"Carbon" is part of Polity's "Resources" series, which examine the economies -and political economies- of natural resources. This volume was written by Kate Ervine, Associate Professor in the International Development Studies Program at Saint Mary's University in Nova Scotia, Canada. Carbon is an awkward subject for the "Resources" series, as it has only been made a commodity recently by the creation of various carbon trading schemes intended to reduce atmospheric carbon. Of course, there are many carbon-rich resources, oil, natural gas, and diamonds among them. But this book is about carbon, itself. Of it should be. I found there was too little information about who is using these resources and how they are used and too much political polemic of the radical left.
The author addresses her topic in five chapters, beginning with an introduction to the problems posed by excessive amounts of carbon in Earth's atmosphere, namely that it "is the main heat-trapping gas in our atmosphere and it is dangerously warming out planet." Fossil fuels provide over 80% of the world's energy and create over 90% of carbon dioxide emissions. Ervine explains that this book will situate carbon "within the broader political, economic, social and cultural processes that have shaped human history." After explaining the role of greenhouse gases in regulating Earth's temperature, she goes on for five pages about the "catastrophes" that will occur if human carbon emissions are not substantially reduced, and soon.
The book's second chapter follows the rise of fossil fuels in the nineteenth century due to "its superior ability to facilitate capital's basic imperatives of growth and profitability." After a historical tour of the "old carbon economy", Ervine discusses the failure of the Kyoto Protocol and weakness of the Paris Climate Agreement.
Chapter Three is about carbon-trading programs, a market-based means of reducing carbon emissions. Needless to say, the author opposes these schemes. Most of her criticism is due to the opacity of carbon markets, questionable ability to quantify emissions and determine a baseline, and that carbon-trading schemes "normalize and naturalize the current global political economy of fossil fuels." Unfortunately, she presents her weakest, most ideological arguments first, and winds up with a stronger critique of prices that are too low, caps too high, free allowances too plentiful, and nations manipulating their baselines. In spite of its polemical tone and declaration that "climate change mitigation is not a technical matter," this is one of the most informative chapters.
Chapter Four is also informative, as Ervine goes through the list of proposed "low-carbon" solutions and outlines their faults. These include carbon capture and storage (CCS), negative emissions technologies (NETs), solar radiation management (SRM), natural gas as a "bridge fuel", and renewable energy sources. Curiously, she omits nuclear power. Ervine ends her concluding chapter on a philosophical note. And she criticizes the emphasis on individual responsibility for overconsumption, as she believes it obscures the need for broader initiatives. That may be so, but, judging by the average monthly utility bills in my neighborhood, most people waste an enormous amount of energy for no reason but laziness.
My growing irritation with Polity's "Resources" series is probably showing in this review. I'm tired of reading polemics that leave me without an understanding of the basic movement and function of the commodities in question. Yes, carbon as a commodity is inherently political, but Iâm afraid that I think Kate Ervine in hopelessly naive. She harps on the need to keep global air temperatures less that 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. But everyone knows that's impossible. It has been made a goal precisely because it's impossible. Broad, unattainable goals keep the money flowing and assiduously prevent the establishment of concrete, quantifiable, achievable goals. So no progress is made. I'm not sure why the emphasis on air temperatures or on the past 150 years anyway, as if there were no climate history before that. For a more practical approach to climate change, I suggest Polity's "Can Science Fix Climate Change?" by Mike Hulme (his answer is "no"). I'm all for reducing air pollution, but the fact is that all the talk of climate change over the past 30 years hasn't generated any social pressure on individuals, businesses, or governments to reduce energy consumption, which could easily be achieved. It is screamingly obvious that no one cares.