The concept of consumption corridors proposes minimum and maximum limits to consumption on the normative premises of justice, human wellbeing, and guarantees of a good life for all. A central objection to the idea is that limits on resource use would interfere broadly with liberal freedoms, and consumption corridors would thus not be compatible with a liberal democratic setting. This claim rests on the assumption that protecting liberal freedom rights and enforcing limits constitute opposing forces. Here, liberal freedom is equated with the expansion of (unlimited) options of choice: the more options people have, and the fewer limits that are imposed on them, the greater the overall level of freedom. Therefore, discussions of limits are often reduced to negative restrictions and undemocratic demands. To problematize this rationale, we argue that in most liberal accounts, freedom and limits are mutually supportive of each other, and that the understanding of freedom as "the absence of limits" is in fact a particular understanding that has become dominant. Against this backdrop, we develop the notion of "green liberal freedom" that posits limits as a core concern of liberal understandings of freedom. We suggest that the recognition of the environment as "provider of basic needs," democratic deliberation, and capability to reflect upon and judge conflicting values in light of individual and collective versions of the good life are important "building blocks" of an adjusted concept of freedom that is at once compatible with liberal thought and in support of the negotiation and implementation of consumption corridors