Editorial

Journal of Environment &

Sustainable Development Development

2014, Vol. 23(1) 3–14

in a Globalized World ! The Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1070496514521418
jed.sagepub.com
Lennart Olsson1, Jean-Charles Hourcade2,
and Jonathan Köhler3

Abstract
In this special issue of the Journal of Environment and Development, we present results
from the research project Globalisation Informed by Sustainable Development
(GLOBIS), 2009–2014, funded by the European Union Framework Programme 7.
Starting from and focusing on international policies on agriculture, energy, innov-
ation, migration, and transport at both European Union and global levels, the dual
aim of the project was to critically analyze interactions between the three major
processes and discourses of globalization, development, and sustainability while also
identifying and commenting on synergies and conflicts between them.

Keywords
globalization, development, sustainable development, climate change, agriculture
and food, transportation, energy, eco-innovation, migration

Introduction
We proceed from the understanding that globalization, development, and sus-
tainability are discussed in normative languages of conflicting goals, means, and
visions while also interacting in complex and contextually mediated ways.
Importantly, the three processes have different degrees of institutionalization
and operationalization and are driven by different, sometimes conflicting inter-
ests. In this editorial, we introduce and contextualize the three global processes

1
LUCSUS (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies), Lund, Sweden
2
Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement (CIRED), Nogent sur
Marne, France
3
Fraunhofer-Institut für System-und Innovationsforschung (ISI), Karlsruhe, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Lennart Olsson, LUCSUS (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies), Box 170, Lund, 22100,
Sweden.
Email: lennart.olsson@lucsus.lu.se
4 Journal of Environment & Development 23(1)

before presenting the main ideas of the six articles that may serve as inspiration
and for problematization of the emerging Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs).

On Globalization
The scholarly literature on globalization including its origin, dynamics, benefits,
or perils, could now fill a medium-sized library, and comprises not only propon-
ents and opponents of globalization but also believers in globalization as an
ongoing process from time immemorial, outright deniers of the validity of the
concept itself and advocates of “postglobalization” as the main attribute of our
era (Beck, 2011; Feenstra, 2014; Ferguson, 2005; Guillén, 2001). The impression
that time–space compression is a salient feature of the contemporary world was
suggested by David Harvey (1989). In 1990, Anthony Giddens proposed that to
cope with the reality of globalization, social science should shift its focus from
the study of human societies to “time–space distanciation.” Further, and in the
words of Manuel Castells (2000), it is striking that we all experience “simultan-
eity in social relations.” This produces unprecedented scope for the impacts of
the actions of one group of people (or nations) on the course of events in other
parts of the world, and for generations to come. The time and space nexus is
thereby at the core of sustainability and a plea for what Brown (2008) calls
“normative globalization.”

On Development
Development defies simple definitions due to its rich postwar history of theory,
practice and ideology rooted in the enlightenment and the ideas of social
change in the early 19th century. Methodologically, development implies
both goals and means, where goals are often expressed as long-term aims
while means are mainly formulated in short-term policies. In some cases, mod-
ernization and industrialization have been viewed both as goals and as means
of development, but experiences of pollution, resource degradation, and deple-
tion (Angel & Rock, 2005; York & Rosa, 2012) imply that “modernity no
longer seems so attractive in view of ecological problems” (Pieterse, 2010, p.
1). In light of these and other contested views of development, the relevance of
the discourse may be questioned (Cornwall, 2007) as may its ambivalent results
(Jönsson, Jerneck, & Arvidson, 2012).
Development theory have neglected the dynamics of the physical environ-
ment wherein (socioeconomic) development is supposed to take place (Cowen
& Shenton, 1996; Pieterse, 2010). Even when development theory highlights the
fact that poverty and environment are intertwined, it often stops there, or resorts
to sweeping statements on the need for efficient use of resources. Some may even
propose that the topic of ‘development and environment’ is highly controversial
Olsson et al. 5

(Meier, 1995). With the assumption, thrown up by climate change, of profound

global, regional, and local repercussions on natural resources, and other assets
on which livelihoods of the poor are based (Field et al., 2012), it becomes a
problem when the development discourse externalizes negative impacts of
resource exploitation and pollution. Although the scientific community agrees
that climate change will alter the conditions for production and consumption
substantially, the development discourse lacks a systemic analysis of the Earth
system and its social implications.
Mainstreaming as a process may not solve burning social, political, and envir-
onmental issues. The continued loss of biodiversity (Mace, Masundire, & Baillie,
2005) and the lingering absence of gender equality (Jerneck & Olsson, 2014) are
conspicuous examples. Mainstreaming can create conflicting goals, loss of pol-
itical force, and methodological problems resulting from an overloading of the
discourse. As examples, sustainable development is more complex than the
“greening” of development projects, while gender equality is more complex
and structurally embedded than the often simplified “gendering” of development
projects assumes (Kabeer, 2005).

On Sustainable Development
Sustainable development as a political and scientific agenda emerged as a pol-
itical vision with the Brundtland Report “Our Common Future” in 1987 (World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The concept has evoked
many meanings and aroused much political and academic debate since then.
While many criticize sustainable development for its promise to “square the
circle” (Dryzek, 1997; W. Sachs, 1999) by identifying a new development
model that will promote growth while assuming an ecologically sustainable
and just world order, it has also been welcomed as a generative metaphor
around which conflicting environmental and economic interests can meet
(Fisher & Hajer, 1997; Hajer, 1995).
Sustainable development can be seen as a political vision underpinned by the
theory of ecological modernization (Jerneck & Olsson, 2014; York, Rosa, &
Dietz, 2010). This implies four main principles (Mol, 1997): First, modern sci-
ence and technology is important for ecologizing the economy. Second, there is
no inherent conflict between the economy and the environment, hence market
instruments should be harnessed for sustainable development by internalizing
externalities—economizing ecology. Third, the role of the state ought to change
to become more proactive in mobilizing private actors to take initiative, such as
corporate social responsibility. Fourth, social movements should change from
watchdogs to active participants in sustainable development. In essence, the
theory of ecological modernization has developed in tandem with neoliberal
ideology resulting in what several scholars call green neoliberalism (Bakker,
2010; Castree, 2010; Goldman, 2005).
6 Journal of Environment & Development 23(1)

Although contested, the variety of definitions for sustainable development

proposed over the past decades seems to converge around concerns for peace,
justice, development, and the environment (Kates, Parris, & Leiserowitz, 2005).
If sustainable development is the process, sustainability is the goal. In contrast,
sustainable development, as a paradigm and transition process, strives to deal
with both temporal and nature–society complexities. As we see it, sustainable
development offers at least three advantages over the development discourse.
First, sustainable development theorizes the Earth system per se, as well as
short- and long-term dynamics and relations to society; second, as a conse-
quence of severe and partly unavoidable future impacts of climate change, sus-
tainable development includes future generations and societies; and, third,
sustainable development appeals to all countries to embark on a sustainability
transition, whereas development appeals mainly to developing countries and to
living generations or generations in the very near future. These core aspects of
sustainable development are undertheorized by development theory and while
absent from development practice such reasoning is compatible with transition
theory (Geels, 2011).
If development was institutionalized through the Bretton Woods system
with its powerful agencies and agreements and an evolving network of multi-
lateral and bi-lateral development organisations (Jönsson et al., 2012), then
sustainable development was institutionalized through a system of political
meetings, such as the Rio conference in 1992, the Johannesburg conference in
2012 and the Rio+20 in 2012 as well as the multi-lateral conventions of the
UNFCC, UNCBD and UNCCD1 along with political declarations such
as Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration (Clémençon, 2012a). Compared to
the development discourse – even including all its polemics, impasses and short-
comings (Jönsson et al., 2012) – sustainable development remains polarised
and divisive as illustrated by the lack of progress at the Rio+20 conference
(Clémençon, 2012b) and at the UNFCC meetings since COP15 in Copenhagen
in 2009.
In this special issue, we focus on five central international policy areas that
are key to the three global processes and discourses: food, agriculture, and
land use; international transport; energy; eco-innovation; and migration. The
special issue is introduced by Jerneck (2014) who discusses how the three dis-
courses both intersect with and deviate from each other. Proceeding from
the assumption that sustainable development have barely advanced beyond pol-
itical rhetoric, she discusses the idea of a mobilizing narrative on climate change
while also suggesting substantive inputs to it. The narrative is an unfolding
story with the potential to serve as a theoretical thinking tool and an empirical
guide to promote practical action. Following that, we investigate aspects of
agriculture and food, energy, transportation, eco-innovation, and finally also
migration as a potential result of climate change and environmental
degradation.
Olsson et al. 7

On Food, Agriculture, and Land Use

Due to increasing globalizations and rapid innovation in transport and commu-
nications technologies, agriculture has shifted from a situation where food was
primarily seen as a national concern with high self-sufficiency goals (Barkin, 1987)
to a situation where food is traded just like any other commodity and is subject to
a high degree of vertical integration of value chains (Friedmann, 1993). In the
coming decades, the agricultural sector will have to solve the complex equation of
meeting growing food and energetic needs while significantly reducing its envir-
onmental impacts (Foley et al., 2011) under a changing climate (Lobell & Burke,
2010). Can this be achieved by continuing the globalized agricultural system or is
there a need for reorientation? Using the Nexus Land Use model, Brunelle,
Dumas, and Souty (2014) shows the tremendous impact globalization will poten-
tially have on agriculture and land use through its influence on global food pref-
erences. On a positive note, the article shows how globally converging healthy
lifestyles can reduce the negative environmental impacts of agriculture by 2050
substantially. Yet, business-as-usual scenarios based on increasing consumption of
meat and milk cannot be sustained by 2050. Brunelle, Dumas, and Souty (2014)
also shows how improving land management of pastures can reduce the pressure
on cropland—a potential sustainability pathway.

On International Transport
International transport is one of the important contributors to globalization, and
the two most important modes of long-haul international transport—deep sea
shipping and aviation—have seen rapid growth which is projected to continue
(Hummels, 2007; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,
2010). This growth in long-haul transport has been seen as a major driver of
economic growth, by promoting trade and hence growth in the newly industrializ-
ing countries (NICs) such as Brazil, India, and China. But it is also seen as a driver
of increasing global inequality (Ohnmacht, Maksim, & Bergman, 2009) and envir-
onmental degradation by facilitating the expansion of a high-consumption
Western lifestyle (Jorgenson, Dick, & Shandra, 2011; Meyfroidt, Lambin, Erb,
& Hertel, 2013). A typology of the potential benefits at the national, industrial,
and individual levels of international transport for sustainable development is
developed by Köhler (2014), showing impacts through the frame of the three
pillars of sustainable development—social, environmental, and economic. The
importance of international transport for enabling least developed countries
(LDCs) and NICs to participate in global political decision making and cultural
events, as well as for the development of participation in global production net-
works is identified as an area where there appear to be important effects.
However, there is little research in this area. Three scenarios of transition path-
ways are then developed.
8 Journal of Environment & Development 23(1)

The first scenario is based on sustainable development from mass diffusion of

information and computer technologies in LDCs and NICs leading to participa-
tion of LDCs in global production networks and growth in LDCs based on
Internet-based services, as well as manufacturing and raw materials extraction.
The second scenario is based on a change in social preferences toward a high
priority for the environment, leading to an extensive growth in fair-trade networks
and sustainable production and consumption. The third scenario entails economic
growth in NICs, with a higher priority placed on solving environmental problems.
This leads to economic development in LDCs through trade growth with NICs
and LDCs together with the adoption of low-emission technologies in inter-
national transport, with new firms based in NICs becoming market leaders.

On Energy
Energy is at the nexus of two sustainability concerns affecting the long-term econ-
omy, namely, climate change driven by extraction and combustion of fossil fuels
and energy security concerns driven by oil resource exhaustion and geopolitical
tensions. Compared with other environmental challenges, such as the destruction of
stratospheric ozone and acid rain, the energy system is magnitudes more complex
and difficult to deal with. Acid rain and the thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer
could be solved by technological fixes: by removing sulfur from the combustion of
fossil fuel and by changing the cooling medium in refrigerators. These technological
changes did not affect our daily lives and thus life could proceed as before. But
energy use is so intertwined with everyday life that we cannot simply pin our hopes
on a technological fix. To capture the interdependencies between the energy sector
and the macroeconomy, Waismann, Cassen, and Hourcade (2014) use the
IMACLIM-R general equilibrium model to study possible energy transition path-
ways. A key message from their study is that a simple carbon pricing mechanism is
far from enough for such an energy transition to happen. Complementary measures
in the form of infrastructural development, which could tackle, for example, trans-
port-related emissions would also be required. Considering the globalization of
capital markets, this raises crucial questions about the allocation of such invest-
ments. Their modeling exercise suggests that the efficient allocation of investments
is not automatically guaranteed by free capital markets.

On Eco-Innovation
While anthropogenic influences on global life-support systems have reached a
magnitude unprecedented in human history, to levels that now jeopardize the
well-being of humanity, the political responses to these problems are still in
their infancy. Ecological modernization has emerged as a theory as well as the
foremost political ideology to meet global sustainability challenges. With eco-
logical modernization, much fate is put on technological research and
Olsson et al. 9

development in the hope that innovation will steer the global economy in the
direction of sustainability. In their article, Walz, Köhler, and Marscheider-
Weidemann (2014) analyze the role eco-innovation may have in transition to
sustainability with a special focus on NICs. Indicators of general eco-innovation
capability suggest that while the NICs are not global leaders in eco-innovation,
several NICs (Brazil, China, Malaysia, and South Africa) have become active in
eco-innovation and some NICs (Brazil, Malaysia, Mexico, and South Africa) can
be assessed as relatively strong in sustainability technologies. Renewable energy is
an important area of eco-innovation, and Walz et al. (2014) focus on the potential
for developing the second and third generation of biofuel technologies. Several
NICs, including Indonesia, Thailand, and possibly India, have the favorable com-
bination of high biofuel production potential and the requisite technological cap-
ability to develop internationally competitive biofuel production technologies, in
order to benefit from the assumed future markets for more sustainable biofuels.

On Climate and Migration

Globalization implies increasing international flows of ideas, ideals, capital,
goods, services, and people. The mobility of people, however, is particularly div-
isive and subject to intense political debate, not least in the European Union. On
the one hand, there are apocalyptic scenarios where climate change results in mass
migration (Biermann & Boas, 2008; Myers, 1989), while on the other hand we see
increasing political mobilization of antimigration movements, particularly in
Europe. Climate change and migration has been debated for decades and is an
area of highly polarized views. To understand how environmental discourses
emerge and evolve, Bettini and Andersson (2014) compare the emerging discourse
of climate refugees with the much older desertification discourse, a policy area
often criticized for its lack of scientific rigor.

Toward SDGs
The Millennium Development Goals have been seen as the foremost global policy
initiative for concretizing sustainable development and as such they have received
much praise (Binagwaho & Sachs, 2005; J. D. Sachs et al., 2009) but also critique
(Attaran, 2005; Griggs et al., 2013; Moss, 2010; Saith, 2006). Following a proposal
by Colombia and Guatemala in 2011, the process of defining a new set of global
goals is well under way—the SDGs (Clémençon, 2012b; Glaser, 2012). The focus
on goals rather than means to achieve them is a striking similarity between the two
processes. We argue that the means to achieve the goals, the transition pathways,
are more contentious than the goals themselves and thus deserve much more
attention in research. We hope that this special issue will provide inspiration for
the process of formulating the SDGs by problematizing the means and processes
by which they can be promoted.
10 Journal of Environment & Development 23(1)

Acknowledgement
This special issue has benefitted greatly from discussions with scholars within the realm of
the Earth System Governance project under IHDP (www.earthsystemgovernance.org).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: European Union Framework Programme 7, pro-
ject GLOBIS, contract number: FP7-ENV-2008-1 (227055).

Note
1. UNFCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; UNCBD:
United Nations Convention on Biodiversity; UNCCD: United Nations Convention
to Combat Desertification. They all emerged as results of the Rio summit in 1992.

References
Angel, M. T., & Rock, D. P. (2005). Industrial transformation in the developing world.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Attaran, A. (2005). An immeasurable crisis? A criticism of the millennium development
goals and why they cannot be measured. PLoS Medicine, 2(10), e318.
Bakker, K. (2010). The limits of “neoliberal natures”: Debating green neoliberalism.
Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 715–735.
Barkin, D. (1987). The end to food self-sufficiency in Mexico. Latin American
Perspectives, 14(3), 271–297.
Beck, U. (2011). Cosmopolitan sociology: Outline of a paradigm shift. In M. Rovisco &
M. Nowicka (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to cosmopolitanism (pp. 17–32).
Farnham, England: Ashgate.
Bettini, G., & Andersson, E. (2014). Sand waves and human tides—Comparing the
debates on climate-induced migration and desertification. Journal of Environment &
Development, 23, 159–184.
Biermann, F., & Boas, I. (2008). Protecting climate refugees: The case for a global proto-
col. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(6), 8–17.
Binagwaho, A., & Sachs, J. D. (2005). Investing in development: A practical plan to achieve
the millennium development goals. London, England: Earthscan.
Brown, G. W. (2008). Globalization is what we make of it: Contemporary globalization theory
and the future construction of global interconnection. Political Studies Review, 6, 42–53.
Brunelle, T., Dumas, P., & Souty, F. (2014). The Impact of Globalization on Food and
Agriculture: The Case of the Diet Convergence. Journal of Environment & Development,
23, 41–65.
Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society
and culture (Vol. 1). Chichester, England: Blackwell.
Olsson et al. 11

Castree, N. (2010). Neoliberalism and the biophysical environment: A synthesis and

evaluation of the research. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 1(1), 5–45.
Clémençon, R. (2012a). From Rio 1992 to Rio 2012 and beyond: Revisiting the role of
trade rules and financial transfers for sustainable development. Journal of Environment
& Development, 21(1), 5–14.
Clémençon, R. (2012b). Welcome to the Anthropocene Rio+ 20 and the Meaning of
Sustainable Development. The Journal of Environment & Development, 21(3), 311–338.
Cornwall, A. (2007). Buzzwords and fuzzwords: Deconstructing the development dis-
course. Development in Practice, 17(4), 471–484.
Cowen, M. P., & Shenton, R. W. (1996). Doctrines of development. London, England:
Routledge.
Dryzek, J. (1997). The politics of the earth. Environmental discourses. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Feenstra, R. C. (2014). Globalization in an age of crisis. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Ferguson, N. (2005). Sinking globalization. Foreign Affairs, 84(2), 64–77.
Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Dokken, D., Ebi, K., . . . Allen, S.
(2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change
adaptation (A special report of working groups I and II of the intergovernmental panel
on climate change). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, F., & Hajer, M. A. (1997). Living with nature. Environmental politics as cultural
discourse. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., . . .
West, P. C. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342.
Friedmann, H. (1993). The political economy of food: A global crisis. New Left Review,
January–February 1993, (197), 29–57.
Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions:
Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
1(1), 24–40.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Glaser, G. (2012). Policy: Base sustainable development goals on science. Nature.
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1038/495305a
Goldman, M. (2005). Imperial nature: The World Bank and struggles for social justice in
the age of globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C.,
Shyamsundar, P., . . . Noble, I. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for
people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), 305–307.
Guillén, M. F. (2001). Is globalization civilizing, destructive or feeble? A critique of five
key debates in the social science literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235–260.
Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and
the policy process. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford, England: Polity Press.
Hummels, D. (2007). Transportation costs and international trade in the second era of
globalization. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 131–154.
Jerneck, A. (2014). Searching for a mobilizing narrative on climate change. Journal of
Environment & Development, 23(1), 15–40.
12 Journal of Environment & Development 23(1)

Jerneck, A., & Olsson, L. (2014). Poverty. In P. Pattberg, & F. Zelli (Eds.), Edward Elgar
encyclopedia of global environmental politics and governance. Cheltenham, England:
Edward Elgar.
Jorgenson, A. K., Dick, C., & Shandra, J. M. (2011). World economy, world society, and
environmental harms in less-developed countries. Sociological Inquiry, 81(1), 53–87.
Jönsson, K., Jerneck, A., & Arvidson, M. (2012). Politics and development in a globalised
world. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender equality and women’s empowerment. Gender and
Development, 13(1), 13–24.
Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is sustainable develop-
ment? Goals, indicators, values and practice. Environment, 47(3), 8–21.
Köhler, J. (2014). Globalization and sustainable development: Case study on inter-
national transport and sustainable development. Journal of Environment &
Development, 23(1), 66–100.
Köhler, J., Walz, R., & Marscheider-Weidemann, F. (2014). Eco-innovation in NICs:
Conditions for export success with an application to biofuels in transport. Journal of
Environment and Development, 23(1), 133–159.
Lobell, D. B., & Burke, M. (2010). Climate change and food security: Adapting agriculture
to a warmer world (Vol. 37). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Mace, G., Masundire, H., & Baillie, J. (2005). Chapter 4, Biodiversity. In R. T. Watson, &
A. H. Zakri (Eds.), Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends (Vol. 1,
pp. 77–122). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Meier, G. M. (1995). Leading issues in economic development. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Meyfroidt, P., Lambin, E. F., Erb, K.-H., & Hertel, T. W. (2013). Globalization of land
use: Distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5), 438–444.
Mol, A. P. (1997). Chapter 8, Ecological modernization: Industrial transformations and envir-
onmental reform. In M. Redclift, & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The International Handbook of
Environmental Sociology (pp. 138–149). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Moss, T. (2010). What next for the millennium development goals? Global Policy, 1(2),
218–220.
Myers, N. (1989). Environment and security. Foreign Policy, 74, 23–41.
Ohnmacht, T., Maksim, H., & Bergman, M. M. (2009). Mobilities and inequality.
Farnham, England: Ashgate.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Globalisation, trans-
port and the environment. Paris, France: Author.
Pieterse, J. N. (2010). Development theory (second edition). London, England: Sage.
Sachs, J. D., Baillie, J. E., Sutherland, W. J., Armsworth, P. R., Ash, N., Beddington, J.,
. . . Gaston, K. J. (2009). Biodiversity conservation and the millennium development
goals. Science, 325(5947), 1502–1503.
Sachs, W. (1999). Sustainable development and the crisis of nature: On the political
anatomy of an oxymoron. In F. Fisher & M. A. Hajer (Eds.), Living with nature.
Environmental politics as cultural discourse (pp. 23–42). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Saith, A. (2006). From universal values to millennium development goals: Lost in trans-
lation. Development and Change, 37(6), 1167–1199.
Olsson et al. 13

Waismann, H., Cassen, C., & Hourcade, J. C. (2014). Sustainability, globalization and
the energy sector. A global and European perspective. Journal of Environment &
Development, 23(1), 101–132.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
York, R., & Rosa, E. A. (2012). Choking on modernity: A human ecology of air pollu-
tion. Social Problems, 59(2), 282–300.
York, R., Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (2010). Chapter 8, Ecological modernization theory:
Theoretical and empirical challenges. In M. Redclift & G. Woodgate (Eds.), The
International Handbook of Environmental Sociology (2nd ed., pp. 77–90).
Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Author Biographies
Lennart Olsson is a professor of geography at Lund University and the founding
director of LUCSUS as well as coordinator of the Linnaeus Centre LUCID. His
research fields include human–nature interactions in the context of land degrad-
ation, climate change, and food security in Africa and globally. His current
research focuses on the politics of climate change in the context of poverty
and food security/sovereignty. He has had research positions in Australia, the
United States, and Hong Kong and participated in several international assign-
ments including the IPCC and UNEP-GEO assessment reports. He is currently
coordinating lead author for the chapter on livelihoods and poverty in IPCC’s
5th Assessment Report.

Jean-Charles Hourcade has a PhD in economics. He was research director at

CNRS and EHESS, and the scientific director of CIRED until his retirement in
2012. Since 1990, he has acted as an expert for the French Government, the
European Community, the World Bank, and OECD on climate negotiation and
on economic–environmental issues. He participates as coordinating lead author
in IPCC (WGIII) (SAR 1995; TAR 2001; FAR 2007; AR5 2014). Since 2006, he
coordinates the R2DS network (Réseau de Recherche sur le Développement
Soutenable), created by Conseil Régional d’Île-de-France, that gathers 60
units (in all scientific areas). Hourcade has published widely including articles
in Science, Nature, The Energy Journal, Energy Policy, Energy Economics,
Ecological Economics, and The Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization. In 1996, he created the Imaclim-R model research team in
CIRED, which took part of the 2007 World Energy Outlook of IEA (Paris).

Jonathan Köhler is a senior scientist at the Fraunhofer ISI (Institute for Systems
and Innovation Research). He has a PhD on bounded rationality in savings
decisions. From 2000 to 2005, he was research theme manager at Integrating
Frameworks, Tyndall Centre, responsible for development and coordination of
14 Journal of Environment & Development 23(1)

the research theme on integrated assessment methodologies for climate change

policy analysis, line management of research fellow, and management of 12
research projects within the theme. He has worked on IAM (Integrated
Assessment Model) development for climate policy and on EU and global
macroeconomic modeling for energy and climate policy analysis. He was
theme leader, economics in the UK OMEGA consortium on aviation and the
environment and is now working on transitions modeling and the modeling of
innovation systems and processes in transport. He is involved in the EU
CleanSky research consortium and has published on emissions trading in
aviation.
Copyright of Journal of Environment & Development is the property of Sage Publications
Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.