Cohen, Daniel Aldana

English

ScholarlyCommons@Penn

University of PennsylvaniaScholarlyCommonsDepartmental Papers (Sociology) Penn Sociology2013Review of Brian J. Gareau, From Precaution to Profit:Contemporary Challenges to Environmental Protectionin the Montreal ProtocolDaniel Aldana CohenUniversity of Pennsylvania, dacoh@sas.upenn.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/sociology_papersPart of the Environmental Studies Commons, International Relations Commons, OtherEnvironmental Sciences Commons, and the Place and Environment CommonsAt the time of publication, author Daniel Aldana Cohen was affiliated with New York University. Currently he is a faculty member in the SociologyDepartment at the University of Pennsylvania.This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/sociology_papers/28For more information, please contact repository@pobox.upenn.edu.Recommended CitationCohen, Daniel. 2013. "Review of Brian J. Gareau, From Precaution to Profit: Contemporary Challenges to Environmental Protection in theMontreal Protocol." Journal of World-Systems Research 19 (2): 312-314.Review of Brian J. Gareau, From Precaution to Profit: ContemporaryChallenges to Environmental Protection in the Montreal ProtocolDisciplinesEnvironmental Studies | International Relations | Other Environmental Sciences | Place and Environment |SociologyCommentsAt the time of publication, author Daniel Aldana Cohen was affiliated with New York University. Currently heis a faculty member in the Sociology Department at the University of Pennsylvania.This review is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/sociology_papers/28Book Reviews Brian J. Gareau. 2013. From Precaution to Profit: Contemporary Challenges to Environmental Protection in the Montreal Protocol New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 362 pages, ISBN 978-0300175264 Cloth ($55.00). Since the disastrous 2009 Copenhagen climate talks, global climate governance has roiled in crisis. Michael Grubb, a long-time influential advocate for a binding global climate treaty, has warned that the world could enter its "darkest hour" (Grubb 2011 ). Other scholars now argue that small clusters of countries should negotiate treaties amongst themselves, and expand their clubs over time (Victor 2011). Some have even suggested a "G-2" solution decided by the United States and China alone. On the left, climate justice and "system change " activists are more likely to reject talk of any carbon-trading settlement altogether, despite the occasional radical defense of a global cap-and-trade scheme (Hahnel 2012). Still, a universal treaty remains on the global agenda. And the Montreal Protocol is the precedent most often cited as a uniquely effective example of global environmental governance, thanks to the steep reductions in ozone depleting substances it has achieved since entering into force in 1989. Yet as Brian J. Gareau shows in From Precaution to Profit: Contemporary Challenges in the Montreal Protocol, this ostensible success story is misunderstood, with important implications for global climate politics. Gareau argues, first, that the role of consensus science in the Protocol's inception has been greatly overstated; second , that the treaty's real successes are largely explained by a pre-neoliberal, precautionary political context that no longer prevails; third, that under neoliberalizing conditions, U.S. intransigence, and a newly challenging technological setting, the Protocol's effectiveness has dwindled; and finally, that global civil society (including public science) so far lacks the tools to compel nation states to do better. Gareau musters impressive ethnographic and historical research, supplemented with careful readings of new radical geography, environmental sociology, Bourdieusian theories of social capital, and Foucauldian literatures on power /knowledge and governmentality. And his presentation is clear and cogent even as it navigates the proverbial alphabet soup and dull bureaucratic procedures of treaty governance. In terms of sweeping global developments, he narrates the extraordinary capacity of California's commercial strawberry industry to enlist the United States government's assistance in hijacking a vital environmental treaty , this despite ''the rather inconsequential role that strawberries play in society" (Gareau 2013, p. 149). Readers of this journal may not be stunned to read about the ability of powerful corporations and the U.S. government to bring global environmental institutions and poorer countries' aspirations to heel (see Park and Roberts 2007). But they will learn much about the concrete mechanisms whereby global inequalities are translated into legal victories for some core countries on the negotiating floor. From Precaution to Profit is divided in two. The first section argues that over the course of the 1990s, global environmental governance neoliberalized, with devastating implications for governments' ability ~ and willingness ~ to resolve the contradiction between markets and environment in the latter's favor. The second explores in ethnographic depth the controversy over methyl bromide (MeBr), a toxic chemical gas used to pre-sterilize tomato and (most importantly) strawberry fields to prevent infestation by pests. MeBr, whose continued use the Copyright ~2013, American Sociological Association, Volume 19, Number 2, Pages 312-330, ISSN 1076-156X 313 Journal of World-Systems Research American "polluter-industrial complex " has vehemently insisted on, also happens to be a significant ozone-depleting substance, and the most important target of regulation through the Montreal Protocol , now that it is successfully drawing down use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Gareau's book builds on a growing new literature showing that in the Montreal Protocol's initial 1980s negotiation, the role of science was more mixed than the protocol's champions - and climate science boosters - typically recognize. Research on ozone-depleting substances then was far less conclusive than research on anthropogenic climate change today. On the other hand, at that time replacing CFCs with alternative substances actually offered the world's major chemical companies the prospects of significant profits. These companies had not yet worked out precise replacements , but they reasonably expected that slightly costlier solutions would allow them to squeeze smaller competitors out of the market. The problem for Gareau is that this economic argument undermines his second claim for the Montreal Protocol's early success, namely that a "general interest" mood of precaution prevailed over neoliberal market logic in the 1980s. If the economic ramifications of regulation were not especially frightening, perhaps the discourse about prevention, and the willingness to use "command and control" regulatory methods , was just rhetorical residue from the 1970s. Gareau alludes to U.S.-based civil society pressure as a key force in the late 1980s, with reference to others' scholarship. More detail is needed here. Other accounts of the shifting terrain of environmental governance in the 1980s suggest that a pro-market shift was already well underway at that time, particularly in the U.S., with business-friendly NGOs like the Environmental Defense Fund taking full advantage (see Meckling 2011, Oreskes and Conway 2010, Pooley 2011). Had Gareau briefly compared the politics surrounding the agreement of the Montreal Protocol with other high-profile environmental struggles of the time, he might have made his periodization more persuasive. In any case, Gareau's definition of neoliberalization, which draws on radical geography arguments about its processual and uneven character, powerfully illuminates two key dimensions of the 2000s' MeBr controversy, where the United States insisted on special exemptions for California strawberry growers, thus undermining the phase-out of MeBr across the globe. The first is the hypocrisy of Northern governments, which, while promoting trade liberalization in general, nonetheless engaged in protectionism for favored industries. In the many meetings of the Montreal Protocol that Gareau attended, the United States refused to engage in debates about the overall global economic implications of the phase-out, instead insisting, in a marked shift from the tenor of earlier negotiations within the Protocol, that no regulation should impose costs on any particular industry. The second, linked dimension pertains to the role of scientific knowledge in governance and the ability ofNGOs to meaningfully contest core countries' claims on behalf of a general, global interest. In the 1980s and 1990s, global public science offered the only legitimate grounds for negotiating reductions in ozone-depleting substances. But once the MeBr controversy erupted, American negotiators insisted on the particular, private knowledge produced ( or funded) by California growers. Gareau argues that neoliberalization was as much about the United States defending its favored science as defending any particular industry. When NGOs would appeal to the United States, EU, and other countries to resist this agenda , however, they usually had no effect. This leads Gareau, leaning on Bourdieu, to theorize that powerful actors were vertically penetrating the Protocol's seemingly horizontal social networks. And in what Gareau reads as Foucauldian processes of power /knowledge and governmentality, the United States in particular was able to use its leverage to compel poorer countries to submit to the U.S. 's protectionist agenda, all while legitimizing its actions by clouding the scientific debate, and by compelling NGOs to adopt neoliberal discourses about avoiding "market Book Reviews 314 disruptions." But if the United States is the clear villain in this story, the European Union (EU) plays a more ambivalent, even positive role. It remains unclear to what degree this reflects a fundamentally different approach to reconciling economic and ecological imperatives. On the whole, Gareau's claims are persuasive and amply supported by his research. Their implications, unfortunately , are daunting. He ends on an ambivalent note, suggesting that a MeBr phase-out may well end up occurring because of very recent technological progress and expanded organic growing practices. Yet he insists that the controversies of the 2000s demonstrate a distressing neoliberal tum and the worrying fragility of the best global green treaty on offer. What is to be done? Gareau makes vague arguments about the need for greater civil society mobilization , especially in the U.S., and he argues that the relationship between science, civil society, and policy-makers needs to be re-aligned in favor of a precautionary approach. Is this enough to get the Montreal Protocol back on track? And even if so, does what worked for ozone politics in the 1980s really provide a helpful analog for contemporary climate politics? With climate change, actually implementing a "precautionary" approach likely means long-term, economy-wide planning. But the historical reference for such interventionist U.S. government planning extends much further back than the 1980s, to the New Deal and its immediate aftermath, and to the militant labor movements that fought for that era's decommodifying welfare policies. Clearly, the context has changed. And is a global climate treaty the right goal? From Precaution to Profit makes it clear that nation-states are the decisive actors, and that global institutions have limited power to coerce the most powerful national governments. Gareau has helpfully specified the ways that neoliberalization is undermining global environmental governance. But it will fall to other scholars and activists to apply its lessons in work on what sorts of leverage particular civil society actors already have, and the sorts of leverage they will need to build, to keep the profit imperative from devastating efforts to slow climate change. References Grubb, Michael. 2011. Durban: the darkest hour? Climate Policy 11(6): 1269-1271. Hahnel, R. 2011. Left Clouds Over Climate Change Policy. Review of Radical Political Economics 44(2): 141-59. Meckling, Jonas. 2011. Carbon Coalitions: Business, Climate Politics, and the Rise of Emissions Trading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Pooley, Eric. 2010. The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth. New York: Hyperion. Roberts, J. Timmons, and Bradley C. Parks. 2007. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy. Cambridge , MA: MIT Press. Victor, David G. 2011. Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daniel Aldana Cohen Department of Sociology and Institute for Public Knowledge, New York University aldanacohen @nyu.edu 

Review of Brian J. Gareau, \u3cem\u3eFrom Precaution to Profit: Contemporary Challenges to Environmental Protection in the Montreal Protocol\u3c/em\u3e

Kosmopolis

University of Pennsylvania
ScholarlyCommons
Departmental Papers (Sociology) Penn Sociology
2013
Review of Brian J. Gareau, From Precaution to Profit:
Contemporary Challenges to Environmental Protection
in the Montreal Protocol
Daniel Aldana Cohen
University of Pennsylvania, dacoh@sas.upenn.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/sociology_papers
Part of the Environmental Studies Commons, International Relations Commons, Other
Environmental Sciences Commons, and the Place and Environment Commons
At the time of publication, author Daniel Aldana Cohen was affiliated with New York University. Currently he is a faculty member in the Sociology
Department at the University of Pennsylvania.
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/sociology_papers/28
For more information, please contact repository@pobox.upenn.edu.
Recommended Citation
Cohen, Daniel. 2013. "Review of Brian J. Gareau, From Precaution to Profit: Contemporary Challenges to Environmental Protection in the
Montreal Protocol." Journal of World-Systems Research 19 (2): 312-314.
Review of Brian J. Gareau, From Precaution to Profit: Contemporary
Challenges to Environmental Protection in the Montreal Protocol
Disciplines
Environmental Studies | International Relations | Other Environmental Sciences | Place and Environment |
Sociology
Comments
At the time of publication, author Daniel Aldana Cohen was affiliated with New York University. Currently he
is a faculty member in the Sociology Department at the University of Pennsylvania.
This review is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/sociology_papers/28
Book Reviews 
Brian J. Gareau. 2013. From Precaution to Profit: Contemporary Challenges to 
Environmental Protection in the Montreal Protocol New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 
362 pages, ISBN 978-0300175264 Cloth ($55.00). 
Since the disastrous 2009 Copenhagen climate talks, global climate governance has roiled in 
crisis. Michael Grubb, a long-time influential advocate for a binding global climate treaty, has 
warned that the world could enter its "darkest hour" (Grubb 2011 ). Other scholars now argue that 
small clusters of countries should negotiate treaties amongst themselves, and expand their clubs 
over time (Victor 2011). Some have even suggested a "G-2" solution decided by the United 
States and China alone. On the left, climate justice and "system change " activists are more likely 
to reject talk of any carbon-trading settlement altogether, despite the occasional radical defense 
of a global cap-and-trade scheme (Hahnel 2012). Still, a universal treaty remains on the global 
agenda. And the Montreal Protocol is the precedent most often cited as a uniquely effective 
example of global environmental governance, thanks to the steep reductions in ozone depleting 
substances it has achieved since entering into force in 1989. 
Yet as Brian J. Gareau shows in From Precaution to Profit: Contemporary Challenges in 
the Montreal Protocol, this ostensible success story is misunderstood, with important 
implications for global climate politics. Gareau argues, first, that the role of consensus science in 
the Protocol's inception has been greatly overstated; second , that the treaty's real successes are 
largely explained by a pre-neoliberal, precautionary political context that no longer prevails; 
third, that under neoliberalizing conditions, U.S. intransigence, and a newly challenging 
technological setting, the Protocol's effectiveness has dwindled; and finally, that global civil 
society (including public science) so far lacks the tools to compel nation states to do better. 
Gareau musters impressive ethnographic and historical research, supplemented with careful 
readings of new radical geography, environmental sociology, Bourdieusian theories of social 
capital, and Foucauldian literatures on power /knowledge and governmentality. And his 
presentation is clear and cogent even as it navigates the proverbial alphabet soup and dull 
bureaucratic procedures of treaty governance. In terms of sweeping global developments, he 
narrates the extraordinary capacity of California's commercial strawberry industry to enlist the 
United States government's assistance in hijacking a vital environmental treaty , this despite ''the 
rather inconsequential role that strawberries play in society" (Gareau 2013, p. 149). Readers of 
this journal may not be stunned to read about the ability of powerful corporations and the U.S. 
government to bring global environmental institutions and poorer countries' aspirations to heel 
(see Park and Roberts 2007). But they will learn much about the concrete mechanisms whereby 
global inequalities are translated into legal victories for some core countries on the negotiating 
floor. 
From Precaution to Profit is divided in two. The first section argues that over the course 
of the 1990s, global environmental governance neoliberalized, with devastating implications for 
governments' ability ~ and willingness ~ to resolve the contradiction between markets and 
environment in the latter's favor. The second explores in ethnographic depth the controversy 
over methyl bromide (MeBr), a toxic chemical gas used to pre-sterilize tomato and (most 
importantly) strawberry fields to prevent infestation by pests. MeBr, whose continued use the 
Copyright ~2013, American Sociological Association, Volume 19, Number 2, Pages 312-330, ISSN 1076-156X 
313 Journal of World-Systems Research 
American "polluter-industrial complex " has vehemently insisted on, also happens to be a 
significant ozone-depleting substance, and the most important target of regulation through the 
Montreal Protocol , now that it is successfully drawing down use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). 
Gareau's book builds on a growing new literature showing that in the Montreal 
Protocol's initial 1980s negotiation, the role of science was more mixed than the protocol's 
champions - and climate science boosters - typically recognize. Research on ozone-depleting 
substances then was far less conclusive than research on anthropogenic climate change today. On 
the other hand, at that time replacing CFCs with alternative substances actually offered the 
world's major chemical companies the prospects of significant profits. These companies had not 
yet worked out precise replacements , but they reasonably expected that slightly costlier solutions 
would allow them to squeeze smaller competitors out of the market. The problem for Gareau is 
that this economic argument undermines his second claim for the Montreal Protocol's early 
success, namely that a "general interest" mood of precaution prevailed over neoliberal market 
logic in the 1980s. If the economic ramifications of regulation were not especially frightening, 
perhaps the discourse about prevention, and the willingness to use "command and control" 
regulatory methods , was just rhetorical residue from the 1970s. Gareau alludes to U.S.-based 
civil society pressure as a key force in the late 1980s, with reference to others' scholarship. More 
detail is needed here. Other accounts of the shifting terrain of environmental governance in the 
1980s suggest that a pro-market shift was already well underway at that time, particularly in the 
U.S., with business-friendly NGOs like the Environmental Defense Fund taking full advantage 
(see Meckling 2011, Oreskes and Conway 2010, Pooley 2011). Had Gareau briefly compared the 
politics surrounding the agreement of the Montreal Protocol with other high-profile 
environmental struggles of the time, he might have made his periodization more persuasive. 
In any case, Gareau's definition of neoliberalization, which draws on radical geography 
arguments about its processual and uneven character, powerfully illuminates two key dimensions 
of the 2000s' MeBr controversy, where the United States insisted on special exemptions for 
California strawberry growers, thus undermining the phase-out of MeBr across the globe. The 
first is the hypocrisy of Northern governments, which, while promoting trade liberalization in 
general, nonetheless engaged in protectionism for favored industries. In the many meetings of 
the Montreal Protocol that Gareau attended, the United States refused to engage in debates about 
the overall global economic implications of the phase-out, instead insisting, in a marked shift 
from the tenor of earlier negotiations within the Protocol, that no regulation should impose costs 
on any particular industry. The second, linked dimension pertains to the role of scientific 
knowledge in governance and the ability ofNGOs to meaningfully contest core countries' claims 
on behalf of a general, global interest. In the 1980s and 1990s, global public science offered the 
only legitimate grounds for negotiating reductions in ozone-depleting substances. But once the 
MeBr controversy erupted, American negotiators insisted on the particular, private knowledge 
produced ( or funded) by California growers. Gareau argues that neoliberalization was as much 
about the United States defending its favored science as defending any particular industry. When 
NGOs would appeal to the United States, EU, and other countries to resist this agenda , however, 
they usually had no effect. This leads Gareau, leaning on Bourdieu, to theorize that powerful 
actors were vertically penetrating the Protocol's seemingly horizontal social networks. And in 
what Gareau reads as Foucauldian processes of power /knowledge and governmentality, the 
United States in particular was able to use its leverage to compel poorer countries to submit to 
the U.S. 's protectionist agenda, all while legitimizing its actions by clouding the scientific 
debate, and by compelling NGOs to adopt neoliberal discourses about avoiding "market 
Book Reviews 314 
disruptions." But if the United States is the clear villain in this story, the European Union (EU) 
plays a more ambivalent, even positive role. It remains unclear to what degree this reflects a 
fundamentally different approach to reconciling economic and ecological imperatives. 
On the whole, Gareau's claims are persuasive and amply supported by his research. Their 
implications, unfortunately , are daunting. He ends on an ambivalent note, suggesting that a MeBr 
phase-out may well end up occurring because of very recent technological progress and 
expanded organic growing practices. Yet he insists that the controversies of the 2000s 
demonstrate a distressing neoliberal tum and the worrying fragility of the best global green treaty 
on offer. What is to be done? Gareau makes vague arguments about the need for greater civil 
society mobilization , especially in the U.S., and he argues that the relationship between science, 
civil society, and policy-makers needs to be re-aligned in favor of a precautionary approach. Is 
this enough to get the Montreal Protocol back on track? And even if so, does what worked for 
ozone politics in the 1980s really provide a helpful analog for contemporary climate politics? 
With climate change, actually implementing a "precautionary" approach likely means long-term, 
economy-wide planning. But the historical reference for such interventionist U.S. government 
planning extends much further back than the 1980s, to the New Deal and its immediate 
aftermath, and to the militant labor movements that fought for that era's decommodifying 
welfare policies. Clearly, the context has changed. And is a global climate treaty the right goal? 
From Precaution to Profit makes it clear that nation-states are the decisive actors, and that global 
institutions have limited power to coerce the most powerful national governments. Gareau has 
helpfully specified the ways that neoliberalization is undermining global environmental 
governance. But it will fall to other scholars and activists to apply its lessons in work on what 
sorts of leverage particular civil society actors already have, and the sorts of leverage they will 
need to build, to keep the profit imperative from devastating efforts to slow climate change. 
References 
Grubb, Michael. 2011. Durban: the darkest hour? Climate Policy 11(6): 1269-1271. 
Hahnel, R. 2011. Left Clouds Over Climate Change Policy. Review of Radical Political 
Economics 44(2): 141-59. 
Meckling, Jonas. 2011. Carbon Coalitions: Business, Climate Politics, and the Rise of Emissions 
Trading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 
Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists 
Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: 
Bloomsbury Press. 
Pooley, Eric. 2010. The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the 
Earth. New York: Hyperion. 
Roberts, J. Timmons, and Bradley C. Parks. 2007. A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, 
North-South Politics, and Climate Policy. Cambridge , MA: MIT Press. 
Victor, David G. 2011. Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for 
Protecting the Planet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Daniel Aldana Cohen 
Department of Sociology and Institute for Public Knowledge, New York University 
aldanacohen @nyu.edu 


https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&amp;context=sociology_papers

Review of Brian J. Gareau, \u3cem\u3eFrom Precaution to Profit: Contemporary Challenges to Environmental Protection in the Montreal Protocol\u3c/em\u3e

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarlyCommons@Penn

Kosmopolis