CfP POLLEN 20 – The Rights of Nature: between radical environmentalism and hegemonic threat

Session organiser

Mihnea Tanasescu (, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Paper proposals (abstract, 250 words max) should be sent to by October 13th, 2019.  

Session Abstract

The first theoretical formulation of the rights of nature is attributed to professor Christopher Stone, an American legal scholar that, as a tactic for capturing his students’ attention at the end of a lecture, asked whether it is conceivable that trees could have legal standing. This first intuition led, in 1972, to the publication of the now classic “Should Trees Have Standing?”. The argument that Stone developed, in brief, is that there are no a priori reasons, other than legal custom, to exclude non-human beings, even ‘inanimate’ ones, from having standing in a court of law (Stone 1972, 2010).

This first formulation of what later became a movement for rights of nature captures the basic idea that natural entities can, in principle, be granted standing in a court of law. However, this formulation logically leads to the idea of rights, because by conferring rights legal persons can be created that can sue in their own name and for their own benefit.

The rights of nature literature has since developed away from the idea of granting nature standing alone and towards the idea of granting nature positive rights as well. In this, Thomas Berry (1999), Alberto Acosta (2008a, 2008b, 2010), and Cormac Cullinan (2011) have been influential (also see Gudynas 2009ab, 2011ab). The principal positive rights that these authors argue for are the right to respect and restoration. These are derived from the supposed moral standing of nature and therefore signify a conflation of legal and moral personality in the scholarship of rights for nature (Tanasescu 2016).

With the writing of the 2008 Ecuadorian constitution (Asamblea Constituyente 2008), these theoretical debates entered the realm of practical political ecology. Since then, many other jurisdictions have followed suit, and we are now faced with a growing number of rights for nature: at the municipal level in the United States (Tanasescu 2016, Fitz‐Henry 2018), at the national level in Bolivia (Lalander 2014), at the constitutional level in Ecuador (Daly 2012, Tanasescu 2013), and at the regional level in India (O’Donnell 2017), Columbia (Caballero Flórez et al 2018) and New Zealand (Tanasescu 2016, Sanders 2017, O’Donnell and Talbot-Jones 2018, O’Donnell and Macpherson 2019). The practical application of the rights of nature so far has been aided by two factors: the activism of non-governmental organizations (key among which are the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, USA, the Pachamama Alliance and Accion Ecologica, Ecuador; see Rawson and Mansfield 2018) and the activism of organized indigenous populations. These different cases have been investigated relatively little, but interest is growing tremendously. Critical scholars are increasingly beginning to question the simple narrative that would equate rights of nature with emancipatory projects.

For example, Rawson and Mansfield (2018) argue that the rights of nature amount to a naturalization of rights, that is to say to the hegemonic extension of a particular political and legal ontology to subordinate groups, particularly indigenous nations. Tanasescu (2015) has argued that the indigenous are often used as little more than a marketing façade for the operations of particular environmental agendas. Transnational policy networks, conceptualizing ‘nature’ as a globe shared by all humanity, are at the same time identifying the rights of nature with indigenous, situated practices. An increasing number of authors are also pushing the established boundaries of rights of nature discourse into comparative political directions (for example Knauß 2018), into post-human international relations (for example Youatt 2017, 2018), while starting to explore the overlap of resource extractivism and rights for nature (for example Fitz‐Henry 2018, Valladares and Boelens 2019).

Despite these developments, many questions remain unanswered. This session wishes to investigate three particular issues raised by the proliferation of rights for nature and by their relatively short history. First, do we now have enough cases, and enough case studies, such that we can start mapping the diversity within the rights for nature movement? Can we, today, speak of a movement, or are the rights of nature strategically appropriated in widely different contexts? What does a provisional answer to this question say about the future practice of rights for nature? Second, and related to the first line of investigation, what is the relationship between indigeneity and rights for nature? This supposedly close alliance has for too long escaped sustained critical attention, a state of affairs that benefits neither theory nor practice. What are the conceptual imbroglios between an increasingly diverse rights of nature advocacy and an always already diverse indigeneity (not to mention the incredible diversity of ‘nature’)? Third, rights of nature have been strategically deployed in areas of resource conflicts, and particularly against resource extraction. Are nature’s rights an appropriate strategy to oppose extractivism, or can they work – despite good intentions – to reinforce extractive politics? This session invites submissions that address these questions, and/or their interrelations. 


Acosta, A., 2008a. Tienen Derechos los Animales? La Insignia,[online] Available at: <>

Acosta, A., 2008b. La Naturaleza como Sujeta de Derechos. [online] Available at: <>

Acosta, A., 2010. Policy Paper 9: El Buen Vivir en el Camino del Post-desarollo.Una Lectura desde la Constitución de Montecristi. Quito: Fundación Friedrich Ebert.

Acosta, A., 2011.  La Naturaleza con Derechos: Una Propuesta de Cambio Civilizatorio. [online] Available at: <>

Acosta, A. and Martinez, E., eds., 2011. La Naturaleza con Derechos. De la Filosofía a la Política. Quito: AbyaYala.

Asamblea Constituyente, 2008. Constitución de la República del Ecuador. [online] Available at: <>

Berry, T., 1999. The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future. New York: Crown Publishing.

Caballero Flórez, D. M., & Largo Leal, C. E. 2018. Análisis jurídico de los alcances de las decisiones judiciales que otorgan derechos a contextos ambientales en Colombia.

Cullinan, C., 2011. Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. 2nd ed. Devon: Green Books.

Daly, E., 2012. The Ecuadorian Exemplar: The First Ever Vindications of Constitutional Rights of Nature. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 21, pp.63–66.

Fitz‐Henry, E. 2018. Challenging Corporate “Personhood”: Energy Companies and the “Rights” of Non‐Humans. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review41(S1), 85-102.

Gudynas, E., 2009a. El Mandato Ecológico. Derechos de la Naturaleza y Poltícas Ambientales en la Nueva Constitución. Quito: AbyaYala.

Gudynas, E., 2009b. The Political Ecology of the Biocentric Turn in Ecuador’s New Constitution. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 32, pp.34-47.

Gudynas, E., 2011a. Desarollo, Derechos de la Naturaleza y Buen Vivir Despues de Montecristi. In: Weber, G., ed., Debates Sobre Cooperación y Modelos de Desarollo. Perspectivas desde la Sociedad Civil en el Ecuador. Quito: Centro de Investigaciones CIUDAD.

Gudynas, E., 2011b. Los Derechos de la Naturaleza en Serio. Respuestas y Aportes desde la Ecología Política. In: Acosta, A. and Martinez, E., eds., La Naturaleza con Derechos. De la Filosofía a la Política. Quito: AbyaYala.

Knauß, S. 2018. Conceptualizing human stewardship in the anthropocene: The rights of nature in Ecuador, New Zealand and India. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics31(6), 703-722.

Lalander, R. 2014. Rights of nature and the indigenous peoples in Bolivia and Ecuador: A straitjacket for progressive development politics?. Iberoamerican Journal of Development Studies3(2), 148-172.

O’Donnell, E. L. 2017. At the intersection of the sacred and the legal: rights for nature in Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Environmental Law30(1), 135-144.

O’Donnell, E. and Talbot-Jones, J., 2018. Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India. Ecology and Society, 23(1).

O’Donnell, E., & Macpherson, E. 2019. Voice, power and legitimacy: the role of the legal person in river management in New Zealand, Chile and Australia. Australasian Journal of Water Resources23(1), 35-44.

Rawson, A., & Mansfield, B. 2018. Producing juridical knowledge: “Rights of Nature” or the naturalization of rights?. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space1(1-2), 99-119.

Sanders, K. 2017. ‘Beyond Human Ownership’? Property, Power and Legal Personality for Nature in Aotearoa New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Law30(2), 207-234.

Stone, C.D., 1972. Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Southern California Law Review, 45, 450.

Stone, C.D., 2010. Should Trees Have Standing? Law, Morality, and the Environment. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tanasescu, M., 2013. The rights of nature in Ecuador: the making of an idea. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 70(6), pp.846-861.

Tanasescu, M. 2015. Nature advocacy and the indigenous symbol. Environmental Values24(1), 105-122.

Tanasescu, M., 2016. Environment, Political Representation and the Challenge of Rights: Speaking for Nature. Springer.

Valladares, C., & Boelens, R. 2019. Mining for Mother Earth. Governmentalities, sacred waters and nature’s rights in Ecuador. Geoforum100, 68-79.

Youatt, R., 2017. Personhood and the Rights of Nature: The New Subjects of Contemporary Earth Politics. International Political Sociology, 11(1), pp.39-54.

Youatt, R., 2018. Anthropocentrism and the Politics of the Living. Reflections on the Posthuman in International Relations, p.39.

CfP POLLEN 20 – Political ecologies of education

Session organizers

Hanne Svarstad (OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University) and Christine Noe (University of Dar es Salaam)

Instructions for submitting contributions

Please send your abstract (200 to 250 workds) to Hanne Svarstad ( and Christine Noe ( until the 15th of October 2019.

Session abstract

What children learn at school may have a large impact on perspectives and practices related to uses and conservation of land and natural resources as well as to selection and acceptance of climate mitigation alternatives. Companies, conservation organizations and government bodies also elaborate educational programs to teach about their perspectives and practices to children as well as to adults. Contents of education may establish and maintain leading or even hegemonic discourses, and they may be analyzed in line with theories from Gramsci, Foucault, Freire and others. Despite the important role of education in forming views and practices on environment and development, the literature so far on political ecologies of education is rather modest. At the same time, there are critical traditions within pedagogy that may be useful to combine with political ecology. This session aims at bringing together contributions to the sub-field of political ecologies of education. In particular, we invite papers about – but not limited to – the following aspects:

  • Theoretical discussions about elaborations of political ecologies of education;
  • Political ecologies of climate education;
  • Studies of cases of education with examination of contents and teaching in comparison with challenges or conflicts in a local or broader context;
  • Decolonial perspectives on environmental education.

CfP POLLEN 20: Loss, damage and right to adaptation in the city: Explorations in urban climate justice

Session organizers

Ethemcan Turhan (Environmental Humanities Laboratory, Division of History of Science, Technology and Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden) & Özlem Çelik (Department of Development Studies, Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, Finland)

Please send abstracts of maximum 250 words with your affiliation to Ethemcan Turhan ( and Özlem Çelik ( the latest by 26 October 2019

Session abstract

Recent body of work on climate change adaptation increasingly refers to the limits of adaptation, which denotes a cut-off line where tangible and intangible loss and damage becomes inevitable. The notion of limits of adaptation, according to Michael Watts (2015: 21), was the “very ground on which political ecology emerged during the 1970s and 1980s”. Translating the global debates on loss and damage as if people matter (Tschakert et al, 2017) therefore requires attention not only to national but also to local scales and is positioned at the heart of critical political ecology inquiry today (Roberts and Pelling, 2016). As per adaptation interventions, Watts (2015: 20) reminds us that “what is on offer now is something unimaginable until relatively recently: namely abrupt, radical life-threatening shifts framed in the language of uncertainty, unpredictability, and contingency.” Such uncertainty, unpredictability and contingency are arguably the baseline of living dangerously in the age of planetary urbanization (Evans and Reid, 2014). Consequently, exploring adaptation and resistance as the building blocks of urban climate justice is tempting insofar as framing equity and fairness in adaptation is a contested process embedded in urban struggles.

This paper session invites contributions on the broadly defined field of urban climate justice that dare to look beyond the myth of self-regulating markets of private insurance schemes and liberal technocratic functionalism of engineering interventions. It seeks to amplify grassroots voices from the global South and global North alike on issues including but not limited to radical adaptation (Dawson, 2017), bottom-up citizen initiatives (Shi et al, 2016), heterotopias (Edwards and Bulkeley, 2018), climate gentrification (Anguelovski et al, 2016), humans and other species (Gillard et al, 2016), co-production of socionatures (Nightingale et al, 2019), hybrid, creative and cosmopolitical experiments as well as transformational radical practices (Steele et al, 2015). Notably, contributions from underrepresented geographies and societal groups with attention to power, possibility and prefiguration are most welcome. 


Anguelovski, I., et al. (2016). Equity impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: Critical perspectives from the global north and south. Journal of Planning Education and Research36(3), 333-348.

Dawson, A. (2017). Extreme cities: The peril and promise of urban life in the age of climate change. Verso Books.

Edwards, G. A., & Bulkeley, H. (2018). Heterotopia and the urban politics of climate change experimentation. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space36(2), 350-369.

Evans, B., & Reid, J. (2014). Resilient life: The art of living dangerously. John Wiley & Sons.

Gillard, R., et al. (2016). Transformational responses to climate change: beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change7(2), 251-265.

Nightingale, A. J., et al. (2019). Beyond Technical Fixes: climate solutions and the great derangement. Climate and Development, 1-10.

Shi, L., et al. (2016). Roadmap towards justice in urban climate adaptation research. Nature Climate Change6(2), 131.

Steele, W., et al. (2015). Urban climate justice: creating sustainable pathways for humans and other species. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability14, 121-126.

Tschakert, P., et al. (2017). Climate change and loss, as if people mattered: values, places, and experiences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change8(5), e476.

Watts, M. J. (2015). The origins of political ecology and the rebirth of adaptation as a form of thought. pg. 19-50, in Perreault, T., Bridge, G., & McCarthy, J. (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Political Ecology. Routledge.

CfP POLLEN 20: Unmaking the capitalist production of nature: exploring processes of (de)construction

Session organizers

Julia Spanier, Jacob Smessaert, Leonie Guerrero & Guilherme Raj, Utrecht University, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development

Instructions for submitting contributions

Please send you abstract proposal (250 words) to Julia Spanier ( and Jacob Smessaert ( until the 10th of October 2019.

Session keywords

capitalist and post-capitalist natures; unmaking capitalism; societal transformations

Session abstract

Scholarship on the capitalist production of nature has contributed majorly in understanding how material natures are produced by the socio-economic relations characterizing capitalism (Smith 1984). Externalized, second nature is not only produced through its primitive accumulation and exploitation (e.g. enclosure and land grabbing, Fairhead et al. 2012), but is also the product of what Smith (2007) has called the “real subsumption” of nature, in which the intentional transformation of nature has become a strategy for capital accumulation. It is argued that, nowadays, even the protection of nature is becoming a mechanism for its continuing commodification (Fairhead et al. 2012; McCarthy and Prudham 2004; Bakker 2015).

Yet, while the capitalist nature thesis provides a strong critical analysis of capitalism’s advancing frontiers, it has focused less on sketching trajectories towards post-capitalist or more-than-capitalist natures. Therefore, this session aims to convene a discussion around exactly this agenda. It does so by drawing on Feola’s (2019) concept of “unmaking capitalist relations and structures”, which refers to processes that make space for alternatives which are incompatible with dominant capitalist structures. This implies both interrupting the reproduction of capitalist configurations and filling the spatial, temporal, material and/or symbolic vacuum that opens up through processes of unmaking. Unmaking thus allows us to inquire into the processes through which the capitalist production of nature has been, is, or can be resisted, disturbed, and overcome.

The notion of unmaking aims to advance the theorization and study of societal transformations towards more egalitarian social-ecological relations by integrating diverse research perspectives from across the social sciences. It enriches the idea of “decolonization of the imaginary”, as proposed by degrowth scholar Latouche (2015), with a variety of concepts dealing with deconstruction, undoing or decomposition, such as “sacrifice” from political science and environmental studies (Maniates and Meyer 2013), “crack capitalism” (Holloway 2010), “everyday forms of resistance” (Scott 1985), the “destabilization” of socio-technical regimes as discussed in sustainability transitions studies (Turnheim and Geels 2013), the transformation of social practices (Shove et al. 2012), and “refusal” as discussed in cultural anthropology (McGranahan 2016).

One of the core questions that arises from these discussions is if it possible to “make” without “unmaking”. In other words, can we “produce” post-capitalist, or more-than-capitalist natures without “un-producing” capitalist natures first?

Due to the interdisciplinary nature of these questions, we welcome proposals both from within and outside political ecology. Interested scholars are invited to discuss or problematize, against the background of their own research, one or several of the following questions:

  1. How is the unmaking of capitalist natures intertwined with the making of non-capitalist natures?
  2. Who are the actors, what are the spaces and practices of unmaking and making, and how do they connect through space and time?
  3. Which elements of capitalist natures are unmade, and which elements tend to be reproduced?
  4. How are non-capitalist natures be made in a world “contaminated” (Tsing 2015) by capitalist relations (both concerning the process and outcome)?

We particularly, but not exclusively, invite empirical contributions on grassroots agriculture that link to the processes of unmaking outlined above.


Asara, V., Otero, I., Demaria, F., & Corbera, E. (2015). Socially sustainable degrowth as a social–ecological transformation: repoliticizing sustainability. Sustainability Science 10, 375–384. 

D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F., & Kallis, G. (Eds.) (2014). Degrowth: a vocabulary for a new era. Routledge, Abingdon. 

Bakker, K. (2015). The Neoliberalization of Nature. In T. Perreault, B. Gavin, & J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Roudledge Handbook of Political Ecology (pp. 446–456). Routledge. 

Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green Grabbing: A new appropriation of nature? Journal of Peasant Studies39(2), 237–261. 

Feola., G. (2019). Degrowth and the unmaking of capitalism: beyond ‘decolonization of the imaginary’. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 18(4). 

Holloway, J. (2010). Crack capitalism. Pluto Press, London. 

Latouche, S. (2015). Decolonization of imaginary. In: G. D’Alisa, F. Demaria, & G. Kallis (Eds.), Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era (pp. 117-120). Abingdon: Routledge. 

Maniates, M., & Meyer, J. M. (2010). The environmental politics of sacrifice. MIT Press, Cambridge. 

McCarthy, J., & Prudham, S. (2004). Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum35(3), 275–283. 

McGranahan, C. (2016). Theorizing Refusal: An Introduction. Cultural Anthropology 31, 319–325. 

Scott, J. (1985). Weapons of the Weak. Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press, New Haven. 

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. Sage, London. 

Smith, N. (1984). Uneven development: Nature, capital, and the production of space. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Smith, N. (2007). Nature as accumulation strategy. Socialist Register43 (Coming to Terms with Nature), 16–36. 

Tsing, A. L. (2015). The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton University Press: Princeton. 

Turnheim, B., & Geels, F.W. (2013). The destabilisation of existing regimes: Confronting a multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal industry (1913–1967). Research Policy 42, 1749–1767. 

CfP POLLEN20– “Getting ready for Apartheid Ecologies and Dystopian Futures”

Third Biennial Conference of the Political Ecology Network – Contested Natures: Power, Possibility, Prefiguration
Brighton, United Kingdom
24-26 June 2020

Conference sub-theme: “Radical ecologies and future natures”

Session organizers: Jevgeniy Bluwstein, Department of Geosciences, University of Fribourg, Switzerland, & Salvatore Paolo De Rosa, Laboratory of Environmental Humanities, KTH of Stockholm, Sweden,

Session keywords: ecological apartheid, climate change, dystopian futures

Session description:

In the last years, climate change events and debates have invigorated the proliferation of various imaginaries of a catastrophic future in science and popular culture alike. Increasingly, we are warned about the coming of an “uninhabitable Earth” (David Wallace-Wells 2019) and a state of “self-combustion” (Schellnhuber 2015). These fears are channeled into blockbuster movies picturing cosmic apartheid of hi-tech space dwelling communities living off poor masses left on a destroyed planet (Elysium 2013), pockets of survivors on a scorched Earth fighting for residual resources (Mad Max 2015), hyper-fascist states rising amidst wars and a crisis of social reproduction (Children of Men 2006), and dead landscapes where living is meaningless (The Road 2009). Or take Atwood’s warning in the Handmaid’s Tale about a dystopian society where climate injustice and reproductive injustice go hand in hand (Dolan 2019). As we anticipate a set of possible future social formations against the background of climate change (Wainwright and Mann 2013), we are already confronted with the realities of climate colonialism (Whyte 2017) and climate wars (Parenti 2011).

While states are already preparing counter-insurgency strategies to deal with an anticipated dystopian future (Parenti 2011, Turse 2016), we are also witnessing a broader societal convergence of neo-Malthusian environmentalism and life-boat ethics with reactionary ecologies, white nationalism, eco-fascism and eco-apartheid (Lennard 2019, Goldstein 2019, Hartmann and Kahn 2019, Ojeda et al. 2019, Cohen 2019, Ajl 2019, Kaminer et al 2019, Out of the woods 2014). Some of these currents dovetail with a racialized conservation and development biopolitics of militarization, securitization and planetary-scale human population management (Lunstrum 2018; Büscher et al. 2016; Cavanagh 2014).      

Given this state of affairs, this session provides space to discuss and explore dystopian socio-ecological futures, some of which may be already emerging in the present. Rather than reflecting on the kind of futures we need or want (eco-modernist, eco-socialist, degrowth, post-capitalist, etc.), this session will explore what plausible socio-political (trans)formations ecological and climate crises will bring about. We believe political ecology can and must contribute to the study of ecologically dystopian futures, drawing on the intersection of empirical research, conceptual exploration and socio-cultural and political analysis.  

Several questions come to mind which we invite contributors to explore: What kind of bio- and geo-political ecologies (see Dalby 2014, 2013; Bigger and Neimark 2017; Bluwstein 2018) can we expect in the future in light of the colonial-capitalist present and the resurgence of walled states against the background of run-away climate change (Gregory 2004; Brown 2017; Grosfoguel 2002)? How may environmentalism, nature and life, as well as citizenship, nation- and statehood become reconfigured under ecological/climate apartheid? What forms of ecological apartheid could (co-)exist and what would a political geography of eco-apartheid look like? What kind of socio-ecological metabolisms and associated ideologies support emerging formations towards elitist, nationalist and classist immunization from the worst outcomes of planetary ecological degradation (Swyngedouw and Ernstson 2018)?

We seek theoretical and empirical contributions that speak (but are not limited) to these pertinent questions.

Paper titles and abstracts of 250 words should be sent to and before 10 October 2019.


Ajl, M. 2019. ‘Eco-Fascisms and Eco-Socialisms’. Verso,

Bigger, P. and Neimark, B. 2017. ‘Weaponizing nature: The geopolitical ecology of the US Navy’s biofuel program’, Political Geography, 60: 13-22

Bluwstein, J. 2018. ‘From colonial fortresses to neoliberal landscapes in Northern Tanzania: a biopolitical ecology of wildlife conservation’, Journal of Political Ecology, 25: 144-68

Brown, Wendy. 2017. Walled states, waning sovereignty (Mit Press)

Büscher, B. Fletcher, R. … and Shanker, K. 2016. ‘Half-Earth or Whole Earth? Radical ideas for conservation, and their implications’, Oryx 51(3): 407-410

Cavanagh, Connor J. 2014. ‘Biopolitics, Environmental Change, and Development Studies’, Forum for Development Studies, 41: 273-94

Cohen, D. A. 2019. Eco-Apartheid is Real. The Nation,

Dalby, S. 2013. ‘Biopolitics and climate security in the Anthropocene’, Geoforum, 49: 184-92

Dalby, S. 2014. ‘Environmental Geopolitics in the Twenty-first Century’, Alternatives, 39: 3-16

Dolan, M. 2019. ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ Is Trying To Warn You About Climate Change’. Bustle,

Goldstein, J. 2019. The Eco-Fascism of the El Paso Shooter Haunts the Techno-Optimism of the Left. Society and Space,

Gregory, D. 2004. The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq (Blackwell)

Grosfoguel, R. 2002. ‘Colonial Difference, Geopolitics of Knowledge, and Global Coloniality in the Modern/Colonial Capitalist World-System’, Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 25: 203-24

Hartmann, B. and Kahn, B. 2019. How Climate Change Is Becoming a Deadly Part of White Nationalism. Gizmodo,

Kaminer, M., Fahoum, B., Konrad, E. 2019. From heat waves to ‘eco-apartheid’: Climate change in Israel-Palestine. 972mag,

Lennard, N. 2019. The El Paso Shooter Embraced Eco-Fascism. We Can’t Let the Far Right Co-Opt the Environmental Struggle. The Intercept,

Lunstrum, E. 2018. ‘Capitalism, Wealth, and Conservation in the Age of Security: The Vitalization of the State’, Annals of the American Association of Geographers 108(4): 1022-37

Ojeda, D., Sasser, J.S, Lunstrum, E. 2019. Malthus’s specter and the anthropocene. Gender, Place and Culture

Out of the woods 2014. The dangers of reactionary ecology. Libcom,

Parenti, C. 2011. Tropic of Chaos. Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence. Bold Type Books

Schellnhuber, H. J. 2015. Selbstverbrennung. Die fatale Dreiecksbeziehung zwischen Klima, Mensch und Kohlenstoff. Bertelsmann

Swyngedouw, E., & Ernstson, H. (2018). Interrupting the Anthropo-obScene: Immuno-biopolitics and Depoliticizing Ontologies in the Anthropocene. Theory, Culture & Society. doi:10.1177/0263276418757314.

Turse, N. 2016. Pentagon video warns of “unavoidable” dystopian future for world’s biggest cities. The Intercept,

Wallace-Wells, D. 2019. The Uninhabitable Earth. Life after Warming. Penguin Random House