Environment and Planning A 2013, volume 45, pages 2682 – 2699 doi:10.1068/a45692 Life for sale? The politics of lively commodities Rosemary-Claire Collard Department of Geography, University of Toronto, 100 St George Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3G3; e-mail: rosemary.collard@utoronto.ca Jessica Dempsey School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, PO Box 3060 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3R4; e-mail: jdempsey@uvic.ca Received 5 December 2012; in revised form 18 May 2013 Abstract. When so many facets of nonhuman life are commodified daily with little challenge, this paper looks to shed light on what is objectionable about commodifying nonhuman life. As a contribution in this direction, we undertake a comparative examination of the formation of two different but equally lively, and international, commodities: exotic pets and ecosystem carbon. In this paper we first set out to understand what characteristics of life matter in the production of the commodity. We argue that a particular mode of value-generating life predominates in each commodity circuit: in exotic pet trade, an individualized, ‘encounterable’ life; in ecosystem services, an aggregate, reproductive life. Second, we find that hierarchies between humans and other beings are highly generative in the formation and effects of lively commodities. On one hand, these hierarchies cast nonhumans in a disposable state that is integral to the functioning of exotic pet trade; on the other hand, these hierarchies are partly what ecosystem services are designed to address. Nevertheless, we find that reproduction of uneven species geographies is at work in both economies. The degree and nature of effect on the material conditions of nonhuman lives is, however, distinct, and our conclusion calls for greater attention to these differences. Keywords: life, commodification, exotic pet trade, ecosystem services, nonhumans Introduction During heated negotiations over so-called ‘innovative financial resources’ at the 10th Conference of Parties (CoP 10) to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2010, the Bolivian representatives raised the ire of many delegates. They did so by asking that the decision under discussion state that any new innovative financial resources created to finance biodiversity conservation “not lead to the commodification of nature.” In response, the Swiss chair of the negotiation stated that “the language of commodification is not understood by everyone”, and delegates from the EU and USA forcefully objected to Bolivia’s suggestions. The nonparty delegate from the US was particularly irritated. (1) “The commodification of nature”, he said, “Do you keep honey bees, and sell their honey? Do people in your country catch butterflies and sell them? All of these people are collecting and selling biodiversity, and you are suggesting they should not be allowed.” He went on to say that “commodification means someone is taking a product and selling it”—something that is done all the time, every day, with all kinds of nature. (2) (1) The US is not a signatory to the CBD, but still participates extensively as a ‘nonparty’. This is especially the case when it comes to discussions regarding financial resources and the Global Environment Facility, as the US is a major donor to it. (2) This research moment comes from JD’s fieldwork at CoP 10 in Nagoya, Japan, October 2010.