The motivation for writing this article stems from the realization that the original ontological nature of commodities in modern society has changed, which necessitates a reconsideration of their ethical, epistemological, and teleological understanding to ensure the continuation of sustainability and sustainable development (SSD). The purpose of this study is to respond to the demand for effective climate policies by theorizing a new social kind, the “giftized commodity,” which adds value to the current paradigm in the general narratives of SSD. This article posits the following two main arguments to theorize the giftized commodity: (1) Internalizing the externalities. Consumers should bear the moral obligation for climate policies since market demand drives production, shipping, and disposal. (2) Reconceptualizing the meaning of commodity. The results from anthropogenic climate change should be considered a fundamental part of any commodity’s price. This article concludes that by acknowledging the new ontological, ethical, epistemological, and teleological status of market goods (i.e., commodities), it is appropriate for climate policymaking to recognize them as giftized commodities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbazariA. (2021). Marx’s conception of dialectical contradiction in commodity. Hegel Bulletin, 42(2), 180–200.
AppaduraiA. (Ed.). (1988). The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
4.
ArendtH. (1998). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
5.
BaatzC. (2014). Climate change and individual duties to reduce GHG emissions. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 17(1), 1–19.
6.
BaerP., KarthaS., AthanasiouT., & Kemp‐BenedictE. (2009). The greenhouse development rights framework: Drawing attention to inequality within nations in the global climate policy debate. Development and Change, 40(6), 1121–1138.
7.
BakkerK. (2005). Neoliberalizing nature? Market environmentalism in water supply in England and Wales. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(3), 542–565.
BourdieuP. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645–668.
10.
BoydR. (1991). Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philosophical Studies, 61(1–2), 127–148.
11.
ByskovM. F., HyamsK., SatyalP., AnguelovskiI., BenjaminL., et al. (2021). An agenda for ethics and justice in adaptation to climate change. Climate and Development, 13(1), 1–9.
CookL. F. (2023). The latest IPCC synthesis report: What we learned about climate science, and what we learned about ourselves. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 65(5), 19–25.
14.
DearM. (1988). The postmodern challenge: Reconstructing human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 13(3), 262–274.
15.
DerridaJ. (1992). Given time: I. Counterfeit money (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.
16.
HabermasJ., & BlazekJ. R. (1987). The idea of the university: Learning processes. New German Critique, (41), 3–22.
17.
HajerM. A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernisation and The Policy Process. Clarendon Press: Oxford, U.K.
18.
HawkenP., LovinsH., & LovinsA. (1999). Natural Capital: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Little, Brown and Co: Boston.
19.
InouaS. M., & SmithV. L. (2023). A classical model of speculative asset pricedynamics. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 37, 100780.
KockelmanP. (2006). A semiotic ontology of the commodity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 16(1), 76–102.
23.
LohmannL. (2009). Toward a different debate in environmental accounting: The cases of carbon and cost–benefit. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 499–534.
24.
MarshallA. (1890). Some aspects of competition.” The address of the president of section F Economic Science and Statistics–of the British Association, at the Sixtiet Meeting, held at Leeds, in September, 1890. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 53(4), 612–643.
25.
MarxK. (2016). Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. In Social Theory Re-Wired (pp. 152–158). Routledge.
26.
MaussM. (2000). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Norton & Company.
27.
MolA. P. J. (1996). Ecological modernisation and institutional reflexivity: Environmental reform in the late modern age. Environmental Politics, 5(2), 302–33.
28.
NicholsonS. (2015). The birth of free-market environmentalism. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 46(3), 421–433.
29.
O’ NeillJ. (2013). Markets, Deliberation and Environment. Routledge.
30.
PageE. A. (2008). Distributing the burdens of climate change. Environmental Politics, 17(4), 556–575.
31.
PenningtonM. (1999). Free market environmentalism and the limits of land use planning. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 1(1), 43–59.
32.
PenningtonM. (2005). Liberty, markets, and environmental values: A Hayekian defense of free market environmentalism. The Independent Review, 10(1), 39–57.
33.
PolanyiK. (1944). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon Press: Boston.
34.
RosenauP. M. (1991). Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, and Intrusions. Princeton University Press.
35.
RostonM., SeigerA., & HellerT. (2023). What’s next after carbon accounting? Emissions liability management. Oxford Open Climate Change, 3(1), kgad006.
36.
SahlinsM. (2013). Stone Age Economics. Routledge.
37.
SchwabK. (2021). Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet. John Wiley & Sons.
38.
ShueH. (1999). Global environment and international inequality. International Affairs, 75(3), 531–545.
39.
SmithA. (1937). The Wealth of Nations: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes. Modern Library: New York.
40.
StormJ. A. J. (2021). Metamodernism: The Future of Theory. University of Chicago Press.
41.
WhiteheadA. N. (2010). Process and Reality. Simon and Schuster.
42.
ZhangR., D’AndreaJ., & LangC. (2023). Gifts and commodities: A dialectical thought experiment for sublation. Sustainability, 15(9), 7562.
43.
ZiervogelG., LennardC., MidgleyG., NewM., SimpsonN. P., et al. (2022). Climate change in South Africa: Risks and opportunities for climate-resilientdevelopment in the IPCC Sixth Assessment WGII Report. South African Journal of Science, 118(9/10), 1–5.
