Experiments in socio-ecological change—real-world laboratories, testbeds, niche experiments, grassroots innovations—are commonly framed as a particularly promising way to respond to pressing challenges such as climate change. In contrast to top-down, expert- and techno-scientific innovation-driven, one-size-fits-all environmental interventions, experimental governance promises to work in the concrete rather than the abstract; to resonate with citizens instead of alienating them, and to give ample space to learning by surprise at a distance from regulatory controls. Without questioning the virtues of experimental governance tout court, this article challenges boosterish accounts of it by arguing and illustrating that “going experimental” may also run a risk. The palpable risk here is fostering a (local) government’s “liberation from responsibility” for tackling the climate crisis by instead encouraging a wide array of local, experimental interventions at a distance to accounting for how particular interventions relate to larger political goals—arguably a form of “organized irresponsibility.” Three common implications of the “rise of experimentation” in governing climate change contribute to this risk: the sidelining of public authority as a specific and key agent of change; the discrediting of top-down governance as undemocratic, if not authoritarian; and the sidestepping of societal change through collectively-binding political decisions. By combining empirical and theoretical insights, this article makes the case for revamping “governing (also) through government.” It does so by offering ways of rethinking public authority, top-down governance, and change by political decision without reasserting what experimentation seeks to transcend: state- and expert-centric, undemocratic, and sovereigntist forms of governing.

Emancipatory politics and the very idea of emancipation have come under pressure. Feminist and post-colonial critiques, the appropriation of emancipatory ideals by right-wing populists and the crises triggered by the transgression of planetary boundaries all expose emancipatory paradoxes and raise questions about the further suitability of emancipation as a regulative ideal guiding any socio-ecological transformation of contemporary consumer societies. With this article, which introduces a Special Issue entitled The Dialectic of Emancipation - Transgressing Boundaries and Boundaries of Transgression, we are working toward a research agenda that acknowledges the current impasse of emancipatory politics and explores its ambivalences and further potentials. Following an outline of the emancipatory paradox and a review of how emancipatory movements have continuously contested – and redrawn – restrictive boundaries, we scan sedimented understandings of the two key terms, emancipation and dialectic, feeding into the concept that we are suggesting as an analytical lens for investigating the current impasse and future prospects of emancipatory politics: the dialectic of emancipation. We preview how the contributors to this Special Issue make use of these terms as they are engaging with this research agenda and conclude by reflecting on the dangers and pitfalls associated with the concept dialectic of emancipation.

In the environmental politics literature, cities are commonly framed as key sites for a shift towards greater sustainability and urban grassroots initiatives, such as food co-ops, urban gardening initiatives, repair cafés, and libraries of things, are commonly portrayed as such a shift’s key drivers. This paper develops a critical perspective on both common portrayals. It does so by drawing on critical urban theory, especially Lefebvre’s Right to the City. First, inspired by Lefebvre’s critique of city-centrism, the paper argues that the scope and limits of urban environmentalism hinge not only on the goals pursued but also on how the urban is framed. Urban environmentalism may mean mere lifeworld environmentalism: the greening of cities as if there were (relatively) bounded sites. Yet urban environmentalism may also mean planetary environmentalism: the mapping, problematization, and transformation of unsustainable urbanization processes that underpin given sites and lifeworlds, but also operate at beyond the latter—at a societal and planetary scale. Second, inspired by Lefebvre’s reformulation of right claims as a transformative political tool, this paper takes issue with environmental practices and discourses that present society’s niches, cracks, and margins as a key fermenting ground for radical environmental change. Since not only institutional but also bottom-up pursuits of more sustainable nature-society relations often remain stuck in mere lifeworld reform, this paper foregrounds heterodox right claims as an underexplored modus operandi in active pursuits of and discourses on radical environmental change. Heterodox right claims mean the active appropriation of dominant political languages, such as the language of right, while seeking to change the latter’s grammar. What this may mean in the realm of environmental politics, will be spelled out at hand of the example of claims to a right to public transport.

Zusammenfassung: The Summary for Policy Makers presents the main results in condensed form. The summary is the result of an internal coordination process and is therefore supported by all coordinating lead authors. For each statement, the relevant chapters and the correspondence and scope of the literature are indicated. Details on the statements can be found in the respective chapters.

Consumption limits and sufficiency approaches face growing opposition in today’s political landscape. While proponents of consumption corridors (CCs) assume that setting upper consumption limits is achievable in liberal democracies, we argue that the tensions between CCs and liberal democracy are more profound than suggested. We examine the role of (high) consumption in liberal democracies to better understand the barriers to achieving a good life for all within planetary boundaries.In sustainability debates, the concept of consumption corridors (CCs) has gained prominence. CCs are understood to achieve a good life for all within planetary boundaries. This concept operates on the premise that setting upper limits to consumption is in principle feasible within liberal democracies. But to what extent, if at all, are upper limits to consumption compatible with liberal democracy? In this article, we argue that the tensions between CCs and liberal democracy may run deeper than proponents of CCs suggest. Because consumption plays a constitutive role in social reconciliation, the formation and exercise of autonomy, and democratic legitimacy in liberal democracies, introducing upper limits may indeed hit harder boundaries ‐ boundaries that sufficiency approaches to reducing consumption (and production) levels increasingly face in the current political landscape. Sharing the normative horizon of a good life for all, we propose that for CCs to become a viable lever for transformative change, a deeper analysis of existing barriers may be in order.