Abstract
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) refers to a set of technologies that allow for the separation of CO2 from different substances and its subsequent storage, generally in different types of geological formations. It is part of the ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions, which means that it can be added to already existing infrastructures without major changes, such as oil and gas exploitation, where it has been used for some time with success, in power or production plants of many kinds. In short, CCS-technologies allow for a reduction of emissions of CO2 – they are stored instead of emitted. This makes them of interest in the United Nations climate regime of the last few years. However, CCS-technologies – with the exception of enhanced oil/gas recovery – are expansive and depend on support from the state or public–private partnerships.
CCS-technologies received wide attention after the signing of Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change (1997), which went into effect in 2005, and its instruments to reduce CO2 emissions. An important element of the Kyoto Protocol are the tradable certified emission reduction units (CERs), which are based on national emissions in 1990 and can be created via certain instruments and bought or sold as necessary. Thus, if a national economy produces more emissions now than it did in 1990, it will have to create or buy CERs. CERs can be created via a clean development mechanism (CDM), a flexible mechanism of environmental protection, that is put into practice in countries in the Global South (non-Annex-B countries). The integration of CCS-technologies into the CDM was highly controversial and was discussed at the Conference of Parties (COP) at the UN Climate Change Conference (UNCCC) from COP 13 (in 2007) through COP 15 (in 2009). These discussions led to an integration in 2010. This discussion drew on a Special Report on CCS prepared between 2001 and 2005 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consulting organization created in 1988 by organizations of the UN. This debate is the focus of Krüger’s book.
Krüger describes the development of an eco-modern discourse beginning with the famous report of the Club of Rome in 1972, and continuing with the Brundlandt report (1987), and the Rio conference (1992). This discourse proposes an ecological restructuring of the institutions of Western modernity, understood as guarantees of social development, as the solution to ecological problems. Concepts such as ‘sustainable development’ or a ‘green economy,’ and their inherent incrementalism as a strategy of change through small steps instead of radical breaks, are central elements of the eco-modern discourse. Since the 1990s, the tendency of this discourse has been towards market-based solutions and towards the triad of (1) a technocratic vision of politics, (2) incrementalism, and (3) the primacy of economics as hegemonic strategies of eco-modern discourse. The same shift pushed the ecological movements from a popular strategy, seeking broad alliances and connecting to wider social demands, to the formation of ‘counterexperts’ able to engage in specialized politics, and from social movements to NGOs. The critique to growth shifts from a focus on problems to a focus on solutions, from an ‘if’ to a ‘how.’ This means that the idea of the reflexive domination of nature is strengthened. Thus, eco-modernity is a form of anthropocentric, rational, and development-oriented modernization. And the Kyoto Protocol is a manifestation of this discourse.
The book presents an interesting combination of ‘discourse-theoretic analysis of hegemony,’ as the author calls it, based on an actualization of the work of Laclau and Mouffe, and an application of the thought of Adorno on nature and ecological problems under the label ‘society–nature-relationships.’ This concept refers to the mutual interdependence of society and nature. This is not a dualistic relationship, but is based on a relational perspective. This perspective, in turn, teams up with a constructivist perspective on the relation between society and nature that seeks to denaturalize it. In this sense, Krüger detects enthymemes, specific rhetorical figures that are part of the eco-modern discourse and point to a systematic production of consensus. Enthymemes are based on – partially false – oppositions that structure discourse and lead to its depoliticization as they naturalize speaker positions.
This theoretical and methodological approach allows Krüger to analyze central characteristics of the eco-modern discourse in the debate on the integration of CCS-technologies in the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol. The debate from five COPs crystallizes the discursive formations in play and their relation to eco-modern discourse as well as the concrete actor-positions of the time. Krüger traces those debates and the detailed positions of actors in them. Eco-modern discourse is dominant within the reflections of almost all actors, where it defines the limits of legitimate demands. The Special Report on CCS of the IPCC, quoted in 39 of 49 communications, is a central element of this constitution of limits: the IPCC is based on the assumption of a continuing dependency on fossil energy, and highlights the potential of CCS to reduce both greenhouse gases and the costs of this reduction, and claims that the storage of CO2 is safe. The report, and the communications that work with it, depart from a ‘pragmatic perspective’ that seeks a gradual change, using technological solutions – it is a perfect representation of eco-modern discourse and its tendency to depoliticize. Only a few actors take a more critical position, and only one, the US-based youth organization sustainUS, argues for social and climate justice as opposed to a reflexive domination of nature.
The final integration of CCS technologies into the CDM scheme changes the panorama: the path dependency related to fossil fuel and energy is perpetuated. However, this higher institutional support did not lead to a CCS boom. The failure of many concrete CCS projects due to high costs makes it clear that eco-modern discourse has been reduced to the political treatment of relations to nature and does not touch economy at all. Notwithstanding, the CCS community has been able to marginalize other positions, contributing to the depoliticization of climate change. In this sense, the eco-modern project can be understood as a passive consensus that does not aim at broad support, but rather relies on strong, yet small, communities. The CCS community shifts eco-modern discourse precisely through its support of CCS towards incrementalism and technocratic ideas connected to state regulation, which in turn weakens both the reflexive side and the market orientation that used to be stronger. The future development of CCS technologies will demonstrate if eco-modern discourse depoliticizes or repoliticizes.
Krüger agrees with other researchers in understanding CCS as a Faustian bargain, a deal with a devil called ‘progress.’ However, he calls attention to the fact that both the colonization of nature (as would happen with CCS) and the domination of nature have already failed. Moreover, the discussion of CCS is itself based on the false alternative of progress through fossil fuels versus stagnation without progress, excluding everything else. Of excluded options, there are proposals for the politicization of eco-modern discourse that could constitute a counterhegemonic project, namely the Andean concept of Buen Vivir, referring to a harmonious relationship among individual, society, and nature, or more Western concepts such as the Rights of Nature. Both concepts have been integrated into the constitutions and state politics of countries such as Ecuador and Bolivia, and have been widely debated within academia and social movements for more than a decade.
Beyond the concrete details of the debates in international organizations, the book offers profound insights into the processes and constraints of international decision making under the hegemony of eco-modernity. Krüger’s method helps us understand the naturalization of historically constituted views and discourses and how they are perpetuated. An English translation would be of interest both for researchers engaged with discourse analysis and for readers concerned about the measures taken to meet climate change.