Conclusion: a practical politics of the Anthropocene

How exactly might ecological reflexivity be established as a core priority of social, economic, and political institutions? Rather than think in terms of any model to aim for, it is better to begin with where we are now and figure out positive moves on many fronts. Living frameworks—embodied in institutions that are flexible enough to respond to changing social and ecological conditions but stable enough to provide a basis for long-term flourishing—can facilitate such efforts. A practical politics of the Anthropocene can involve dismantling aspects of lock-in to the carbon economy and other unsustainable practices, avoiding renewed lock-in that could arise through misguided efforts to solve ecological problems, and cultivating elements of reflexivity through institutional, legal, and cultural change. Introducing elements of reflexivity—and learning from them—can facilitate more effective rethinking of dominant institutions and their pathological path dependencies, and build momentum for transformative change.

Sustainability

The idea of sustainability has dominated global environmental affairs for several decades, though sustainable development has nowhere been achieved in practice. Established conceptions of sustainable development asserting that growth, justice, and environmental protection can be mutually reinforcing now need to be rethought under the more challenging circumstances of the Anthropocene. Sustainability needs to become more reflexive: more open to a range of understandings about its own essence, more ecologically grounded, more dynamic in its responsiveness to changing social and Earth system conditions, more far-sighted in anticipating future problems (such as state shifts in the Earth system), and more effectively integrated with other social values (such as justice and democracy). These requirements are demonstrated by a critical examination of one of the largest global efforts to advance sustainability and associated values: the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015.

Governance in the Holocene

In the late Holocene, humans and their social institutions came to endanger their planetary comfort zone. Holocene institutions have had their successes when it comes to economic prosperity and even (recently) limiting violent conflict. But change that could enable governance to grapple with Anthropocene conditions is blocked where it is most needed. Dominant institutions such as states and markets have found ways to organize feedback that confirms their own necessity. Financial institutions become “too big to fail,” capitalist markets punish governments that depart from neoliberal economic recipes, and global environmental negotiations absorb the energy of activists and civil society even when they are not producing much decisive action. At the same time governance fails to take signals from a changing Earth system seriously enough—let alone anticipate future crises. As a result, institutional and policy innovation is blocked, and dysfunctional institutions and practices constitute highly problematic—even pathological—path dependency.

Democratic Anthropocene

The formative sphere is the sum of activity encompassing the creation, questioning, and development of principles for collective action. This sphere gives shape to the meaning of the Anthropocene and how its implications are taken up in collective decision-making. An effective formative sphere should operate as a deliberative and ecological democracy capable of questioning its own foundations. This chapter shows how the formative sphere can operate in interactions between experts and citizens, between the most vulnerable and their advocates, between advocates and discourse entrepreneurs, across local experiments, and across the human and non-human components of the Earth system. Contemplation of Anthropocene conditions shows that in addition to established arguments for ecological democracy, there is a new argument: the agents necessary to rethink core social values and principles to guide practice for the Anthropocene can only flourish under democratic conditions. Democracy itself is transformed in this new encounter.

Planetary justice

Reflexivity requires the capacity to reconsider core values: notably justice, which many people think is the most important societal value. Injustice looms large in an unstable Earth system, as pre-existing injustices are intensified and new ones emerge. Against those who think that the Anthropocene overrides or ignores justice by invoking ideas of emergency or by blaming humans as a whole for our predicament, this chapter shows how justice itself can be productively reimagined for the Anthropocene. The resultant planetary justice can incorporate traditional concerns about distribution of resources across rich and poor groups, recognition of the standing of historically marginalized groups, and the need to alleviate poverty. But planetary justice is much more imaginative in how it integrates justice toward future generations, non-humans, and the Earth system itself. The continuing vitality of core social values such as justice depends on their ability to co-evolve with a changing Earth system.

Anthropocene: the good, the bad, and the inescapable

The Anthropocene is an emerging epoch in the Earth system that requires a “state shift” in the way we think. The Earth system becomes much more unstable than it was in the last 12,000 years of the Holocene. The “bad Anthropocene” is associated with scientists who have identified “planetary boundaries” that must not be transgressed: so the Anthropocene is mostly something to be fought. The “good Anthropocene” is proposed by technological optimists who welcome humanity asserting benign control over what was the natural world. It is preferable to think of the inescapable Anthropocene: as something that humanity must learn to live with, for it will continue to generate novel challenges and crises in the Earth system. Human activities have a decisive causal influence on the Earth system, but to date the responses of the social sciences to the challenge have been inadequate. It is necessary to do better.

Who will form the Anthropocene?

The Anthropocene requires remaking social structures and practices. Who can do this, giving form and meaning to values such as justice, democracy, sustainability, and conservation, thereby disrupting path dependencies in ideas? Discourse entrepreneurs are leaders and activists who can advance discourses such as that of the Anthropocene itself, or shift the balance within or across discourses (such as moral and religious ones) in an ecological direction. Other vital agents include scientists and experts, cities and sub-national governments, and those most vulnerable to a damaged Earth system. Non-human nature can play a role. More conventional agents such as states, international organizations, and corporations, whose actions are vitally important receive less attention because they are not well placed to initiate change in ideas. Using illustrations from biodiversity, climate governance, and elsewhere, this chapter shows how formative agency can transform the meanings and principles that guide institutions and practices, through argument, rhetoric, and deliberation.

Governance in the Anthropocene

The opposite of path dependency is reflexivity, the capacity of structures, systems, and ideas to question their own core commitments, and if necessary change themselves, not just do different things. The main requirement of governance in the Anthropocene is ecological reflexivity, which requires listening and responding effectively to signals from the Earth system, and foresight to anticipate potentially catastrophic changes. Ecological reflexivity fights pathological path dependencies. More effective deliberative and democratic practices can help. However, no fixed model of governance is appropriate in an ever-changing Earth system. Instead, this chapter shows how to think about building the capacity of governance to change, which is much more important than any specific model. The challenge is to develop governance capacities that have never been fully demonstrated before. Looking at the ambiguous history of climate governance, we draw lessons about how ecological reflexivity can be cultivated.