Wim Carton

Environmental Protection as Market Pathology?: Carbon Trading and the Dialectics of the ‘Double Movement’

Polanyis concept of the ‘double movement’ is frequently interpreted as the opposition between the problematic and unsustainable dynamics of the market and the benign and normatively desirable reaction against this by ‘society’. This paper questions this dualistic interpretation of the double movement and undertakes a problematization of the Polanyian idea of social and environmental protection. It does this by revisiting the concept of the double movement in light of the recent proliferation of market-based mechanisms for environmental regulation. Through an exploration of the different interpretations of Polanyis work, the paper presents a dialectical reading of the double movement that conceptualizes the idea of social protection within a broader capitalist framework. This is then illustrated with the case of emissions trading as a particular form of environmental protection. Carbon trading as a mitigation strategy, it is argued, corresponds to the Polanyian idea of ‘social protection’ in that its protective potential to reduce emissions is itself constrained by the socioeconomic framework within which it operates. This in turn points to the need for a critique of climate mitigation efforts that goes beyond a focus on current problems with emissions trading schemes.

Revisiting the “Subsumption of Nature”: Resource Use in Times of Environmental Change

Global material flows and resource use are increasing rapidly, with dramatic social and environmental consequences (Schandl et al. 2016). “Nature,” in all its different forms and functions, is being put to use for an expanding range of social and economic purposes, including through resource extraction and intensified cultivation. A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP 2011, 7) report, for example, notes that over the past century, “the annual extraction of construction materials grew by a factor of 34, ores and minerals by a factor of 27, fossil fuels by a factor of 12, biomass by a factor of 3.6, and total material extraction by a factor of about eight”, a trend that shows little signs of leveling off. Meanwhile, an influential Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) agricultural assessment report estimates roughly a doubling of both meat and dairy production over the first half of the 21st century, on the back of already rapid increases over the last decades (80% increase in global meat consumption and 42% increase in global milk consumption for 1980–2002) (Steinfeld et al. 2006). The unintended consequences of this expanding extraction, exploitation, and productive consumption of materials and organisms are widely known. It has triggered far-reaching changes to socionatural systems, raising widespread concerns over resource depletion, environmental degradation, pollution and—through fossil fuel combustion and livestock rearing—climate change. The depth of these concerns is powerfully illustrated by fears that humankind has now left the Holocene geological epoch, “the only global environment that we are sure is a ‘safe operating space’ for the complex, extensive civilization that Homo Sapiens has constructed” (Steffen et al. 2011, 747), to enter an uncertain Anthropocene, a thoroughly anthropogenic epoch in which “natural forces and human forces become intertwined, so that the fate of one determines the fate of the other” (Zalasiewicz et al. 2010, 2231). The recent intensification of the Anthropocene debate, in all its controversies (see, e.g., Malm and Hornborg 2014; Moore 2016), and the importance attributed to questions of environmental sustainability raise pertinent questions about the exact character of the relationship between “society” and “nature,” a question that has been of interest to scholars for ages but that, as a consequence of environmental concerns, is receiving increased attention (see, e.g., Goldman and Schurman 2000; Beck 2010; Castree 2010; Clark 2011; Moore 2015). This special issue aims to contribute to these debates by revisiting one particular thesis on socioecological relations, namely, the idea that resource use and environmental change are characterized by the subsumption of nature to industrial production processes (Boyd, Prudham, and Schurman 2001). While the origins of this idea come from a specific theoretical (Marxist) perspective, it is our contention that it raises larger questions that should be of interest not just to eco-Marxists and scholars of socioecological relations, but also to organizations grappling with environmental issues in a more hands-on way, none defined

Where Forest Carbon Meets Its Maker: Forestry-Based Offsetting as the Subsumption of Nature

ABSTRACT The “subsumption of nature” framework focuses on productivity increases and extractive innovations in nature-based industries. In this article, we argue that it can also be employed beyond that context in order to capture the convoluted dynamics of market environmentalism. To substantiate our argument, we draw on recent fieldwork on “Trees for Global Benefits,” a forestry-based offsetting project in western Uganda. Like industrial tree plantations, this project relies on the subsumption of carbon sequestration to market imperatives in order to guarantee the quality of its carbon credits. The ecological and socioeconomic difficulties this process engenders give rise to unintended consequences and set in motion the disciplining of the carbon offset producers themselves. The application of the subsumption framework to nonindustrial sectors in this way calls attention to the interlinked socioecological dynamics involved in the subsumption of nature, and highlights potential synergies with previous work on the subsumption of labor.

Recognizing Carbon Forestry’s Uneven Geography: A Response to Purdon and the Structure-Agency Dichotomy That Never Was

Abstract We here respond to the critique by Purdon of an article on carbon forestry that we published in this journal last year (Carton and Andersson). While we welcome critical engagements with our work, Purdon’s argument is wide of the mark and appears based largely on misconceptions regarding our theoretical entry point and empirical findings. Underlying this are fundamental disagreements about the nature of carbon forestry, structure-agency dynamics, and how to understand environmental interventions in the global South more broadly. We argue that we are unlikely to “find common ground” in our respective analyses of the Trees for Global Benefits project unless we share a common understanding of the unequal power relations and fundamental geographical unevenness within which carbon projects operate. Contrary to what Purdon argues, this position has nothing to do with ignoring local benefits, nor with denying the agency of the smallholder farmers who participate in the project. We see no contradiction between an analysis that does justice to the various structural conditions that frame carbon forest projects, and a recognition of local agency.

On the Nature of the Countermovement: A Response to Stuart et al.’s ‘Climate Change and the Polanyian Countermovement: Carbon Markets or Degrowth?’

ABSTRACT In a recent article for this journal, Stuart, D., Gunderson, R., and Petersen, B. [(2017). Climate change and the Polanyian counter-movement: carbon markets or degrowth? New political economy, 1–14. doi:10.1080/13563467.2017.1417364] discuss solutions to climate change in terms of Karl Polanyi’s concept of the double movement. They set up their argument as a critique of my own article on the topic to make the point that carbon markets do not constitute a genuine form of such countermovement. I’m sympathetic to the critique of carbon markets that the authors present, as well as their discussion of degrowth, which mirrors a by now extensive literature demonstrating the pitfalls respectively the necessity of these diametrically opposed approaches to the current socioecological crisis. However, in setting up their case the authors provide an overly optimistic reading of Polanyi that I believe misses a crucial part of his argument, a reading that at least partly explains our differences in opinion. This commentary offers a friendly critique of Stuart et al.’s use of Polanyi and clarifies the argument in my previous text that the authors take issue with.

Modernist dreams and green sagas: The neoliberal politics of Iceland's renewable energy economy

Transitioning to renewable energy is an imperative to help mitigate climate change, but such transitions are inevitably embedded in broader socio-ecological and political dynamics. Recent scholarship has focused on these more-than-technological dimensions of energy transitions to help understand their promises and drawbacks. This article contributes to this research agenda by highlighting the importance of considering not only who benefits from renewable energy development, but also what renewable energy is for. We analyse two cases in Iceland, the Kárahnjúkar hydropower project and Hellisheiði geothermal energy plant, in which renewable energy was used to attract heavy industry investments in the form of aluminium smelters. Attractive regulatory conditions in the form of ‘minimal red tape’, low electricity prices and an industry-friendly tax regime led to significant profits for the aluminium industry but questionable benefits for the state and the people of Iceland. Renewable energy development in this way put Icelands nature to use for private gain, while marginalizing alternative ideas of what that nature is for. Our analysis underlines the need to pursue perspectives that recognize the complex political and socio-ecological nature of energy systems, which includes attention to the political economy of industrial energy consumption.