Low-Carbon Transition as Vehicle of New Inequalities? Risk-Class, the Chinese Middle-Class and the Moral Economy of Misrecognition

Abstract

Low-carbon innovation is usually depicted as an exemplar of pursuit of the common good, in both mainstream policy discussion and the emerging orthodoxy of transition studies. Yet it may emerge as a key means of intensifying inequality. We analyse low-carbon innovation as a social and political process through the prism of differential risk-classes, focusing on the pivotal global case of emergence of the Chinese middle-class in seaboard megacities, especially regarding the profound challenges of urban e-mobility transition. This approach shows emergence of this still-forming sociopolitical grouping as tightly and complementarily coupled with the assembling of innovations that meaningfully tackle global risks, such as climate change, while also intensifying existing inequalities. Misrecognition of the duality of low-carbon innovations as both moral technologies and as relatively expensive consumer products has the potentiality to be a key mechanism of this process, thereby serving to reproduce, constitute and legitimize inequalities in novel and unexpected ways.

Mobilising the dispositive: Exploring the role of dockless public bike sharing in transforming urban governance in Shanghai

“…Inspired by ride-sharing platforms Uber and DiDi, PBSS 2.0 enterprises ‘smartphonise’ the ‘old’ cycling business through app platforms and, in so doing, represent themselves (and cycling) as the new cutting-edge enterprise of ICT and sharing mobility. This resonates with Curran and Tyfield (2017: 133) who have argued that high status, high technology goods are central to the character of Chinese low-carbon transition. By fitting with this dominant national narrative these enterprises gain a strong moral justification to avoid any official administrative burden in running a transport/cycling business.…”

Green Transition's Necropolitics: Inequalities, Climate Extractivism, and Carbon Classes

“…We also relate this article to the literature on inequalities associated with low‐carbon technologies. As we articulate the concept of a decarbonised class based on the consumption of (supposedly) “decarbonised tech products and services”, we also propose to address what Curran and Tyfield (2020) describe as a “low‐carbon transition as a vehicle of new inequalities”. As they argue, the dominant paradigm of the transition away from fossil fuel is one of inequalities that builds on an “assembling of innovations that meaningfully tackle … climate change” (Curran and Tyfield 2020:131).…”

“…As we articulate the concept of a decarbonised class based on the consumption of (supposedly) “decarbonised tech products and services”, we also propose to address what Curran and Tyfield (2020) describe as a “low‐carbon transition as a vehicle of new inequalities”. As they argue, the dominant paradigm of the transition away from fossil fuel is one of inequalities that builds on an “assembling of innovations that meaningfully tackle … climate change” (Curran and Tyfield 2020:131). They suggest that low‐carbon innovations, including electric vehicles and green energy devices act in a dual manner as “both moral technologies and as relatively expensive consumer products” (ibid.).…”

Introduction to the Handbook on Risk and Inequality

“…3 Through focusing specifically on socially produced risks and the inequalities that emerge from both the production and distribution of risks, this approach has sought to build on Beck's analysis of how the systematic production of risks is changing contemporary political economy, while also seeking to bring a more empirically oriented approach to charting the relation between class position and risk position than Beck had done. While the incommensurability challenge continues to loom, research tracking some of the key relations between risk and inequality has already been carried out in the areas of climate change, environmental risk and justice (Curran 2016(Curran , 2018(Curran , 2021Tyfield 2018), the 2008 financial crisis (Curran 2015), low-carbon innovation (Curran and Tyfield 2020), and data-driven governance (Curran and Smart 2021). Nevertheless, this research is still in its infancy and is waiting for a more integrated analysis across different risks, even if some initial steps have been taken in this regard (Curran 2016).…”