Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A green theory of technological change: Ecologism and the case for technological scepticism

  • Article
  • Published:
Contemporary Political Theory Aims and scope

Abstract

Green political theory has a problem: it fails to account for human ingenuity. As a result, it has always struggled to refute the technologically optimistic notion that, in an era of rapid technological development, new technologies will materialise to resolve environmental ills. From ecologism’s first emergence, this idea has been its opponents’ ultimate recourse. It is especially significant because it denies the constitutive claim of ecologism that environmental problems require political solutions. It is in this claim that the green alternative to modernity and its ideologies is advanced. Yet, green scholars have never successfully refuted technological optimism; indeed, ecologism has always lost the scholarly battles over technological change, even as technology has failed to mitigate environmental catastrophe in the real world. This article’s green theory of technological change alters this: it shows that the green belief that technological development is unpredictable is in fact well-founded. In so doing, it buttresses the green challenge to modern political ideologies and justifies the movement for ecologism in the world. In short, it reasserts the claim that the natural is political and reinforces the need for a distinctly green version of political theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akasaki, I. (2015) Blue Light: A Fascinating Journey (Nobel Lecture). Angewandte Chemie International Edition 54(27): 7750–7763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W.B. (2009) The Nature of Technology. Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asafu-Adjaye, J. et al. 2015. An Ecomodernist Manifesto. Accessed 17th July 2020. www.ecomodernism.org

  • Barry, J. 2017. Bio-fuelling the Hummer? Transdisciplinary thoughts on techno-optimism and innovation in the transition from unsustainability. In Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Transitions to Sustainability, eds. E. Byrne, G. Mullally, and C. Sage. London: Routledge.

  • Barry, J. (1999) Rethinking Green Politics. SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basalla, G. (1989) The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. (1995) Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bookchin, M. (1971) Post-Scarcity Anarchism. The Ramparts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, R. and Fischer, J. (2013) Overcoming the technophilia/technophobia split in environmental discourse. Environmental Politics 22(2): 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromberg, J. (1988) The birth of the laser. Physics Today 41(10): 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.T. (1965) Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review 67(6): 380–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N. (2001) The Politics Of The Environment. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravorty, U., Roumasset, J. and Tse, K. (1997) Endogenous substitution among energy resources and global warming. Journal of Political Economy 105(6): 1201–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constant, E.W. (2002) Why evolution is a theory about stability: constraint, causation, and ecology in technological change. Research Policy 31(8–9): 1241–1256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bresson, C. (2013) The Evolutionary Paradigm and the Economics of Technological Change. Journal of Economic Issues 21(2): 751–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, A. (2007) Green Political Thought. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S. (2005) The Politics of the Earth. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubochet, J. (2018) On the Development of Electron Cryo-Microscopy (Nobel Lecture). Angewandte Chemie International Edition 57(34): 10842–10846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley, R. (1992) Environmentalism and Political Theory. UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisler, M. (2009) Getting power to the people. History and Technology 25(1): 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elhance, A.P. (1997) Conflict and cooperation over water in the Aral Sea basin. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 20(2): 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geim, A.K. (2010) Random walk to graphene. Nobel Lectures in Physics (2006–2010). World Scientific Publishing, pp. 310–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R.E. (1992) Green Political Theory. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer-Dixon, T. (2010) The Ingenuity Gap. Vintage Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Jasanoff, S. and Kim, S.-H. (2015) Dreamscapes of Modernity. The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kallis, G. (2011) In defence of degrowth. Ecological Economics. 70(5): 873–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keary, M. (2016) The new prometheans: Technological optimism in climate change mitigation modelling. Environmental Values 25(1): 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerschner, C., et al. (2018) Degrowth and Technology: Towards Feasible, Viable, Appropriate and Convivial Imaginaries. Journal of Cleaner Production 197: 1619–1636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiss, W. (1994) The Domination Of Nature. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucato, M. (2018) The Entrepreneurial State. Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucato, M. and Semieniuk, G. (2017) Public financing of innovation: new questions. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 33(1): 24–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D.H., et al. (1972) The Limits To Growth. Universe Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, C. (1989) The Death Of Nature. Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokyr, J. (1996). Discussion. In Conference On Growth And Development. Stanford: Center for Economic Policy Research.

  • Mokyr, J. (1990) The Lever Of Riches. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, S. (2015) Background Story of the Invention of Efficient InGaN Blue-Light-Emitting Diodes (Nobel Lecture). Angewandte Chemie International Edition 54(27): 7770–7788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, R. G. 2009. Literature Review of Recent Trends and Future Prospects for Innovation in Climate Change Mitigation. OECD Environment Working Papers (9). Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • O’Riordan, T. (2000) Environmental Science For Environmental Management. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, V. (1993) Feminism And The Mastery Of Nature. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, V. (2002) Environmental Culture. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, R. and O’Riordan, T. 2017. The Precautionary Principle Under Fire. Accessed 22nd December 2017. http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/BackIssues/2017/September-October2017/precautionary-principle-full.html.

  • Sabin, P. (2013) The Bet. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E.F. (1973) Small is Beautiful. Blond & Briggs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shellenberger, M. and Nordhaus, T. 2011. Evolve. Orion. Accessed 19th July 2020. https://orionmagazine.org/article/evolve/.

  • Shirakawa, H. (2001) The Discovery of Polyacetylene Film (Nobel Lecture). Angewandte Chemie International Edition 40(14): 2574–2580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. L. and Kahn, H. 1984. Introduction. In The Resourceful Earth, eds. J. L. Simon and H. Kahn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  • Simon, J. (1996) The Ultimate Resource. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. K. 1993. Thinking about Technological Change: Linear and Evolutionary Models. In Learning and Technological Change, ed. R. Thompson. London: The Macmillan Press.

  • Solow, R.M. (1957) Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. Review of Economics and Statistics 39: 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R.M. (1973) Is the End of the World at Hand? Challenge 16(1): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R.M. (1974) The Economics Resources of Resources or the Resources of Economics. The American Economic Review 64(2): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. (2006) Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symons, J. (2019) Ecomodernism. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symons, J. and Karlsson, R. (2015) Green political theory in a climate-changed world: between innovation and restraint. Environmental Politics 24(2): 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenner, E. (1996) Why Things Bite Back. Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN 1992. Rio Declaration On Environment And Development. Accessed 22nd December 2017. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf.

  • UNEP 2012. Global Environmental Outlook 5: Summary for Policymakers. Accessed: 27 December 2017. http://web.unep.org/geo/assessments/specialized/geo-5-summary-policy-makers.

  • van Vuuren, D.P., et al. (2010) Exploring IMAGE model scenarios that keep greenhouse gas radiative forcing below 3W/m2 in 2100. Energy Economics 32(5): 1105–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfenbarger, L.L. and Phifer, P.R. (2000) The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290(5499): 2088–2093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article was greatly improved by the criticism and advice of Karolien Michiels, John Barry, Charlie Thame, Mark Bevington, Siegfried van Duffel, Liam McMurtrie, Robert Farrell; the attendees at the BISA 2015 panel ‘The place of technology in environmental politics’; and two anonymous reviewers. I am also grateful to CPT editor Andrew Schaap for his engagement with the article and wealth of insightful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King‘s College London, London, WC2R 2LS, UK

    Michael Keary

Authors
  1. Michael Keary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Keary.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keary, M. A green theory of technological change: Ecologism and the case for technological scepticism. Contemp Polit Theory 22, 70–93 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00541-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-021-00541-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation