approved by governments. https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/ sustainability discourse. Antipode 50:1206–1223 summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global- Bowler PJ (1992) The Fontana history of the environmental sciences. warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/ accessed July 7 2020 Fontana Press, London Ives CD, Freeth R, Fischer J (2020) Inside-out sustainability: the neglect Braudel F (1982) On history. University of Chicago Press, Chicago of inner worlds. Ambio 49(1):208–217 Bretherton FP (1985) Earth system science and remote sensing. Proc Jamieson D (2014) Reason in a dark time. Why the struggle against IEEE 73:1118–1127 climate change failed - and what it means for our future. Oxford Brown K, O’Neill S, and Fabricius C (2013) Social science understandings of University Press, Oxford transformation. Pages 100-107 in ISSC and UNESCO. World Social Jouzel J, Masson-Delmotte V, Cattani O, Dreyfus G, Falourd S, Science Report (Changing Global Environments) 2013 Hoffmann G, Minster B, Nouet J, Barnola JM, Chappellaz J, Brulle RJ (2010) From environmental campaigns to advancing the public Fischer H, Gallet JC, Johnsen S, Leuenberger M, Loulergue L, dialog: environmental communication for civic engagement. Luethi D, Oerter H, Parrenin F, Raisbeck G, Raynaud D, Schilt A, Environ Commun 4(1):82–98 Schwander J, Selmo E, Souchez R, Spahni R, Stauffer B, Steffensen Bushel S, Colley T, Workman M (2015) A unified narrative for climate JP, Stenni B, Stocker TF, Tison JL, Werner M, Wolff EW (2007) change. Nat Clim Chang 5:971–973 Orbital and millennial antarctic climate variability over the past 800, CaradonnaJL(2014)Sustainability.AHistory.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford 000 years. Science 317:793–796 Carlsson A, Hjelm O, Baas L, Eklund M, Krook J, Lindahl M, Sakao T Kallis G (2018) Degrowth. Agenda Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne (2015) Sustainability jam sessions for vision creation and problem Karlsson R (2016) Three metaphors for sustainability in the solving. J Clean Prod 98:29–35 Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review 3(2):23–32. https://doi. Catton WR (1982) Overshoot. The ecological basis of revolutionary org/10.1177/2053019615599415 change. University of Illinois Press, Chicago Klenk N, Meehan K (2015) Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Clark WC, Harley AG (2019) Sustainability science: towards a synthesis. problematizing the integration imperative. Environ Sci Pol 54:160–167 (No. 2019–01; sustainability science program working paper). John Koehler G (2015) Seven decades of “development”, and now what? J Int F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Dev 27:733–751 Cole MA (1999) Limits to growth, sustainable development and environ- Lakoff A (2007) Preparing for the next emergency? Publ Cult 19:247–271 mental Kuznets curves: an examination of the environmental impact Lakoff G (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ of economic development. Sustain Dev 7(2):87–97 Commun 4(1):70–81 Colocousis CR, Rebellon CJ, Smith N, Sobolowski S (2017) How long Lam DPM, Hinz E, Lang DJ, Tengö M, von Wehrden H, Martín-López B can we keep doing this? Sustainability as a strictly temporal concept. (2020) Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transforma- J Environ Stud Sci 7:274–287 tions research: a literature review. Ecol Soc 25(1):3 Cornell S, Sörlin S, Costanza R, van der Leeuw S (2010) Developing a Landrum NE, Ohsowski B (2018) Identifying worldviews on corporate systematic science of the past to create our future. Glob Environ sustainability: a content analysis of corporate sustainability reports. Chang 20:423–425 Bus Strategy Environ 27:128–151 Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. LeMenager S (2013) Living oil: petroleum culture in the American cen- Penguin, London tury. Oxford University Press, Oxford Dryzek JS, Pickering J (2019) The politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford Lewis SL, Maslin MA (2015) Defining the Anthropocene. Nature University Press, Oxford 519(7542):171–180 84 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 Liebowitz SJ, Margolis SE (1995) Path dependence, lock-in, and history. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, pp 205–226 et al (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32 Linnér BO, Wibeck V (2019) Sustainability transformations. Agents and Rosa EA, Machlis GE, Keating KM (1988) Energy and society. Annu drivers across societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Rev Sociol 14:149–172 Lumsden S (2018) Hegel and pathologized modernity, or the end of spirit Russill C, Nyssa Z (2009) The tipping point trend in climate change in the anthropocene. Hist Theory 57:371–389 communication. Glob Environ Chang 19:336–344 Lynch AH, Veland S (2018) Urgency in the Anthropocene. MIT Press, Sardar Z (1993) Colonizing the future: the ‘other’ dimensions of future Cambridge studies. Futures 25:179–187 MacLean J (2020) Rethinking the role of nonstate actors in international Schneider B (2014) Red futures: the colour red in scientific imagery of climate governance. Loy U Chi Int'l L Rev 16:21–43 climate change. In: Juneja M, Schenk GJ (eds) Disaster as image. Mahoney J (2000) Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory Soc Iconographies and Media Strategies across Europe and Asia. 29:507–548 Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, pp 183–194 Malthus TR (1798) An essay on the principle of population. Reprint Scoones I, Newell P, Leach M (2015) The politics of green transformations. 2004. Edited with an introduction and notes by Geoffrey Gilbert. In: Scoones I, Newell P, Leach M (eds) The politics of green transfor- Oxford University Press, Oxford mations. Pathways to sustainability. Earthscan, New York, pp 1–24 Mann ME (2013) The hockey stick and the climate wars: dispatches from Scott JC (1998) Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the the front lines. Columbia University Press, New York human condition have failed. Yale University Press, New Haven Mann G, Wainwright J (2018) Climate leviathan. A Political Theory of Shahar DC (2015) Rejecting eco-authoritarianism, again. Environ Values Our Planetary Future. Verso, London 24:345–366 Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an Shearman DJ, Smith JW (2007) The climate change challenge and the emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41:955–967 failure of democracy. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport Markusson N, Ginn F, Singh Ghaleigh N, Scott V (2014) ‘In case of Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C (2015) The emergency press here’: framing geoengineering as a response to trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The dangerous climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev Clim Change 5: Anthropocene Rev 2:81–98 281–290 Stirling A (2014) Emancipating transformations: from controlling “the Marx K (1867) Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie. Verlag transition” to culturing plural radical progress. Working Paper no von Otto Meissner, Hamburg 12, Geoengineering Governance Research. University of Oxford, Matutinovic I (2007) An institutional approach to sustainability: historical University of Sussex and University College London, Oxford interplay of worldviews, institutions and technology. J Econ Issues Strunz S, Marselle M, Schröter M (2019) Leaving the “sustainability or 41:1109–1137 collapse” narrative behind. Sustain Sci 14:1–12. https://doi.org/10. McNeill JR (2001) Something new under the sun: an environmental history of 1007/s11625-019-00673-0 the twentieth-century world. WW Norton & Company, London Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (2015) Newsletter of the McNeill JR (2003) Observations on the nature and culture of environ- Anthropocene Working Group no 6. http://quaternary.stratigraphy. mental history. Hist Theory 42(4):5–43 org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Anthropocene-Working-Group- McNeill JR, Engelke P (2014) The great acceleration: an environmental Newsletter-Vol-6-release.pdf (accessed 26 June 2019) history of the Anthropocene since 1945. The Belknap Press of Tollefson J (2017) Trump pulls United States out of Paris climate agreement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London Nature News. https://www.nature.com/news/trump-pulls-united-states- Meadows DH, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth: a out-of-paris-climate-agreement-1.22096 (accessed 20 June 2019) report to the Club of Rome. Universe Books, New York Toulmin S, Goodfield J (1982) The discovery of time. University of Melosi MV (2010) Humans, cities, and nature: how do cities fit in the Chicago Press, Chicago material world? J Urban Hist 36:3–21 United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 Merchant C (1981) The death of nature: women, ecology, and scientific September 2015 70/1 transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for revolution. Harper Collins, New York Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York Moore JW (2017) The Capitalocene, part I: on the nature and origins of Victor DG, Morgan MG, Apt J, Steinbruner J, Ricke K (2009) The our ecological crisis. J Peasant Stud 44:594–630 geoengineering option. A last resort against global warming? Moretti F, Pestre D (2015) Bankspeak. The language of world bank Foreign Aff 88:64–76 reports. New Left Rev 92:75–99 Warde P (2018) The invention of sustainability: nature and Destiny, c. Morton T (2013) Hyperobjects. Philosophy and ecology after the end of 1500–1870. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge the world. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Warde P, Sörlin S, Robin L (2018) The environment: a history of the idea. Mosley S (2001) The chimney of the world: a history of smoke pollution in John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Victorian and Edwardian Manchester. White Horse Press, Cambridge White L (1967) The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155: Norgaard KM (2011) Living in denial: climate change, emotions, and 1203–1207 everyday life. MIT Press, Cambridge Wigley TM (2006) A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to OphulsW(1977)Ecologyandthe politicsofscarcity.WH Freeman,NewYork climate stabilization. Science 314(5798):452–454 Pinker S, Lakoff G (2007) Does language frame politics? PPR 14(1):59– Wilson S, Carlson A, Szeman I (2017) Petrocultures: oil, politics, culture. McGill-Queen’s Press, Montreal Polk M (2014) Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical Yanarella EJ, Levine RS, Lancaster RW (2009) Green versus sustainabil- exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research ity. Sustainability 2(5) and societal problem solving. Sustain Sci 9:439–451 Zachos J, Pagani M, Sloan L, Thomas E, Billups K (2001) Trends, Purvis B, Mao Y, Robinson D (2019) Three pillars of sustainability: in rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. search of conceptual origins. Sustain Sci 14(3):681–695 Science 292:686–693 Robin L, Warde PC, Sörlin S (2018) The environment: a history of the idea. JHU Press Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48:369–384 tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences Springer Journals

Narrow pasts and futures: how frames of sustainability transformation limit societal change

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/narrow-pasts-and-futures-how-frames-of-sustainability-transformation-pv3arna24G

References (110)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020
ISSN
2190-6483
eISSN
2190-6491
DOI
10.1007/s13412-020-00636-3
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Two frames dominate present-day interpretations of sustainability and approaches to sustainability transformation in national and global policy arenas. One frame relates to transformation in global environmental governance that promotes goal-oriented agendas. The other frame relates to earth system sciences where sustainability transformation means breaking the devastating trends of the Anthropocene. In this paper, we examine the historical and cultural underpinnings of these two frames, each invoking particular relations and approaches to sustainability transformation. Our contribution is to discuss the role of the past in these frames and to illuminate how current outlooks toward the future still rely on principles that emerged in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Europe and thus hinder alternative approaches to transformation in the present. . . . . . . Keywords Sustainability History Sustainability transformation Frame Climate change Agenda 2030 Sustainable development goals Earth system sciences Introduction the functioning of ecosystems and human health would re- quire “rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, in- Calls for societal transformation toward sustainability have dustry, buildings, transport and cities” (IPCC 2018). come from all levels of public and corporate policy-making The vision of sustainability transformation, a profound and in recent years. Non-governmental organizations as well as fundamental change in how society relates to nature, is seen as research suggest that climate and ecological crises require an the only possible way out of the downward spiral. The future unprecedented effort and societal change (Adloff and Neckel pathways shaped in the current discourse, however, run the 2019;UN 2015). The IPCC special report released in October risk of limiting actual transformation because they either lack 2018, as a response to the United Nation’s Paris Agreement legitimacy, reduce the diversity of actors and knowledge signed in 2016, pointed out that limiting global warming to types, or represent business-as-usual approaches (Blythe 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and ensuring et al. 2018;Colocousiset al. 2017). Two frames in particular dominate present-day interpreta- tions of sustainability and approaches to initiating sustainabil- * Janina Priebe ity transformation. One frame relates to transformation in janina.priebe@umu.se global environmental governance that promotes goal- oriented agendas. The other frame for sustainability transfor- Erland Mårald mation relates to earth system sciences, where sustainability erland.marald@umu.se transformation means breaking the devastating trends of the Annika Nordin Anthropocene. annika.nordin@slu.se Overall, the ambiguities and limitations of these two frames as well as the tensions between them are well explored. We Department of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Umeå also recognise earlier research on the emergence of the con- University, Umeå, Sweden 2 cept of sustainability in environmental policies in the second Arctic Research Centre, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden half of the twentieth century and the critique of the ambivalent Department of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Swedish notion of sustainable development (Caradonna 2014; University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden Robinson 2004). What is missing from these discussions, J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 77 however, is an examination of the historical and cultural un- the understanding of linguistic frames to frames as they are derpinnings of the dominating frames that fail to deliver real understood in the social sciences. The latter uses the concept change toward sustainability. of frame to illuminate interpretative practice, and actors’ per- The debate about transformation is strongly oriented to- ceptions about reality, as well as what ways of communicating ward the future, whereas perceptions of the past and the ways about and organising society this entails, for instance, regard- these enable or impede change are barely considered. Yet, the ing climate change responses (Blue 2016). understandings of the past, though oblique, are reflected in the In brief, the two frames that this article highlights and that metaphors and imagery as well as in the logic of the promoted are repeatedly activated in the present-day debate about sus- approach to climate change and ecological crises. To expound tainability transformation can be delineated as follows. The upon these understandings of the past, we examine what role frame of global environmental governance consists, among is assigned to the past and how historical developments are others, of the roles of global institutions and nation states. interpreted and used to argue for change in the present in the Relations considered meaningful within this frame are, for prevailing frames of sustainability transformation. By instance, the global institutions, such as the United Nations analysing how meaning is given to particular approaches to (UN), that provide agendas for coordinated action to be im- sustainability transformation, our contribution is to critically plemented by the states, which in turn hand down this agenda discuss the central but problematic role of the past in these to regions and municipalities. Sustainability transformation is frames. framed as the reward for successful progress through the agen- da for sustainable development (UN 2015)that ensures away Framing sustainability transformation to stay “on track” toward predetermined goals. This frame delineates clearly how sustainability transformation can be The notion of sustainability transformation has spawned a initiated. It confines action to actors connected on a global whole research field (e.g. Clark and Harley 2019; Linnér level, and determines action as being directed from the top and Wibeck 2019), and it has replaced the much-debated con- level. Besides the UN member states, the UN also consists cept of sustainable development with “transformation” as the of the so-called third UN, which includes experts, private leading principle of policies on the local, national, and global economy actors, and large non-governmental institutions that level. are globally connected (Koehler 2015). The latter actors have The language of the current sustainability discourse is sat- acquired meaningful roles in the frame of global environmen- urated with metaphors of great leaps and humankind’s tal governance, and they are presented to have key positions transforming power, thereby activating certain frames of in- for sustainability transformation. In contrast, citizens and issue terpretation and action. As we will elaborate on in this paper, alliances, or unexpected and uncoordinated behaviour, are not part of this frame, despite their growing importance for cli- we find that references to two frames clearly dominate ap- proaches to sustainability transformation. The term “transfor- mate action in practice (MacLean 2020). mation” itself activates frames relating to human industrious- The second frame we critically explore is that of earth ness and the ability to shape both society and environment systems sciences, which includes the roles of natural scien- alike. tists, governmental bodies, and the Earth’s natural systems. In The cognitive linguist George Lakoff defines frames as the the twentieth century, earth system sciences brought together conceptual structures that link language to meaning (Lakoff natural sciences about planetary processes, like hydrology, 2010). The frames are part of a system of individual human climatology, and geology, with social sciences that engaged perceptions, which functions as a framework for interpreta- with processes seen to function on a global level, too, such as tions (Lakoff 2010;Goffman 1974). Lakoff focusses on how economics and population dynamics. The perspective of earth expressions, and the narratives that are evoked within partic- system sciences was born out of the increased computational ular frames, activate (or block) strategies for change in peo- capacity to process large amounts of quantitative data, and it ple’s behaviour. We are aware that researchers have criticized, encouraged the interpretation of changes according to those among other aspects, Lakoff’s role as a climate change and trends that became identifiable (Robin et al. 2018). environmental communications expert with a publicly pro- The earth systems perspective emphasises inertia and long- gressive stance (e.g. Brulle 2010). term statistical trends with devastating effects (Bretherton As the purpose of this paper is to trace assumptions about 1985). By digging down in ice cores and sediment layers, the past in frames that shape the currently prevailing discur- earth systems science uncovers rhythms and aberrations over sive frames of sustainability transformation, Lakoff’stheory millions of years of past trajectories (Jouzel et al. 2007; needs to be connected to a wider understanding of frames, Zachos et al. 2001). This frame assigns key roles to longitu- especially in cases where scientific knowledge is integrated dinal graphs concerning, for instance, populations, energy use, into frames and leads to different responses (Pinker and transportation, carbon dioxide, methane, ocean acidification, Lakoff 2007). In our analysis, we thus relate insights from tropical forest loss, and terrestrial biosphere degradation that 78 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 should act as motivators for change (Hampton et al. 2013; philosopher and legal scholar Karl Marx (1818–1883) saw Steffen et al. 2015). The earth systems sciences’ framing of the past, the present, and the future as being driven by the sustainability transformation focuses on turning around trends prevailing mode of production, thereby forging social classes, of, for instance, particle concentrations, but does not demand a ideologies, and ways of thinking (Marx 1867). Material con- questioning of societal structures or agency, or the practices ditions, economic relations, power struggles, and drastic trans- driving the identified trends. formations are thus at the core of this philosophy of history, where socialism finalises societal progress. Although with a very different political-ideological back- Understandings of transformations in history drop, a similar teleological perspective, liberalism, was a shaping force in the first half of the twentieth century. The The term “sustainability transformation” in national and glob- British historian Herbert Butterfield (1900–1979) criticized al policy arenas reflect the principles and values defined dur- the retrospect interpretation of societal development as prog- ing the European industrialisation and relating to, broadly ress toward liberal democracy in his “Whig interpretation of speaking, keeping up the material basis of industrial develop- history” (1931). The retrospect construction of progress, ment. In recent transformations literature, too, the role of in- Butterfield concluded, neglected the perspectives of contem- digenous and placed-based knowledge is marginalized, and, if poraries on the changes of their own time and their options for examined, focusses mainly on regions historically considered change. The view on history as development along the lines of remote from centres of industrial development, such as the progress, however, became popular once again with the end of Arctic (Lam et al. 2020). As a result of this lack of diversity, the Cold War. With the seeming victory of liberal democracy, calls for alternative approaches to sustainability transforma- the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama declared tion have grown over the past decades, including the acknowl- “the end of history” (Fukuyama 1992). edgement of different types of knowledge and cultural con- Another strand of thinking interpreted societal change as texts (Brown et al. 2013;Ives et al. 2020), and the focus on being an adjustment to inevitable circumstances that could not local instead of global perspectives (Balvanera et al. 2017). be influenced by societies. The French historian Braudel However, the understanding of sustainability transformation (1902–1985) developed the concept of la longue durée,the in global institutions and economic system is firmly rooted in long duration, that connects historical events into societal and the Western scientific paradigm, and it still resonates with the geological changes over millennia (Braudel 1982). The other notion of sustainable development that has prevailed since the two timespans identified by Braudel are the short-term second half of the twentieth century. événements, focussing on specific individuals and events, Throughout human history, different understandings and and the medium-term conjunctures, describing societal shifts interpretations of profound societal change have laid the foun- over decades and centuries. It is, according to Braudel, the dations for different approaches to inform, guide, and facilitate long duration that has the ultimate explanatory power, and this transformation, or to maintain business as usual and prevailing view has dominated the natural sciences since the late eigh- power structures. These understandings have always been teenth century. The major interests of natural scientists re- formed in a specific context, and they have reflected people’s volved around how long, drawn-out geological changes hopes as much as they have mirrored fears, and this repertoire shaped the basis for the diversity of life, as explained, for of interpretations continues to define our approaches to sus- instance, in Charles Darwin’s theory of biological evolution tainability transformation. (Bowler 1992; Toulmin and Goodfield 1982). One long-standing approach to societal change is the no- The British cleric and political scholar Thomas tion of human societies striving toward a telos—a destiny or a Robert Malthus (1766–1834) provides another promi- state of completion—like the realisation of liberalism or mo- nent example for seeing explanatory power in the dernity. Forged in continental Europe, this teleological think- long-term trends of history. At the turn of the nine- ing has inspired different interpretations of the past and the teenth century, Malthus derived from the observation future to very different ends. The belief in the progress of of past developments that population growth was expo- human society toward the better was, however, always at the nential, while food supply growth was linear—a condi- centre of this way of thinking (Scott 1998). This has been a tion that inevitably pointed at a coming collapse well-known historiographical outlook since the eighteenth (Malthus 1798). This way of connecting the past and century, and it provided the philosophical underpinning of the future became prevalent in social planning and fu- industrialisation. German philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel ture studies during the second half of the twentieth cen- (1770–1831) understood the ideals of European civilisation tury (Andersson 2018). These understandings of how as possessing a formative power, moving through history profound change in society takes place and can be from East to West, where Hegel believed it reached its com- brought about merged into the underpinnings of sustain- pletion (Friese 2010;Lumsden 2018). The German ability transformation. J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 79 Underpinning the frames of sustainability governance and was handed down to national and local policy transformation arenas. We can easily recognise that seeing the future as an agenda Warnings of environmental and societal decline were frequent we set up firmly relates to a teleological understanding of his- in the nineteenth century, with the fall of the Roman Empire as tory and future that was a known understanding of change the prime example (Gibbon 1776–1789;Diamond 2005). The throughout history (Sardar 1993). In the case of global environ- narrative of how environment and society are bound to each mental governance, however, this approach entails maintaining other if one tumbles toward the abyss is the origin of the idea an idea of progress that emerged during industrialisation—a of sustainability (Warde 2018). The concept of sustainability historical period that is now deemed to be the origin of unsus- itself, meaning the keeping human endeavours within the limit tainable structures, practices, and habits in society and econom- of nature’s resources and replenishment rates, originated from ics. The language of goals, development, and progress mani- German scientific forestry’sidea of Nachhaltigkeit in the mid- fests in a frame that leads to envisioning sustainability transfor- eighteenth century. The idea of sustainable yield was about mation as the continuing progress of society along the known keeping timber extraction and forest growth in balance be- path of development. cause the shortage of wood would massively impede industri- Moreover, while adopting the language of organisation and al development (Caradonna 2014). The concept of sustainabil- management realms, both corporate and public actors increas- ity more broadly was further triggered by the observation of ingly approach the transformation toward sustainability as a nature’s degradation in the wake of industrialisation in “business case” or “strategy”, meaning the alignment of ac- Europe. tions to reach a specific goal (e.g. Epstein and Rejc Buhovac The notion of “paradise lost”,nature’s decline at the hands 2010). In corporate sustainability strategies, however, the pro- of humans, has over the years seen different underlying nar- cess to attain the goal of sustainability is commonly subordi- ratives where Christianity (White 1967), science (Merchant nated to previously prioritised ends and embedded in existing 1981), or capitalism (Moore 2017) were seen as the culprits structures (Landrum and Ohsowski 2018). that have compromised the ecological foundation and Research, too, has turned to engage with “sustainability pristineness of our world. Similar narratives have laid the challenges” and “problem-solving”. Tapping new sources of foundation for environmentalism since the 1960s and 1970s, knowledge, for instance, through engaging with stakeholders but they have a much longer history in, for instance, the in transdisciplinary projects or developing tools to enhance European and American nature conservation movements in problem-solving creativity, are focus areas of these recent ap- the nineteenth century that followed diverse objectives proaches to “tackle” or “solve” sustainability problems (Warde et al. 2018). (Carlsson et al. 2015; Klenk and Meehan 2015;Polk 2014). Ensuring that nature would continue to provide for industrial Considering the historical understandings of societal growth and development was again at the centre of the sustain- change, there is another facet of how sustainability transfor- able development discourse during the second half of the twen- mation is approached. Earth systems science is a key to tieth century, while other objectives of sustainability were side- interpreting environmental changes, which are increasingly tracked and contained in the sphere of non-governmental actors translated into what should be done in society to accommo- and environmental interest groups (Robinson 2004). This frame date these changes. The past appears as the origins of trends, is an antidote to the declensionist narratives described above anchoring the approach to sustainability transformation in a (McNeill 2003;Melosi 2010). Paradoxically, though, especially large-scale temporal and spatial perspective. the understanding of sustainability transformation in the arena of Following the Malthusian idea of exponentially increasing environmental governance also feeds on narratives of decline that threats, the Club of Rome, a group of world-leading econo- conjure up the approaching catastrophe if current rates of con- mists and scientists, published the report “The Limits to sumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and acidification are not Growth” (1971). The publication of the report led to intense radically cut. debate in the 1970s when it used computer models to put the The aim of environmental governance is to set up an agen- limelight on the critical line between human growth and the da that gets society off of the downward spiral of unsustain- planet’s carrying capacity. The report applied the Malthusian able practices. In 1992, the United Nations’ Earth Summit conception of the past (Meadows et al. 1972). Only shortly resulted in the establishment of Agenda 21, the first clearly after, the idea of ecological overshoot, the crossing of the goal-oriented global environmental strategy and the predeces- limits of earth’s carrying capacity to support the human pop- sor to both the Millennium (2000) and Sustainable ulation, developed on the same grounds (Catton 1982). The Development Goals (2015). Finalising and uniting progress notion of long-term statistical trends that could extend from on all levels of development in society, economy, and the the past into a catastrophic future remained at the centre of the environment within a manageable timeframe of a few years sustainability discourse during the late twentieth century. This or decades became the guiding idea of global environmental understanding of history laid the groundwork for defining 80 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 sustainability as the effort to stay within planetary limits and to limit the global average temperature rise to below 2 degrees handle the scarcity of resources (Bushel et al. 2015). Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The argument was based on With the conception of the past as the origin of long-term the assumption that limiting emissions would weaken economic trends, future developments are derived from historical data, development in the USA, using the link established between the leading to the identification of irreversible developments and past long-term trends of economic development and CO emis- tipping points based on past conditions. Visually, the data take sions as the prime argument (Tollefson 2017). This argument on the shape of a sharply rising curve, be it population growth resembles what has since the late nineteenth century been under- or parameters of ecological decline, pointing at the coming stood as the link between energy consumption and societal ad- collapse. In recent years, the image of the curve’s sharp rise vancements, brought forward by the British intellectual Herbert from the 1950s onward has become known as the “hockey Spencer. Still, and despite the models offering alternative views stick”, continuing its climb into the future as human impacts on production and consumption, the thesis of energy flow that on ecological systems increase even more (Mann 2013). translates into societal development has remained a powerful This salient visualisation of trends and tipping points indi- frame throughout the twentieth century until to date (Rosa et al. cates an emergency and the need for an urgent response 1988). (Russill and Nyssa 2009). Researchers claim that the pace of In the same way, the critique that accompanied the “Limits to human impact on the ecological systems on a planetary scale Growth” report targeted the linking of long-term trends. The hasinrecenttimes takenupspeed—a shift referred to as the report’s major flaw did not lay in the prediction of population Great Acceleration (McNeill and Engelke 2014; Steffen et al. growth itself, critics pointed out, but in the assumed direct corre- 2015). The Great Acceleration can be understood as the inten- lation between the earth’s carrying capacity and land area, and sifying phase of the Anthropocene, the geological period the focus on physical instead of societal factors (Cole 1999). marking the significant impacts of human activities and spe- Rather than as the only conceivable correlation, these critiques cific economic structures on global ecosystems and geology suggested that the relation should be regarded as just one of many (Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy 2015; Lewis and possible interpretations where two different developments— Maslin 2015). population growth and land use—are directly and causally linked. The choice of relations between parameters to identify “trends” establishes explanations and connections, and these, in One-dimensional outlooks—failing turn, can manifest in values that are difficult to change and that transformation inhibit radical new ways of thinking. Today, too, the two prevailing frames of sustainability trans- Environmental governance and earth systems sciences have built formation offer only limited types of actions that are promoted as up frames that create one-dimensional outlooks on the future. suitable and effective answers to imagined pasts and futures. The Imagining trend lines that extend from the past into the future, actions that are represented as being central are, on the one hand, as it is evoked by the earth systems science frame, is the creation the aversion of catastrophe, and, on the other hand, following the of meaningbyselectingparameterstobemeasuredasproxies for predetermined roadmap toward sustainability. In the frame of substantial societal changes. For example, the measurement of earth systems science, the curves that visualise the global-scale greenhouse gases and the impact assessment of industrial pollution impacts of industrial activities since the Great Acceleration take on the earth’s climate undoubtedly deal with reality, regardless of on the role of early warning signs or act as clear evidence that the perspective on the consequences or implications for actions. planetary boundaries of humanity’s safe operating space have Combining trend lines also means interpreting correlations already been crossed (Dryzek and Pickering 2019; Rockström between different parameters as causal relations and establishing et al. 2009; Schneider 2014). The metaphor of the tipping point, axiomatic agendas as a result. The UN Paris Agreement (2016) visualised by the abruptly rising curves in climate and environ- and the UN 2030 agenda (2015) both emphasise the link be- mental service data, lets us imagine we are standing at the abyss tween CO emissions and historical economic development of (Karlsson 2016). From here departs the idea of the climate crisis the industrial states. This direct link was true for the past, and still as an “imminent peril”, and to ensure sustainability and avert today, the narrative established by these trends, combining the catastrophe actions beyond what societies have established as rising CO curve with growing economic wealth, implies the acceptable decision-making processes are silently accepted idea that a reduction of the former inevitably leads to a reduction (Lakoff 2007;Markussonetal. 2014). of the latter. This conclusion, in turn, weakens ways of thinking The earth system science frame with its focus on long-term of economic development as being decoupled and independent trends creates a stark ambivalence between the perceived urgen- from emissions (Kallis 2018). Donald Trump, the president of cy to act and the ineffectiveness of the actions initiated in this the USA, announced in June 2017 that the USA had withdrawn frame (Strunz et al. 2019). Trend thinking fuels emergency rhe- from the Paris Agreement in which the signing member states toric, while implying that local actions in the present are ineffec- tive because the dangerous trend of climate change began long committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in order to J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 81 ago and has already reached a scale beyond individual or com- transformation. Understandings of the past, we argue, are crucial munity control. for what options are considered to be viable to initiate transfor- Understanding the past as the origin of trend lines emphasises mative change. The present-day debate is dominated by just two inertia by highlighting the evolutionary buildup, or the gradual frames that diminish alternative understandings and narratives, and inexorable decline (or progress) of structures, institutions, thereby offering only limited creativity and innovation for and regimes (Bijker et al. 1989;Geels 2002; Mahoney 2000). change. The last decades have also seen a streamlining of re- This frame manifests the lock-ins and gridlocks societies have sponses to climate change and ecological crises with the struggled with since the onset of the overwhelming unsustainable institutionalisation of environmentalism (Robin et al. 2018). trends, and it even inhibits transformative changes that could end The frames of environmental governance and earth systems sci- the conflicts and deficiencies originating in the past (Liebowitz ence both rely on simplified imaginary and language, illustrated and Margolis 1995; Matutinovic 2007). One example of how by the hockey stick curves and the colourful seventeen boxes permanent the frames for thinking and the promoted combination containing the Sustainable Development Goals. of trend lines and values into fixed agendas can become comes Most crucially, however, the roots of these future outlooks from late nineteenth century Britain and the early-industrial town build on the proposition of interconnected industrial and soci- of Manchester. The environmental historian Stephen Mosely etal development that came to be widely accepted in the eigh- identifies the “correlation between pollution and prosperity” teenth and nineteenth century Europe. Today, it remains axi- where coal smoke in the house and the city was seen to indicate omatic that societal development relates to satisfying the the wealth and well-being of its inhabitants (Mosley 2001). needs of an industrialised society, still manifesting imagined Initiatives to promote other types of energy, coming from differ- connections between progress, economic growth, emissions, ent business and NGO backgrounds, used human health, envi- natural resource extraction, and wealth. These understandings ronmental pollution, and urban aesthetics as main arguments to exclude alternative notions of what sustainability transforma- support a narrative that linked coal smoke to inefficiency and tion can entail, and they stalemate attempts to overcome worn waste. These arguments did not, Mosley concludes, diminish out ideas. the coal smoke’s appeal as a familiar indicator of wealth at that The systems that are activated by references to environ- point. Coal smoke and the pollution resulting from it were al- mental governance and earth systems science frames do not ready part of another, more compelling narrative that connected provide any useful tools or reactions to initiate sustainability the coal hearth and smoke-blackened surfaces and walls in transformation in the context of present-day society. Instead, homes with both prosperity and the agency to choose their “goals these frames create feelings of insufficiency and “climate in life” (Mosley 2001, 116). angst”, or fatalism and denial (Norgaard 2011). We see a A similar dynamic is observable in the ongoing energy tran- focus on either catastrophic tipping points or the management sition in the twenty-first century, and “petrocultures” have recent- of off-track challenges. Figure 1 shows how the past is used as ly come into focus in research. During the last century, fossil oil, a basis for how future challenges are interpreted and how these and the products made from it, has shaped our societies’ identities interpretations, for instance, seeing either tipping points or off- to a considerable extent, giving way to a “petroculture”. Fossil oil track challenges, lead to a certain framing of solutions. has connected us to global commercial networks, transformed The repertoire of understandings of and approaches to trans- the material world around us, altered our bodies, and formed formative change seems to oscillate between limitations and our understandings with seemingly infinite progress and global boundlessness. The historical roots of sustainability, closely mobility (Wilson et al. 2017). The term “petromelancholia” has linked to increasing uses of renewable natural resources, centred been suggested to describe the grieving of oil resources and the on identifying the limits of sustainable yield of a resource’sex- pleasures they sustain (LeMenager 2013). At its heart lies the traction level. The 1970s saw an acute awareness of limits, and a same close association of wealth and environmental pollution renewed critique of economic and population growth, spurred by that Mosely identified for smoke-blackened walls and furniture. the oil crisis and environmental justice movements sending rip- The examples of petromelancholia and late nineteenth century ples through the global system. However, the discourse turned, Manchester’s coal smoke show how the dimensions of history within years, to revolve around the formula that would create a and future are attached to the present, continually affecting our “win-win” scenario, and the balance of social, economic, and understandings, deliberations, and decision-making. environmental sustainability as a save way to continue on the growth pathway (Purvis et al. 2019). A further reduction of the facets of sustainability occurred with the substitution of “sustain- Why do both frames fail to initiate able” with “green” practices and products, which further transformative change? narrowed the focus to individuals as consumers in the sustain- ability discourse of the last decade and distracted from systemic In this paper, we use the concept of frames to analyse, in partic- failures to ensure sustainability (Yanarella et al. 2009). The latest semantic turn toward “transformation” does not necessarily ular, the role of the past in current frames of sustainability 82 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 Concluding remarks Our current understanding of the past can turn sustainability transformation into either an authoritarian nightmare or an unachievable dream. In the time of global climate change and ecological crises, it is often argued that we can only look toward the future because all points of reference established in the past are void in the face of the unprecedented challenges to humanity in the twenty-first century, leaving us with no helpful experience to fall back on in the face of an uncertain and threatening future (Beck 2004;Giddens 2003;McNeill 2001). The frames that are activated in the current discourse on sustainability transformation lead us to believe that our agency in the present is reduced to quick responses that override democratic, deliberative, and local options in order to avoid tipping points. Today, it is not a lack of knowledge or technical solutions that inhibits societal transformation. Instead, studies in sustainability science frequently point out that current attempts to advise, guide, and implement sustainability suffer from an inability to examine and challenge prevailing values, habits, and ways of thinking Fig. 1 This figure shows the prevailing references to the past in the two prevailing frames of sustainability transformation, and which kind of (Cornell et al. 2010; Dryzek and Pickering 2019; Horcea-Milcu solutions these understandings entail; own figure in reference to Steffen et al. 2019; Stirling 2014). This resonates with ideas that our et al. (2015) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015) society at the “end of history” (Fukuyama 1992), being stuck in an eternal now, cannot imagine a future that radically differs imply new ways of thinking, tools, and approaches either, con- from the present (Hartog 2015). trary to its appearance (Moretti and Pestre 2015). The roots of We may, however, break free from the “eternal now” by find- this problem, as we have shown in this paper, lie in the role that is ing new points of reference for what is thinkable and doable in the assigned to the past. here and now. Researchers, too, can create space for different Facing a lack of public response and effective political versions of societal change through an empowering and liberating action to handle the urgent situation, attention is drawn to view on the past, the future, and the present (Fazey et al. 2018; global-scale solutions like geoengineering for industrial car- Harvey 1996). By questioning what we have been taking for bon capture and solar radiation management (Markusson et al. granted in our perspectives on the past and the future, we can 2014; Victor et al. 2009). These solutions, however, premise identify the transformative potential that lies in the present, eco-authoritarian governance and preclude democratic pro- allowing us to create space for sustainability transformation that cesses (Shahar 2015; Shearman and Smith 2007;Ophuls rests on responsibility and accountability on all levels of action. 1977; Wigley 2006). The favouring of top-down solutions Acknowledgements Open access funding provided by Umea University. has resulted in a strand of denialism regarding the science of We thank our colleagues in the project Anna Sténs, Elsa Reimerson, climate change that presents itself as a defender of liberal and Camilla Sandström, Eva-Maria Nordström, Isabella Hallberg-Sramek, democratic rights (Mann and Wainwright 2018). and Annika Mossing. We also want to thank Daniel Nyström for giving Moreover, both frames disconnect options for transforma- constructive comments on the manuscript. tive change from the here and now (Jamieson 2014;Morton Funding This research was funded through the interdisciplinary research 2013) and fail to motivate and legitimise sustainability trans- project “Bring down the Sky to the Earth: How to use forests to open up formation because it is “out of sync with the timelines expe- for constructive climate change pathways in local contexts” supported by rienced by and meaningful to people” (Lynch and Veland FORMAS, the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development 2018, 83). They also promote sustainability solutions defined (dnr. 2017-01956). and steered through top-down processes. The neglect of social Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons and local dimensions illustrates how the current discourse Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- struggles to provide new views on present-day social struc- tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- tures and how it leaves aside questions about transforming vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were structures of finance and economy that have, to a great extent, made. The images or other third party material in this article are included led to the sustainability crises societies face today (Horcea- in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a Milcu et al. 2019; Markard et al. 2012; Stirling 2014;Scoones credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by et al. 2015). J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 83 statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain Epstein MJ, Rejc Buhovac A (2010) Solving the sustainability implemen- permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this tation challenge. Organ Dyn 39:306–315 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Fazey I, Moug P, Allen S, Beckmann K, Blackwood D, Bonaventura M, Burnett K et al (2018) Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda. Clim Dev 10:197–217 Friese H (2010) Times, histories and discourse. Rethink Hist 14:405–420 Fukuyama F (1992) The end of history and the last man. Simon and References Schuster, New York Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfigura- tion processes: a multi-level perspective and a case study. Res Policy Adloff F, Neckel S (2019) Futures of sustainability as modernization, 31:1257–1274 transformation, and control: a conceptual framework. Sustain Sci Gibbon E (1776-1789) The history of the decline and fall of the Roman 14:1015–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00671-2 Empire. Strahan and Gadell, London AnderssonJ(2018)Thefutureoftheworld:futurology,futurists,andthestruggle Giddens A (2003) Runaway world: how globalization is reshaping our for the post Cold War imagination. Oxford University Press, Oxford lives. Routledge, New York Balvanera P, Calderón-Contreras R, Castro AJ, Felipe-Lucia MR, Goffman E (1974) Frame analysis. Harper, New York Geijzendorffer IR, Jacobs S, Martín-López B, Arbieu U, Speranza Hampton SE, Strasser CA, Tewksbury JJ, Gram WK, Budden AE, CI, Locatelli B, Harguindeguy NP, Mercado IR, Spierenburg MJ, Batcheller AL, Duke CS, Porter JH (2013) Big data and the future Vallet A, Lynes L, Gillson L (2017) Interconnected place-based of ecology. Front Ecol Environ 11:156–162 social–ecological research can inform global sustainability. Curr Hartog F (2015) Regimes of historicity. Presentism and experiences of Opin Environ Sustain 29:1–7 time (S. Brown, trans.). Columbia University Press, New York Beck U (2004) A critical introduction to risk society. Pluto Press, London Harvey D (1996) Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ (eds) (1989) The social construction of Blackwell, Oxford technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history Horcea-Milcu AI, Abson DJ, Apetrei CI, Duse IA, Freeth R, Riechers M, of technology. MIT Press, Cambridge Lam DPM, Dorninger C, Lang DJ (2019) Values in transformation- Blue G (2016) Framing climate change for public deliberation: what role al sustainability science: four perspectives for change. Sustain Sci for interpretative social sciences and humanities? J Environ Policy 14:1425–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00656-1 Plan 18:67–84 IPCC (The International Panel on Climate Change) (2018) Summary for Blythe J, Silver J, Evans J, Armitage D, Bennett NJ, Moore ML et al Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 C (2018) The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary approved by governments. https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/ sustainability discourse. Antipode 50:1206–1223 summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global- Bowler PJ (1992) The Fontana history of the environmental sciences. warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/ accessed July 7 2020 Fontana Press, London Ives CD, Freeth R, Fischer J (2020) Inside-out sustainability: the neglect Braudel F (1982) On history. University of Chicago Press, Chicago of inner worlds. Ambio 49(1):208–217 Bretherton FP (1985) Earth system science and remote sensing. Proc Jamieson D (2014) Reason in a dark time. Why the struggle against IEEE 73:1118–1127 climate change failed - and what it means for our future. Oxford Brown K, O’Neill S, and Fabricius C (2013) Social science understandings of University Press, Oxford transformation. Pages 100-107 in ISSC and UNESCO. World Social Jouzel J, Masson-Delmotte V, Cattani O, Dreyfus G, Falourd S, Science Report (Changing Global Environments) 2013 Hoffmann G, Minster B, Nouet J, Barnola JM, Chappellaz J, Brulle RJ (2010) From environmental campaigns to advancing the public Fischer H, Gallet JC, Johnsen S, Leuenberger M, Loulergue L, dialog: environmental communication for civic engagement. Luethi D, Oerter H, Parrenin F, Raisbeck G, Raynaud D, Schilt A, Environ Commun 4(1):82–98 Schwander J, Selmo E, Souchez R, Spahni R, Stauffer B, Steffensen Bushel S, Colley T, Workman M (2015) A unified narrative for climate JP, Stenni B, Stocker TF, Tison JL, Werner M, Wolff EW (2007) change. Nat Clim Chang 5:971–973 Orbital and millennial antarctic climate variability over the past 800, CaradonnaJL(2014)Sustainability.AHistory.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford 000 years. Science 317:793–796 Carlsson A, Hjelm O, Baas L, Eklund M, Krook J, Lindahl M, Sakao T Kallis G (2018) Degrowth. Agenda Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne (2015) Sustainability jam sessions for vision creation and problem Karlsson R (2016) Three metaphors for sustainability in the solving. J Clean Prod 98:29–35 Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review 3(2):23–32. https://doi. Catton WR (1982) Overshoot. The ecological basis of revolutionary org/10.1177/2053019615599415 change. University of Illinois Press, Chicago Klenk N, Meehan K (2015) Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Clark WC, Harley AG (2019) Sustainability science: towards a synthesis. problematizing the integration imperative. Environ Sci Pol 54:160–167 (No. 2019–01; sustainability science program working paper). John Koehler G (2015) Seven decades of “development”, and now what? J Int F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Dev 27:733–751 Cole MA (1999) Limits to growth, sustainable development and environ- Lakoff A (2007) Preparing for the next emergency? Publ Cult 19:247–271 mental Kuznets curves: an examination of the environmental impact Lakoff G (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environ of economic development. Sustain Dev 7(2):87–97 Commun 4(1):70–81 Colocousis CR, Rebellon CJ, Smith N, Sobolowski S (2017) How long Lam DPM, Hinz E, Lang DJ, Tengö M, von Wehrden H, Martín-López B can we keep doing this? Sustainability as a strictly temporal concept. (2020) Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transforma- J Environ Stud Sci 7:274–287 tions research: a literature review. Ecol Soc 25(1):3 Cornell S, Sörlin S, Costanza R, van der Leeuw S (2010) Developing a Landrum NE, Ohsowski B (2018) Identifying worldviews on corporate systematic science of the past to create our future. Glob Environ sustainability: a content analysis of corporate sustainability reports. Chang 20:423–425 Bus Strategy Environ 27:128–151 Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. LeMenager S (2013) Living oil: petroleum culture in the American cen- Penguin, London tury. Oxford University Press, Oxford Dryzek JS, Pickering J (2019) The politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford Lewis SL, Maslin MA (2015) Defining the Anthropocene. Nature University Press, Oxford 519(7542):171–180 84 J Environ Stud Sci (2021) 11:76–84 Liebowitz SJ, Margolis SE (1995) Path dependence, lock-in, and history. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, pp 205–226 et al (2009) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32 Linnér BO, Wibeck V (2019) Sustainability transformations. Agents and Rosa EA, Machlis GE, Keating KM (1988) Energy and society. Annu drivers across societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Rev Sociol 14:149–172 Lumsden S (2018) Hegel and pathologized modernity, or the end of spirit Russill C, Nyssa Z (2009) The tipping point trend in climate change in the anthropocene. Hist Theory 57:371–389 communication. Glob Environ Chang 19:336–344 Lynch AH, Veland S (2018) Urgency in the Anthropocene. MIT Press, Sardar Z (1993) Colonizing the future: the ‘other’ dimensions of future Cambridge studies. Futures 25:179–187 MacLean J (2020) Rethinking the role of nonstate actors in international Schneider B (2014) Red futures: the colour red in scientific imagery of climate governance. Loy U Chi Int'l L Rev 16:21–43 climate change. In: Juneja M, Schenk GJ (eds) Disaster as image. Mahoney J (2000) Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory Soc Iconographies and Media Strategies across Europe and Asia. 29:507–548 Schnell & Steiner, Regensburg, pp 183–194 Malthus TR (1798) An essay on the principle of population. Reprint Scoones I, Newell P, Leach M (2015) The politics of green transformations. 2004. Edited with an introduction and notes by Geoffrey Gilbert. In: Scoones I, Newell P, Leach M (eds) The politics of green transfor- Oxford University Press, Oxford mations. Pathways to sustainability. Earthscan, New York, pp 1–24 Mann ME (2013) The hockey stick and the climate wars: dispatches from Scott JC (1998) Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the the front lines. Columbia University Press, New York human condition have failed. Yale University Press, New Haven Mann G, Wainwright J (2018) Climate leviathan. A Political Theory of Shahar DC (2015) Rejecting eco-authoritarianism, again. Environ Values Our Planetary Future. Verso, London 24:345–366 Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an Shearman DJ, Smith JW (2007) The climate change challenge and the emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41:955–967 failure of democracy. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport Markusson N, Ginn F, Singh Ghaleigh N, Scott V (2014) ‘In case of Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C (2015) The emergency press here’: framing geoengineering as a response to trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. The dangerous climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev Clim Change 5: Anthropocene Rev 2:81–98 281–290 Stirling A (2014) Emancipating transformations: from controlling “the Marx K (1867) Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Oekonomie. Verlag transition” to culturing plural radical progress. Working Paper no von Otto Meissner, Hamburg 12, Geoengineering Governance Research. University of Oxford, Matutinovic I (2007) An institutional approach to sustainability: historical University of Sussex and University College London, Oxford interplay of worldviews, institutions and technology. J Econ Issues Strunz S, Marselle M, Schröter M (2019) Leaving the “sustainability or 41:1109–1137 collapse” narrative behind. Sustain Sci 14:1–12. https://doi.org/10. McNeill JR (2001) Something new under the sun: an environmental history of 1007/s11625-019-00673-0 the twentieth-century world. WW Norton & Company, London Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (2015) Newsletter of the McNeill JR (2003) Observations on the nature and culture of environ- Anthropocene Working Group no 6. http://quaternary.stratigraphy. mental history. Hist Theory 42(4):5–43 org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Anthropocene-Working-Group- McNeill JR, Engelke P (2014) The great acceleration: an environmental Newsletter-Vol-6-release.pdf (accessed 26 June 2019) history of the Anthropocene since 1945. The Belknap Press of Tollefson J (2017) Trump pulls United States out of Paris climate agreement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London Nature News. https://www.nature.com/news/trump-pulls-united-states- Meadows DH, Randers J, Behrens WW III (1972) The limits to growth: a out-of-paris-climate-agreement-1.22096 (accessed 20 June 2019) report to the Club of Rome. Universe Books, New York Toulmin S, Goodfield J (1982) The discovery of time. University of Melosi MV (2010) Humans, cities, and nature: how do cities fit in the Chicago Press, Chicago material world? J Urban Hist 36:3–21 United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 Merchant C (1981) The death of nature: women, ecology, and scientific September 2015 70/1 transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for revolution. Harper Collins, New York Sustainable Development. United Nations, New York Moore JW (2017) The Capitalocene, part I: on the nature and origins of Victor DG, Morgan MG, Apt J, Steinbruner J, Ricke K (2009) The our ecological crisis. J Peasant Stud 44:594–630 geoengineering option. A last resort against global warming? Moretti F, Pestre D (2015) Bankspeak. The language of world bank Foreign Aff 88:64–76 reports. New Left Rev 92:75–99 Warde P (2018) The invention of sustainability: nature and Destiny, c. Morton T (2013) Hyperobjects. Philosophy and ecology after the end of 1500–1870. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge the world. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Warde P, Sörlin S, Robin L (2018) The environment: a history of the idea. Mosley S (2001) The chimney of the world: a history of smoke pollution in John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Victorian and Edwardian Manchester. White Horse Press, Cambridge White L (1967) The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155: Norgaard KM (2011) Living in denial: climate change, emotions, and 1203–1207 everyday life. MIT Press, Cambridge Wigley TM (2006) A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to OphulsW(1977)Ecologyandthe politicsofscarcity.WH Freeman,NewYork climate stabilization. Science 314(5798):452–454 Pinker S, Lakoff G (2007) Does language frame politics? PPR 14(1):59– Wilson S, Carlson A, Szeman I (2017) Petrocultures: oil, politics, culture. McGill-Queen’s Press, Montreal Polk M (2014) Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical Yanarella EJ, Levine RS, Lancaster RW (2009) Green versus sustainabil- exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research ity. Sustainability 2(5) and societal problem solving. Sustain Sci 9:439–451 Zachos J, Pagani M, Sloan L, Thomas E, Billups K (2001) Trends, Purvis B, Mao Y, Robinson D (2019) Three pillars of sustainability: in rhythms, and aberrations in global climate 65 Ma to present. search of conceptual origins. Sustain Sci 14(3):681–695 Science 292:686–693 Robin L, Warde PC, Sörlin S (2018) The environment: a history of the idea. JHU Press Robinson J (2004) Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- sustainable development. Ecol Econ 48:369–384 tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Journal

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences – Springer Journals

Published: Sep 5, 2020

There are no references for this article.