Idea, Sovereignty, Eco-colonialism and the Future

Abstract

This article argues that human-caused climate change reveals previously unrecognised or overlooked aspects of the liberal concept of private property. It suggests that the concept of private property facilitates the ʻclimate-change relationshipʼ, a connection between human activities, the natural world and the human consequences of climate change. Based upon this link, the article offers four reflections on private property and its role in global phenomena like climate change: first, that the ʻideaʼ of private property (the popularly held belief about what it is) is a primary culprit; second, that private property is ʻsovereigntyʼ, power over others, which gives its holders global reach; third, that because the idea informs the exercise of sovereignty, private property makes eco-colonialists of individuals; and finally, that the future of private property may require us to give greater attention both to a shift in the idea and a global focus regarding the concept. While these ruminations are preliminary and programmatic, what they necessitate is further research and a willingness to rethink and reconceive the liberal foundations of the way we live with and relate to others.

Towards sustainable property? Exploring the entanglement of ownership and sustainability

“…According to Christoph Engel (2002), recent increasing regulative restrictions that are imposed on owners can be seen as a ‘ Verdünnung ’ (dilution, or thinning) of property rights. However, the notion of property as an absolute dominion over things , manifested in exclusive private ownership , is still influential as an imaginary and describes quite well the commonly shared idea of what private property means (Babie, 2010: 540). It may in fact be conceived as an underlying ‘ Leitidee ’ (central idea, basic conception) (Hann, 2007: 288) in liberal and neoclassical thought on property.…”

“…As mentioned in the introduction, one strand of critique of the standard conception of property rights perceives it as being causally connected to unsustainable ways of living. Paul Babie argues that climate change ‘is a problem made possible by the concept of private property, and made real by its idea’ (Babie, 2010: 542). According to Babie, the popular idea, or imaginary, of private property conceives it ‘as an inviolable sole and despotic dominion controlling an invisible hand, which is justifiable because in that way the choices made pursuant to such power, through markets, produce benefit for others’ (Babie, 2010: 542).…”

“…Paul Babie argues that climate change ‘is a problem made possible by the concept of private property, and made real by its idea’ (Babie, 2010: 542). According to Babie, the popular idea, or imaginary, of private property conceives it ‘as an inviolable sole and despotic dominion controlling an invisible hand, which is justifiable because in that way the choices made pursuant to such power, through markets, produce benefit for others’ (Babie, 2010: 542). The predominant – atomist and absolute – private property imaginary allows to make choices ‘without regard for others and without interference from others (ibid.).…”

“…Yet, according to an increasingly shared critique, the way property rights are currently instituted in law and interpreted in jurisprudence, largely as guarantors for free markets, is inherently connected to the overuse of natural resources and therefore detrimental to nature and endangering our future. From such a perspective, new visions of property (Taylor and Grinlinton, 2011; Alexander, 2011; Babie, 2010; Bosselmann, 2011; Pistor and De Schutter, 2016) are needed to reshape property rights such that they support sustainable economies. This body of literature, contra classical critiques of property in the tradition of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon or the Franciscans, does not postulate the abolition, but a reform of property systems.…”

Bringing adaptation home: Citizen engagements with climate change at home site scales in Ottawa and Halifax

“…efforts toward stricter lawn pesticide legislation), where individual autonomy is usurped in favour of a perceived greater public good (healthier lawn ecologies and cleaner water supply), Sandberg and Foster (2005, p. 483) suggest that those opposed to these measures make their case by citing "the sovereignty of homeowners with property rights as the ultimate decision makers". Overall, these conflicts within a global carbon emissions context (Adler, 2009;Babie, 2010). They have also explored how property boundaries may be obscured by impacts of climate change (e.g.…”