Search

The proliferation of markets and market-based policy instruments in environmental governance is premised on the establishment of metrological regimes and the practices of measurement, commensuration, and commodification that underlie these regimes. This paper develops the concept of metrology and examines its role in the function and dysfunction of emissions trading markets. The concept invites us to question the social, political, and scientific conditions under which agreements about measurement and commensuration do or do not occur, and the consequences or effects of particular metrological systems. The paper provides three examples of how measurement, commensuration, and commodification have framed the design and function of emissions markets in order to illustrate the effects of particular metrologies on market rule. Contrary to claims that measurement serves as a means to ‘cool’ political disputes, this paper argues that because markets inevitably have distributional effects, the metrological systems which frame market design are frequently a site of focused political contestation. Seeing measurement and commensuration as inherently political can also provide insight into ongoing disagreements about the appropriate metrics and responsibilities for mitigating climate change and the form and function of markets more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emissions trading has created new forms of exchangeable property which become commodities when traded in markets designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and mitigate climate change. This paper analyzes a set of social processes which influence who benefits from reductions in emissions generated by primary production from forest ecosystems. Informed by commodification literature, and property and access theory, we suggest that farmers and rural communities cannot derive full benefits from carbon sequestration because they lack key structural and relational mechanisms, such as capital, knowledge, expertise, technology, and, in some cases, even labour. We illustrate this argument by examining three ongoing carbon-forestry projects in China, Ecuador, and Mexico and we highlight its implications for future forestry mitigation projects and programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]