148
6
6.8 Discourses on Carbon Trade
Carbon trade consists of economic practices resulting from many decisions taken
by governments and international organizations, and these decisions are based on
a cluster of arguments that constitute a win-win discourse on climate trade. The
main premise in this discourse is that carbon trade reduces emissions of greenhouse gases in a cost-effective way. When the trade involves emission cuts in the
Global South, climate trade is also argued to create possibilities for revenues for
poor countries, communities and people.
Behind the win-win discourse and creation of institutions for carbon trade, we
find that governments of the US, the Netherlands, Canada and Norway have
been particularly active. This is first of all a discourse elaborated by economists.
It has also been quite visible in the international climate negotiations and in international organizations such as the World Bank and the UN programmes UNEP
and UNDP.
In Norway, the win-win discourse on carbon trade has for a long time been
hegemonic. Internationally, a radical discourse on carbon trade is produced by
some of the same social and environmental organizations that are critical to
REDD. A number of social scientists have also pointed at problematic aspects of
carbon trade. The radical discourse entails arguments that carbon trade will not
result in large enough cuts of greenhouse gases to avoid serious climate change. It
is also seen as a vulnerable way to mitigate climate change in cases where forests are
used as carbon sinks, because of measurement problems as well as problems with
permanence and leakage. Instead, carbon trade is seen as ‘green washing’ of strategies based on continuous climate emissions by corporations, countries and consumers in the Global North (see e.g. Lohmann 2010; Gilbertson and Reyes 2009;
Bond 2012; Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2019).
More recently, however, a radical counter discourse has become influential in
Norway, based on the main argument that larger carbon cuts should be made in
Norway rather than paying for cuts in low-cost countries. Environmentalists have
connected this argument to the question of new concessions for oil and gas prospecting and production outside the coast of Northern Norway in vulnerable areas
of conservation value and with important fisheries.
The radical discourse on carbon trade questions whether this trade actually
provides cost-effective climate mitigation as the proponents argue, since the conduct of carbon trade itself is expensive. In addition, a typical political ecology
question in this context is to ask: Who is carbon trade cost-effective for?
6.9 Overarching Discourses on Climate Mitigation
As discussed in 7 Chap. 3, in our article on environmental discourses from 2001,
we identified three leading environmental discourses on four different issues: bioprospecting, forest conservation, desertification and climate change (Adger et al.
2001). Around 20 years later, we can still see that climate discourses at the international level contain basic elements of the win-win discourse, which emphasizes
Chapter 6 · Climate Mitigation Choices: Reducing Deforestation ...
6
6.8 Discourses on Carbon Trade
Carbon trade consists of economic practices resulting from many decisions taken
by governments and international organizations, and these decisions are based on
a cluster of arguments that constitute a win-win discourse on climate trade. The
main premise in this discourse is that carbon trade reduces emissions of greenhouse gases in a cost-effective way. When the trade involves emission cuts in the
Global South, climate trade is also argued to create possibilities for revenues for
poor countries, communities and people.
Behind the win-win discourse and creation of institutions for carbon trade, we
find that governments of the US, the Netherlands, Canada and Norway have
been particularly active. This is first of all a discourse elaborated by economists.
It has also been quite visible in the international climate negotiations and in international organizations such as the World Bank and the UN programmes UNEP
and UNDP.
In Norway, the win-win discourse on carbon trade has for a long time been
hegemonic. Internationally, a radical discourse on carbon trade is produced by
some of the same social and environmental organizations that are critical to
REDD. A number of social scientists have also pointed at problematic aspects of
carbon trade. The radical discourse entails arguments that carbon trade will not
result in large enough cuts of greenhouse gases to avoid serious climate change. It
is also seen as a vulnerable way to mitigate climate change in cases where forests are
used as carbon sinks, because of measurement problems as well as problems with
permanence and leakage. Instead, carbon trade is seen as ‘green washing’ of strategies based on continuous climate emissions by corporations, countries and consumers in the Global North (see e.g. Lohmann 2010; Gilbertson and Reyes 2009;
Bond 2012; Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2019).
More recently, however, a radical counter discourse has become influential in
Norway, based on the main argument that larger carbon cuts should be made in
Norway rather than paying for cuts in low-cost countries. Environmentalists have
connected this argument to the question of new concessions for oil and gas prospecting and production outside the coast of Northern Norway in vulnerable areas
of conservation value and with important fisheries.
The radical discourse on carbon trade questions whether this trade actually
provides cost-effective climate mitigation as the proponents argue, since the conduct of carbon trade itself is expensive. In addition, a typical political ecology
question in this context is to ask: Who is carbon trade cost-effective for?
6.9 Overarching Discourses on Climate Mitigation
As discussed in 7 Chap. 3, in our article on environmental discourses from 2001,
we identified three leading environmental discourses on four different issues: bioprospecting, forest conservation, desertification and climate change (Adger et al.
2001). Around 20 years later, we can still see that climate discourses at the international level contain basic elements of the win-win discourse, which emphasizes
Chapter 6 · Climate Mitigation Choices: Reducing Deforestation ...