Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
always emphasised? Is it within more substantial notions and models of environ-
mental change in politics, technology or economics, as emphasised by Martin
Jänicke and Joseph Huber, among others? Or is it with the physical changes in terms
of environmental indicators, industrial ecology, factor 4 or factor 10, as emphasised
by some of the EM critics? The fact that this debate is still vivid is perhaps the best
proof that EM remains a relevant category in the various social science disciplines
studying the environment.
NOTES
1. These theoretical traditions range from system theoretical analyses by, for instance,
Joseph Huber (1985, 1991), more institutional analysis by, for instance, Mikael Skou
Andersen (1994) and Arthur Mol (1995), up to discourse analyses by, for instance,
Maarten Hajer (1995) and, to a lesser extent, Albert Weale (1992).
2. A full historical analysis and overview of developments in EM literature up till now
is beyond the scope of this chapter. See for such overviews the volumes edited by
Spaargaren et al. (2000) and Mol and Sonnenfeld (2000), and special issues of the
Journals
Environmental Politics
(2000, no.4),
Geoforum
(2000, no. 31),
Journal of
Environmental Policy and Planning
(2000, no. 4), and
American Behavioural Scientist
(2002, no.9). The more American-oriented journals
Society and Natural Resources
and
Organization & Environment
contain regularly ecological modernisation studies
and debates.
3. See Dryzek (1987) for an early development of the idea of an emerging ecological ration-
ality, although by then not (yet) in a framework of ecological modernisation.
4. Cf. Mol and Spaargaren (2000). This growing importance of EM perspectives is even
acknowledged by its critics, who often do not challenge the analytical and descriptive
qualities of this theory for West European societies but rather its normative undertones.
While contemporary environmental policies and reforms may indeed be 'based' on or
refl ect ideas of EM, they should be criticized for that, as such attempts to solve the
environmental crisis suffer from various problems, according to these critics.
5. For evaluations and critiques on the idea of EM as the common denominator of envi-
ronmental reform processes starting to emerge in the 1990s, see for instance: Hannigan
(2006), Christoff (1996), Blowers (1997), Gouldson and Murphy (1997), Tatenhove et
al. (2000), Blühdorn (2000), Buttel (2000), Mol and Spaargaren (2000), Pepper (1999),
Schnaiberg et al. (2002), Gibbs (2006).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andersen, M. S. (1994)
Governance by Green Taxes. Making Pollution Prevention Pay
.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Blowers, A. (1997) Environmental policy: ecological modernization and the risk society?
Urban Studies
, 34(5-6), 845-71.
Blühdorn, I. (2000) Ecological modernisation and post-ecologist politics. In G. Spaargaren,
A. P. J. Mol and F. Buttel (eds),
Environment and Global Modernity
, London: Sage.
Buttel, F. H. (2000) Ecological modernization as social theory.
Geoforum
, 31(1), 57-65.
Carolan, M. (2004) Ecological modernization: what about consumption?
Society and Natural
Resources
, 17(3), 247-60.
Christoff, P. (1996) Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities.
Environmental Poli-
tics
, 5(3), 476-500.
