In the first instance it is an attempt to inscribe those non-spontaneous exigencies within the rules of value allocation. So 'externalities' are generally seen as 'social costs'. But such a view assumes the reality of a social order outside of capitalism that must be protected. What can such an order be but an idealisation of capitalist society itself.
With the concept of 'externalities' market ideologists are trying to integrate those costs of social stability that do not spontaneously beget value. In other words, this is that old refrain of the 'independent' state, that supposedly stands above vested interests (but turns out to be the ideal collective of the capitalist class). . . . "
---------------------- mbs: The market ideologists I know have trouble finding externalities, and those they do find are usually not subject to remedy by government. It is true that the idea of externality is founded on neo-classical value theory and it pre-supposes a different world, one that JH calls an "idealization of capitalist society." But any potential reform does the same thing.
The fact that environmentalism is of concern to all classes does not reduce its salience. It does reduce the salience of class. Some of the class disparity of concern is artificial, in that it depends on income. More income typically means more concern with non-market amenities; less means you are more preoccupied w/securing your daily bread. With more equality, concern or indifference would be more equal as well.
I have a soft spot for much from JH re: environmentalism, since I'm into what is disparagingly called 'producerism.' But there are limits. It seems like to JH environmentalism is both too radical and not radical enough. But it can't be both.