Should the Atmosphere Be Commodified?
How do carbon markets influence our relationship with the atmosphere?
Thinking about the air we breath can feel uncanny. Its existence is fundamental to life on Earth, yet rarely something we stop to consider. As the result of the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, climate change transforms this invisible landscape into a much more tangible space. In recent decades, attempts at conserving the atmospheric commons have been mired by ideological contest over how to do so.
Conceptually, the atmosphere is considered a global commons because it is a natural resource upon which the whole of humanity depends. Emerging from this is a tension between individual and collective use. For example, the effects of localised atmospheric pollutants are felt globally. So too are efforts to mitigate GHGs, which tend to be costly to individual actors. Adding a layer of complexity is the uneven historical responsibility of certain states and corporations for GHG emissions.
‘Owing to the structural inequalities of power that underlie international relations, the methods employed to conserve the atmosphere have a distinctly Western ideological flair’.
Redressing the problem of atmospheric pollutants is therefore a question of both science and social justice. Part of the difficulty in doing so arises due to the fact that legally states are sovereign, and therefore determine the acceptable levels of GHGs emitted within their jurisdiction. Because the atmosphere cannot be divided according to physical borders, it necessitates a multilateral institution capable of coordinating state efforts to mitigate GHGs. Thus far this has taken the form of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which organises Conference of the Party (COP) negotiations. To an extent, the UNFCCC has fostered corporation amongst states, but it has also been hindered by political disagreements over historical responsibility and the role of capitalism. Owing to the structural inequalities of power that underlie international relations, the methods employed to conserve the atmosphere have a distinctly Western ideological flair.
Carbon markets emerged as the predominant mechanism for managing the build-up of atmospheric pollutants in the 1990s. This coincided with the ascension of neoliberalism as the global hegemonic paradigm in the post-Cold War world. Carbon markets are portrayed as rational and unbiased mechanisms. However, embedded within them are questions about who should have regulatory power over the atmospheric commons.
Carbon markets allocate this power to the law of supply and demand. Through issuing tradable permits to polluting firms, a price is put on carbon which is intended to encourage a shift towards other forms of production and energy. Because GHGs come from an array of different sources and have different residential times in the atmosphere, they are considered interchangeable. Their aim is to enable flexibility and cost-effectiveness in meeting emissions reductions targets. This enhances the political feasibility of decarbonisation, which is costly to the polluter but beneficial globally.
However, this emphasis on cost-effectiveness has profound ramifications for the way we relate to the atmosphere. Issuing tradable permits in carbon emissions requires the abstraction and homogenisation of the natural value of GHGs. Legally, the status of tradable permits is ambiguous, but implicitly they apportion the license to pollute. Troublingly, it is those that do the greatest harm to the atmosphere that are awarded the most influence over it. These entitlements can be considered as an enclosure of the atmospheric commons since they diminish the human right to unpolluted air. This process reproduces the asymmetries of power inherent in the global economy.
The private sector has an important role to play in GHG emission abatement, however the market fundamentalism that carbon markets impose negates the role of government or law. Government oversight is critical for ensuring markets operate effectively, for instance setting an appropriate carbon price. Additionally, government intervention is necessary to support the socio-technical change and ensuring a just transition away from carbon. Similarly, the law plays an important role in holding polluters to account and being less biased.
These are issues that the invisible hand of the market cannot sufficiently grapple with. Viewed through a market-oriented lens, GHG emissions are a market failure, as opposed to a structural societal problem. Moreover, because the emphasis of carbon markets is cost-efficiency, their logic regards emissions abatement as a profit-making endeavour. By commodifying certain parts of the atmosphere, the process of capitalist accumulation is expanded. The atmosphere is monetised, permits are traded, yet meanwhile GHG emissions continue to increase. The convoluted system of capitalism continues to flourish through harnessing contemporary crises to its advantage.
‘By commodifying certain parts of the atmosphere, the process of capitalist accumulation is expanded’.
Consequently, the illusion is created that the shift away from GHG emissions is being pursued. This lessens the political impetus for deep socio-technical transformation away from carbon-intensive societies. As an interim measure, carbon markets have some utility in helping the private sector reduce its emissions, however, alternative mechanisms are also critical. For instance, government policies that encourage a decrease in overall energy consumption.
In terms of our relationship to the atmosphere, carbon markets corrupt the conservation ethic of stewardship and replace it with relations based on commodification and ownership. The idea that markets are the solution to the accumulation of GHGs reiterates the normative model of economic development that prioritises profit over environment. Further, it instils a logic that the environment is only worth protecting when it is profitable.
The commodification of the atmosphere in response to climate change is a harbinger of the disregard capitalism has for limits to accumulation. If the fundamental conditions for life can be traded, what lies beyond the reach of commodification? By tempering the economy’s insatiable quest for growth with more enlightened policies that prioritise social and environmental well-being, the detrimental impact of this market fundamentalism can be remedied. In order for the atmosphere to remain a global commons, it must be de-commodified and its regulation become the responsibility of all humanity.
