Assembling the taken-for-granted: carbon offsets and voluntary standards
View/ Open
Date
01/07/2014Author
Boushel, Corra Nuala Donnelly
Metadata
Abstract
Carbon is a metric at the centre of contemporary debates. It is invoked to explain
responses to climate change and justify political decisions over the economy and
environment. Its ubiquity might suggest that the definition of carbon is broadly agreed
upon, but along with greenhouse gas (GHG) measurements, articulating carbon as a
commodity has incorporated debates over sustainable development (SD). The use of
market-based mechanisms to manage carbon quantities results in articulations of the
concept that reinforce consumption as a means to achieve public policy aims, but these
are also contested. This research examines the concept of carbon to explore what might
be taken-for-granted or overlooked when carbon is invoked.
The research takes an ethnographic approach to carbon by examining offsetting –
paying for reductions in GHG emissions at one location to make up for a continuation
or increase of emissions at another. The novelty, complexity and lack of trust in carbon
offsetting have resulted in numerous voluntary standards to improve consumer
confidence in this commodity. The standard organisations’ position in codifying,
measuring and accrediting carbon makes them valuable sites at which to describe the
materialities of the concept. I use data collected from the administrative offices of two
voluntary carbon offset standards in 2010-11 to explore what is included and excluded
within carbon as it was enacted at these sites.
Carbon is described in this research as an assemblage and a multiplicity – it is
articulated in varying ways by actors within offset markets. Through the work of
standards organisations, the “orthodoxies” of offsetting are identified as taken-for-granted
features of carbon. In contrast, the position of SD is identified as variable across
different articulations of carbon. Using a post-Actor Network Theory approach
innovatively combined with Suchman’s typology of legitimacy, this diversity in carbon
is not normatively evaluated; instead the focus is on how assemblages of carbon
differentiate the legitimacy of SD as a feature of offsetting. Some take SD for granted
as an inherent aspect of offsetting, for others it is a desirable feature, but not necessary.
Alternatively it could be offered as an add-on possibility without suggesting SD implied
better offsetting, and for others offsetting was best enacted without assembling SD
concerns. Exploring carbon as an assemblage demonstrates the continuous and flexible
constructions of carbon as a commodity and concept.
When examined in detail, the marketing strategies and technical rules of different
standards produce varying articulations of carbon. Furthermore, this research explores
how the work of voluntary carbon offset standards excludes the scrutiny of sites of
consumption of offsets. This exclusion, as with the integration of SD, is notable for the
differences in how it is articulated by standard staff – challenged by some, taken-for-granted
by others but with diverse rationales for each position. These features are
informative in relation to the roles ascribed to voluntary standards across other
commodities as well as in relation to carbon. Attending to the multiplicity that exists in
the daily practices of offset markets suggests possibilities for those looking to stabilise
or reform the concept of carbon as well as understanding the activities of voluntary
standards.