Contesting the greening of the urban growth machine: Ecological modernization and the promethean counter-discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urban environmental governance and planning are increasingly characterized by the adoption of “sustainability fixes,” namely political compromises which try to conciliate economic and ecological goals in order to safeguard long-term growth. If sustainability fixes have been harshly criticized for being sociospatially selective, resistance to them does not always come from radical groups who demand stronger and fairer measures, but from actors who oppose the idea of sustainability because it goes against their interests, habits, or values. This paper focuses on this “contestation of the greening of the urban growth machine,” by presenting an empirical study of a sustainable mobility policy in Quebec City, Canada, which has given rise to a controversy opposing two divergent perspectives. The first is an ecological modernization discourse advocating for a green and attractive public transit system. The second is a promethean counter-discourse which supports the unconditional growth of automobility and urban sprawl. Results show that even if urban environmental policies are increasingly attuned to the “growth first” logic, they could still face strong opposition, especially from suburban and conservative interests. More generally, this paper shows that, in some contexts, sustainability fixes could be a “better than nothing” solution, namely a step toward fairer and greener cities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".