Ideological obstacles to effective climate policy: The greening of markets, technology, and growth

Abstract

In light of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, this project synthesizes and advances critiques of the possibility of a sustainable capitalism by adopting an explicit ‘negative’ theory of ideology, understood as ideas that conceal contradictions through the reification and/or legitimation of the existing social order. Prominent climate change policy frameworks – the ‘greening’ of markets (market-corrective measures), technology (alternative energy, energy efficiency, and geoengineering), and growth (the green growth strategy) – are shown to conceal one or both of the two systemic socio-ecological contradictions inherent in the current social formation: (1) a contradiction between capital’s growth-dependence and the latter’s degrading impact on the climate (the ‘capital-climate contradiction’) and (2) a contradiction between the potential of using technological infrastructure that aids in emissions reductions and the institutionalized social relations that obstruct this technical potential (the ‘technical potential-productive relations contradiction’). Attempts to reform the very techniques and institutions that brought about the climate crisis will remain ineffective and reproduce the social order that results in climate change. After proposing a way in which societies might move out of the ideological trappings of green markets, technology, and growth, two alternatives are proposed: economic degrowth coupled with Marcuse’s conception of a ‘new technology’.

A Critical Examination of Geoengineering: Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

“…The political-economic context that gave rise to geoengineering strategies is best understood as a contradiction between capital's need to accumulate and expand, on the one hand, and the destructive effects expansionistic production has on the conditions of production, specifically the climate system, on the other [100][101][102]. We agree with Weis [100] (pp.…”

“…The increasingly popular climate policy frame of "green growth" [115,116]-alternatively, the "green economy" [117] or the "green transition" [118]-combines the greening of technology and markets in a coherent and appealing narrative and approaches climate mitigation as a capital accumulation strategy, highlighting the economic benefits of environmental protection and the supposed "synergies" between environmental protection and economic growth (for sympathetic overview, see [116]; for critical accounts, see [119]). However, carbon markets (e.g., [120,121]), improved efficiency (e.g., [122]), and renewable energy expansion (e.g., [123,124]) have all been shown to have limited success and unintended impacts (for overview, see [102]). Attempts to surmount the capital-climate contradiction that do not address the drive to accumulate capital will probably fail to significantly reduce emissions and, as Marcuse's critical theory of capitalism would predict, will conceal, rather than address, the contradiction [102,125].…”

“…However, carbon markets (e.g., [120,121]), improved efficiency (e.g., [122]), and renewable energy expansion (e.g., [123,124]) have all been shown to have limited success and unintended impacts (for overview, see [102]). Attempts to surmount the capital-climate contradiction that do not address the drive to accumulate capital will probably fail to significantly reduce emissions and, as Marcuse's critical theory of capitalism would predict, will conceal, rather than address, the contradiction [102,125].…”

Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Change in Context: Toward a Political Economy of Relevance

“…Understanding responses to climate change has been explored through both micro (individual) and macro (structural) theoretical lenses. While much attention has focused on macro phenomena related to climate change, such as well-funded denialist campaigns, international agreements, and carbon markets (Beck 2010;Klein 2014;Gunderson et al 2018), others have focused on psychological factors regarding how individuals perceive and process information about climate change (Jost et al 2008;Feygina et al 2010;McCright et al 2014;Unsworth and Fielding 2014;Hart et al 2015;Wilke and Morton 2017). However, largely missing from the climate change literature is an analysis of how political-economic structural context shapes individuals' perceptions, beliefs, and actions (Carolan and Stuart 2016;Stuart 2016).…”

A political‐economic theory of relevance: Explaining climate change inaction

“…Some sociological explanations for climate change inaction emphasize the structural and macro‐level phenomena that present barriers to undertaking actions that would effectively mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, driven by the need to perpetually expand production in a capitalist economy (Foster, Clark, & York, ), including the neoliberalization of global climate governance (Ciplet & Roberts, ) and a well‐organized climate change denial campaign (McCright & Dunlap, ). Others point to a variety of ideational, practice‐based, and cultural culprits, from interpersonal relations to the cultural dimensions of institutions: the ideological assumptions of mainstream climate change policy that mask the contradiction between capitalism's dual requirements to expand, on the one hand, and maintain a stable climate system on the other (Gunderson, Stuart, & Petersen, ), norms and emotions that divorce knowledge about climate change from taking action about climate change (Norgaard, ), the non‐identity of objective and subjective dimensions of the “environment‐society problematic” due to reification (Stoner, ), and “post‐ecologist” norms underlying depoliticized climate politics (Blühdorn, ; for extended review of different levels of explanation and an integrated model, see Brulle & Norgaard, ). In an article that has not yet received due attention that we engage in detail below, Ollinaho (), in a deceptively simple line of argument, makes the case that the climate change is experienced as an intellectual problem in the Global North, a “relevance structure” that does not supersede the pragmatic practices and concerns of everyday life.…”