PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

98
The book then proceeds to present a table detailing a four-step “Ladder of
Sustainable Development in advanced industrial societies” that ranges from an entirely
pro-growth, business-as-usual “treadmill” approach to a an entirely eco-centric/biocentric
“ideal model”. So why, one might ask, did I renege on the convenient option of simply
using this pre-existing typology for my study? The reason is simple: I ultimately found
the “Ladder” typology to be insufficient for explaining the various policy preferences of
key EU stakeholders. In particular, Baker et al’s “Ladder” strongly parallels positive,
progressive attitudes towards matters that are not strictly environmental (local selfsufficiency,
democratization, participation, redistribution) with positive attitudes for
“stronger” environmental sustainability. In my view, their “Ladder” thereby somewhat
too cleverly conflates the key dimensions of “ecology and “equity”, and thus in turn
downplays the persistence of rather divergent views on society, nature, and the
relationship between the two. Not every grass-roots citizen organization is automatically
interested in protecting the environment.
In the end, the key differences between the two typologies are as follows: My
mainstream discursive framework of “ecological modernization” more or less occupies
the ladder range between “weak” and “strong” sustainability, which, as Baker et al note,
focus on end-or-pipe to clean technologies, are based on a market-reliant to somewhat
regulated economy, and which favor certain changes in patterns of production and
consumption, to name but a few elements. My “renunciation” framework is roughly
congruent with the environmental elements of the “Ideal Model” in the “Ladder.” Yet
my three other discursive frameworks, i.e. “reflexive modernization,” “communicative
rationality,” and “political economy,” have no counterpart in the “Ladder” typology.