114
(an endangered ground nesting bird that depends on sage brush steppe
habitat) in Colorado while permitting the expansion of energy extractive
industries. On the one hand, this can be regarded as a complete nonstarter, as Wolf points out that over the course of seven years, the habitat
exchange failed to record a single transaction—an apparent accountability
crisis in that it fails to address sage-grouse population decline. He attributes this to the lack of appetite of the oil and gas companies to stump up
the expenses for the amount of scientifically requisite land to compensate
for the loss of biodiversity habitat, and inadequate political will to force
their hand. On the other hand, as the process unfolds, it does construct
the numerical model informed by cross-sectoral concerns (land costs and
requirements for the fossil fuel majors and sage-grouse habitats respectively). Wolf argues that this is a step in the direction of accountable socioecological regulation, as it has brought into being an accountability test.
Given a different future political economic context, the very existence of
this data infrastructure (the Habitat Quantification Tool) and market
infrastructure (the Colorado Habitat Exchange) increases its likelihood of
eventual insertion into pertinent bureaucratic routines, and normalisation
into decision-making around land allocation and habitat exchange.
This case draws out numerous instances of discursive legitimation,
including the United States federal administration’s explicit linkage of
‘energy independence’ with its ending of mandatory compensatory mitigation under the Endangered Species Act in 2018, and the continued
representation of the habitat exchange as relevant and vibrant despite its
never having executed a single transaction. Ironically, the habitat exchange
was instrumental in arguments against protecting sage-grouse populations
under the Endangered Species Act. Practices of bureaucratic legitimation
are visible in the non-governmental organisation Environmental Defense’s
efforts to set up the Colorado Habitat Exchange and orchestrate participation in its creation and governance by various relevant actors (including
a cattlemen association, state agencies and energy extractive industries),
layering this effort on experience with habitat offsetting under the Clean
Air Act and the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.
Technocratic legitimation in this case pertains to the strategy of championing a market mechanism to avoid critique of coercive bureaucracy and
to benefit from efficiencies such as low transaction costs, and to associated
innovations such as the Habitat Quantification Tool to calculate compensation amounts for replacement of sage-grouse habitats. Financial legitimation, while present in the very logic of a market mechanism for carbon
S. SAREEN
(an endangered ground nesting bird that depends on sage brush steppe
habitat) in Colorado while permitting the expansion of energy extractive
industries. On the one hand, this can be regarded as a complete nonstarter, as Wolf points out that over the course of seven years, the habitat
exchange failed to record a single transaction—an apparent accountability
crisis in that it fails to address sage-grouse population decline. He attributes this to the lack of appetite of the oil and gas companies to stump up
the expenses for the amount of scientifically requisite land to compensate
for the loss of biodiversity habitat, and inadequate political will to force
their hand. On the other hand, as the process unfolds, it does construct
the numerical model informed by cross-sectoral concerns (land costs and
requirements for the fossil fuel majors and sage-grouse habitats respectively). Wolf argues that this is a step in the direction of accountable socioecological regulation, as it has brought into being an accountability test.
Given a different future political economic context, the very existence of
this data infrastructure (the Habitat Quantification Tool) and market
infrastructure (the Colorado Habitat Exchange) increases its likelihood of
eventual insertion into pertinent bureaucratic routines, and normalisation
into decision-making around land allocation and habitat exchange.
This case draws out numerous instances of discursive legitimation,
including the United States federal administration’s explicit linkage of
‘energy independence’ with its ending of mandatory compensatory mitigation under the Endangered Species Act in 2018, and the continued
representation of the habitat exchange as relevant and vibrant despite its
never having executed a single transaction. Ironically, the habitat exchange
was instrumental in arguments against protecting sage-grouse populations
under the Endangered Species Act. Practices of bureaucratic legitimation
are visible in the non-governmental organisation Environmental Defense’s
efforts to set up the Colorado Habitat Exchange and orchestrate participation in its creation and governance by various relevant actors (including
a cattlemen association, state agencies and energy extractive industries),
layering this effort on experience with habitat offsetting under the Clean
Air Act and the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.
Technocratic legitimation in this case pertains to the strategy of championing a market mechanism to avoid critique of coercive bureaucracy and
to benefit from efficiencies such as low transaction costs, and to associated
innovations such as the Habitat Quantification Tool to calculate compensation amounts for replacement of sage-grouse habitats. Financial legitimation, while present in the very logic of a market mechanism for carbon
S. SAREEN