The economic rationality of a carbon tax naturalizes the impacts of capitalism, making their impacts inevitable

The aim of this paper has been to argue for the value of a Marxist critique of carbon markets, which positions these politico-economic tools within the broader history of global capitalist development and its relation to nature. While some authors see carbon markets as the manifestation of a new phase of ‘greener’ and more sustainable capitalism (Michaelowa & Dutschke, 2000; Stowell, 2005; Yamin, 2005), we see these emerging politico-economic tools as part of a historically continuous process. Discussing the work of Marxists such as Foster, Moore, Harvey and Marini, we have shown that carbon markets are best understood as part of a trajectory of capitalist dynamics structuring human relations to the natural environment in specific ways, while producing and re-producing processes of inequality within and between countries. We argue that carbon markets correspond to, and manifest the logic of, capitalism in its historical development, a logic driven by the need for constant expansion of opportunities for capital accumulation. These specific markets indicate both the creativity and continuity of capitalist development. They are creative in the sense that they create new goods to be traded in the new markets which these policy innovations bring to life. The CDM, for example, is an immensely innovative tool, allowing the commodification of carbon emissions and their trade across the globe. However, carbon markets are also continuous with previous forms of commodification and capitalist expansion in the sense that they, 1) exacerbate preexisting inequalities, through the unequal distribution of new carbon commodities, enhancing opportunities for capital accumulation by some as opposed to others, 2) subsidize environmentally destructive ecological activities (like dams and the use of chemical fertilizers, mentioned above), and, 3) distribute exposure to the negative ecological effects of productive activities unevenly, through processes of dispossession and uneven development. Thus, while those designing and benefiting from carbon markets may perceive them to be successful ecological ‘fixes,’ populations suffering the consequences of negative externalities (including climate change) are materially and politically disempowered, and find it increasingly difficult to respond in politically meaningful ways. In this way the politico-economic dynamics of carbon markets are not really new. What Marxists have been arguing for a few decades now is that capitalism, as a socio-ecological system, involves unequal forms of global development; these uneven forms of development often constitute creative new ‘neo-colonial’ practices, which dispossess people in so-called developing countries, while elites, especially powerful elites of the Global North, enrich themselves. There is sufficient evidence in the existing literature that shows that the ‘green’ development solutions being financed through carbon markets such as the CDM, which are allegedly being explicitly designed to further sustainable development goals, are, instead, perpetuating this capitalist pathology. This is in line with Banerjee’s (2003, 2008) exploration of the contradictions inherent in the idea of ‘sustainable development.’ He argues that, despite claims of a paradigm shift towards a ‘greener’ and more equitable capitalism, the sustainable development paradigm is ultimately based on an economic, rather than an ecological, rationality, which entails, as a result, very concrete negative outcomes, particularly for the environment and for non-elite groups, such as indigenous people, peasants, subsistence farming communities and workers. To distinguish the specific roles played by different countries in the contemporary development of capitalism, we have argued that it is of particular importance to understand the central place of ‘emerging economies,’ such as the BRICS countries, in the politics of carbon markets. Uneven processes of development within the South can be increasingly observed, driven by exploitative strategies within the periphery. To fully comprehend this development, we need to adopt a theoretical framework which can comprehend the evolving role of nation states within the international division of labor. The Marxist theory of dependency, which looks at the roles played by different countries in the international division of labor (e.g. Moyo & Yeros, 2005, 2011), has already explained why these Southern economies have become export-oriented and hence dependent on the Global North. The contribution of an application of Marini’s theories of sub-imperialism to current developments in the South, is to elucidate the impossibility of sustainable or ‘green’ development for these Southern countries, given their particular embeddedness in the international division of labor. While the BRICS articulation might give us a sense of the emergence of some of these countries as increasingly important to the global economy, we have argued that it is mostly the elites of these nations that profit from carbon markets, in the same way that they profit from other commodity-based export strategies (Haque, 1999). Huge sections of the population as a whole, however – in the BRIC countries, in the periphery of the global economy, and increasingly, within the core industrial economies themselves – remain deprived, impoverished and exploited, while the environment continues to be degraded and appropriated for the purpose of accumulation gains (Rice, 2009). Carbon markets might wear ‘green’ clothes, but the realities on the ground in the Global South suggest that they are anything but ‘green’ in practice. Many authors, including Newell and Paterson (2010), have expressed the hope that capitalism might be able to decarbonize and ‘green’ itself, effecting a dramatic transformation of its own business practices. Maybe they will be proven right; perhaps carbon markets will be able to achieve some degree of decarbonization of the global economy – although the signs are currently not propitious. The main aim of this paper has been, however, to discuss the contradictions, as well as economic, social and economic costs associated with the particular ‘decarbonization’ strategies being implemented through carbon markets. We have argued that carbon markets, rather than transforming capitalism, are reproducing and deepening unequal relations between North and South, and benefiting Northern and Southern elites while perpetuating uneven development and dispossessing non-elites.