Premium
A Rejoinder to Matthew Paterson and Peter Newell
Author(s) -
Lohmann Larry
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
development and change
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.267
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1467-7660
pISSN - 0012-155X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01795.x
Subject(s) - aside , citation , nothing , economic justice , sociology , law , management , library science , political science , economics , computer science , philosophy , art , literature , epistemology
I regret that Paterson and Newell have not been able to benefit more from my review essay. While it may be optimistic to assume that the problem is merely the lack of clarity of my writing, let me try to restate, in different terms, some of the difficulties their book runs up against. As I explained in the essay, Climate Capitalism is based on a fundamental error: the assumption that carbon markets help keep fossil fuels in the ground rather than encourage, even accelerate, their continued exploitation. This error — which is shared by a number of other academic and activist observers — invalidates all of the book’s substantive theses. In particular, the error makes nonsense of the claim that carbon markets can ‘enrol powerful factions of capital in a project of decarbonization’. Carbon markets are not about decarbonization; therefore they cannot enrol any faction of capital in decarbonization. On the contrary, in addition to engendering a welter of other disparate effects, they help the most fossil-dependent parts of the industrial structure avoid decarbonization, while interfering with other measures that would foster it. This error also fatally undermines Paterson and Newell’s claim that carbon markets are capable of mediating a hegemonic ‘coalition’ that could ‘sustain the legitimacy of policies aimed towards . . . “leaving the oil in the soil”’ by bringing together environmentalists and grassroots activists with city traders, financiers, asset managers, carbon project developers, auditors and so on. If carbon markets function in a way that sustains, even deepens, the fossil-fuel economy, then movements working to leave the oil in the soil, as well as others disadvantaged by fossil fuel dependence, are unlikely to be enthusiastic about joining a coalition under their banner. Following the widespread discrediting of carbon markets over the past decade, why do Paterson and Newell believe that they can aid in decarbonization? A survey of their published writings suggests that they rely principally on the following argument: