34
2
As we will show in 7 Chap. 6, carbon is a new commodity where there is such a
wide information gap between production (e.g. tree planting or forest conservation) and consumption (purchase of climate credits). Commodity fetishism is
therefore a concept that can be useful to use for instance in analyses of climate
mitigation projects involving the carbon market.
Hall et al. (2011) represent another clearly Marx-inspired analysis within political ecology. They focus on the changing ways that people are excluded from land
in Southeast Asia. Processes of modernization associated with economic growth,
industrialization and urbanization have generally led to de-agrarianisation, which
means that ‘agriculture becomes progressively less central to national economies
and to the livelihoods of people even in rural areas’ (Hall et al. 2011: 1). In this
context of de-agrarianisation, exclusion in various forms takes place. But ‘[e]xclusion is not a random process, nor does it occur on a level playing field. It is structured by power relations’ (Hall et al. 2011: 4). There are a number of ‘powers of
exclusion’ at play. Hall et al. (2011) label these as ‘licensed exclusions’ (land titling
and reform), ‘ambient exclusions’ (driven by environmental conservation), ‘volatile
exclusions’ (driven by booms in some cash-crops), ‘post-agrarian exclusions’ (urban
expansion and other conversions of agricultural land to non-agricultural use),
‘intimate exclusions’ (smallholders’ exclusions of neighbours and kin), and
‘counter- exclusions’ (resistance and reactions from below).
Finally, Marxist political economy has also, since the 1970s, provided a firm
critique of the influential ideas of Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834) on the role
of population growth. According to Malthus (1798), increasing population pressure on natural resources is the paramount cause of human misery. His ‘population law’ postulated that the population growth of the poor inevitably will exceed
the resource base represented by food production and cause widespread hunger
and poverty. Marx later strongly rejected this idea, which he saw as an attempt to
defend class relations under capitalism and blame poverty on the poor themselves
(Ross 1998).
Since the 1960s, the ideas of Malthus have seen a revival and are frequently
used by scholars, policy-makers and the media to explain environmental problems.
Neo-Malthusian ecologists such as Paul Ehrlich and Garrett Hardin were among
the first leading scientists to use Malthus on the environment. Ehrlich’s book The
Population Bomb (Ehrlich 1968) and Hardin’s article The Tragedy of the Commons
(Hardin 1968) have in particular been influential. Early contributions to political
ecology consisted essentially of Marxist critiques of such views of population
growth as the main factor behind environmental decline.
‘Poor people make poor land’ was, however, a powerful slogan accepted by both
Neo-Malthusian and Marxist inspired scholars alike. This slogan was also repeated
by the Brundtland report (WCED 1987), which used it as a political argument for
the need to alleviate poverty in order to arrest environmental degradation. Hence,
poverty was framed as the main cause of environmental decline and pollution.
Early Marxist critiques of Malthusianism reflected in some way Marx’s idea
that ‘… all progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of robbing the soil’ (Marx 1990: 638). Hence, market integration and the expansion of capitalism would automatically lead to environmental
Chapter 2 · Theoretical Influences and Recent Directions
2
As we will show in 7 Chap. 6, carbon is a new commodity where there is such a
wide information gap between production (e.g. tree planting or forest conservation) and consumption (purchase of climate credits). Commodity fetishism is
therefore a concept that can be useful to use for instance in analyses of climate
mitigation projects involving the carbon market.
Hall et al. (2011) represent another clearly Marx-inspired analysis within political ecology. They focus on the changing ways that people are excluded from land
in Southeast Asia. Processes of modernization associated with economic growth,
industrialization and urbanization have generally led to de-agrarianisation, which
means that ‘agriculture becomes progressively less central to national economies
and to the livelihoods of people even in rural areas’ (Hall et al. 2011: 1). In this
context of de-agrarianisation, exclusion in various forms takes place. But ‘[e]xclusion is not a random process, nor does it occur on a level playing field. It is structured by power relations’ (Hall et al. 2011: 4). There are a number of ‘powers of
exclusion’ at play. Hall et al. (2011) label these as ‘licensed exclusions’ (land titling
and reform), ‘ambient exclusions’ (driven by environmental conservation), ‘volatile
exclusions’ (driven by booms in some cash-crops), ‘post-agrarian exclusions’ (urban
expansion and other conversions of agricultural land to non-agricultural use),
‘intimate exclusions’ (smallholders’ exclusions of neighbours and kin), and
‘counter- exclusions’ (resistance and reactions from below).
Finally, Marxist political economy has also, since the 1970s, provided a firm
critique of the influential ideas of Thomas Robert Malthus (1766–1834) on the role
of population growth. According to Malthus (1798), increasing population pressure on natural resources is the paramount cause of human misery. His ‘population law’ postulated that the population growth of the poor inevitably will exceed
the resource base represented by food production and cause widespread hunger
and poverty. Marx later strongly rejected this idea, which he saw as an attempt to
defend class relations under capitalism and blame poverty on the poor themselves
(Ross 1998).
Since the 1960s, the ideas of Malthus have seen a revival and are frequently
used by scholars, policy-makers and the media to explain environmental problems.
Neo-Malthusian ecologists such as Paul Ehrlich and Garrett Hardin were among
the first leading scientists to use Malthus on the environment. Ehrlich’s book The
Population Bomb (Ehrlich 1968) and Hardin’s article The Tragedy of the Commons
(Hardin 1968) have in particular been influential. Early contributions to political
ecology consisted essentially of Marxist critiques of such views of population
growth as the main factor behind environmental decline.
‘Poor people make poor land’ was, however, a powerful slogan accepted by both
Neo-Malthusian and Marxist inspired scholars alike. This slogan was also repeated
by the Brundtland report (WCED 1987), which used it as a political argument for
the need to alleviate poverty in order to arrest environmental degradation. Hence,
poverty was framed as the main cause of environmental decline and pollution.
Early Marxist critiques of Malthusianism reflected in some way Marx’s idea
that ‘… all progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of robbing the soil’ (Marx 1990: 638). Hence, market integration and the expansion of capitalism would automatically lead to environmental
Chapter 2 · Theoretical Influences and Recent Directions