Corra Boushel PhD Candidate in Science and Technology Studies University of Edinburgh British Sociological Association, Southampton March 30 th 2012 Qualitative methods within the “quantitative” arena of carbon markets

Aim and Design A synthesis of Actor-Network Theory and Suchman's typology of legitimacy (1995), using the case of “sustainable development” in carbon offset markets * Participant-observation for one year * Semi-structured interviews * Documentary analysis

Actor-Network Theory ANT-haters, please hold your fire. – The small scale joins together to create the large scale – Follow the actors – and note where they fear to tread. – Explore the how to think about the why, and the why not.

The cast of carbon 1. “Carbon” doesn't mean carbon 2. Kyoto, CDM and voluntary 3. Offsetting Fungibility Prioritise the aggregate Hypothetical counterfactuals Quantification The quantified presence and absence, hypothetical and actual, of the commodity known as 'carbon.'

Sustainable Development Kyoto Protocol, Article 12 “the purpose of the CDM shall be to assist Parties not included in Annex I [those obliged under the Protocol to reduce their emissions] in achieving sustainable development...” (United Nations 1998) BUT “left to market forces, the CDM does not significantly contribute to sustainable development” (Olsen 2007: 59) In the voluntary market in 2011, 34% of credits traded were certified by standards that monitor SD impacts. (Peters-Stanley et al. 2011: 32)

“Pure carbon” vs. “quality carbon” and “the touchy-feely stuff” “I'm always a bit sceptical about the term co-benefits. I understand its function in the marketplace, but it almost implies that you can have the carbon benefit without the other elements.” Slide 2, The Gold Standard Introductory Presentation 2011 Interview (A) 2010

Legitimacy type Example quote Cognitive: taken-for- granted “SD should always be at the very core of a market like this (the carbon market).” Moral: desirable, aspirational “In a certain sense it’s (the standard highlighting SD) changed the market... It doesn’t mean that the market didn’t do anymore sleazy projects or anything like that, but you do have the reference.” Pragmatic: possible but not necessary “I don't think everything (carbon offsets) will look like The Gold Standard because... there's also a need for just low- cost carbon. Some people just want to reduce emissions and... don't have any need... for the SD side.” Illegitimate: irrelevant “Some markets and demographics don’t care about SD... It’s a material part of our pitch, but if we get to a buyer like who says we don’t care, we can’t afford SD, then it’s a threat.” ANT + Legitimacy

Conclusion Empirical SD is not “taken-for-granted” There are different ways of conceptualising (and also performing) the relationship between SD and carbon offsetting. Methodological (ANT informed) ethnography + legitimacy can bring insights about what is present and absent. Qualitative research has much to say, and can offer advice, on putatively quantitative topics.

Thanks for your attention - all comments, criticisms and advice appreciated! Corra Boushel Geneva, Switzerland University of Edinburgh, Scotland.