Introduction

Nevertheless, the concept of growth and consumption is ingrained in the way that we perceive our world: “Someone once said that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism” (Jameson, 2003: 76). Capitalism and its commodification process have had not only environmental implications but also severe social implications for large numbers of the population. One of the more destructive aspects of capitalism was seen in the nineteenth century when some sectors of the population in the Western world became dependent upon the market for the survival. Karl Polanyi therefore discussed labour as a “fictitious commodity” since it is not produced for sale and it cannot be detached from the rest of a human’s life (Polanyi, 1944: 72). Decommodification has often been linked to being a citizen in a welfare state and thereby linked to both duties and rights towards the state. The first conception of decommodification, as discussed by Polanyi, “protected citizens from major social risks and insulated their living standards from dependence on wage payments” and “the counter-movement that pressed for social reforms led to the creation of a welfare state dependent on public services paid for by taxes and social contributions” (Gough, 2010: 62). The welfare state moderated and mitigated the negative social implications of capitalism in the Western world. Nevertheless, Polanyi did point out the importance of adding environment to the analysis. He argued that land is also a fictitious commodity. Land is considered by Polanyi as “another name for nature, which is not produced by man” (1944: 72). He argued that the commodification of land, natural resources, the oceans, and so forth will generate collective ‘bads’. This will need a collective response from society. Polanyi argued for a more active role for the state in regulating the land and protecting natural resources from market forces: “[T]he commodity fiction disregarded the fact that leaving the fate of soil and people to the market would be tantamount to annihilating them” (Polanyi, 1944: 73). If labour and land are fictitious commodities, then how can we prevent them from being excessively exploited on a global scale? In many countries there is neither a strong welfare state to mitigate the exploitation of human labour nor an effective regime to protect the environment. The question now is whether capitalism can prevent climate change and engage in poverty reduction at the same time. We should be under no illusion that human wealth has been created on the back of people and the environment so there are of course many question marks over how the exploitation of people and land can be prevented while still promoting growth. According to a narrow understanding of low-carbon development, there is a belief that both poverty reduction and climate change mitigation can be brought about with green capitalism and green economic growth. Progress will green everything eventually. A narrow understanding of low-carbon development (or, perhaps more accurately, low-carbon growth) does imply at first sight a rather harmonious marriage between climate-friendly activities and international development.