Author
Abstract
The declaration of the Anthropocene reflects the magnitude of human-caused planetary violence, but it also risks disguising the inequitable geographies of responsibility and sacrifice that underlie its designation. Similarly, many existing strategies for climate change mitigation, including the development of low-carbon energy, are critical to reducing carbon emissions and yet simultaneously risk deepening extractive violence against marginalized communities. If the uneven distribution of historical and contemporary climate violence is not recognized and redressed, climate change solutions may increase the burdens borne by the very people, places, and environments expected to experience some of the worst effects of climate change itself. To aid in identifying and analyzing the distributive geographies of geo-power capable of facilitating this perverse outcome, this article develops a theoretical framework –climate necropolitics –for revealing the multiscalar processes, practices, discourses, and logics through which Anthropocenic imaginaries can be used to render extractive violence legitimate in the name of climate change response. Drawing on field work using multiple methods, I illustrate the applied value of climate necropolitics through a case study of the Chinese Communist Party's Ecological Civilization. The analysis reveals how the utopian “green” vision of Ecological Civilization, as promoted by both Chinese and Namibian state actors, has been used to legitimate intensified extractive violence against minority communities living near uranium mines in Namibia. I conclude by discussing how geographers can use multiscalar frameworks like climate necropolitics to develop integrated analyses of the uneven distribution of both social and environmental violence in the Anthropocene.
Suggested Citation
Meredith J. DeBoom, 2020.
"Climate Necropolitics: Ecological Civilization and the Distributive Geographies of Extractive Violence in the Anthropocene,"
Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(3), pages 900-912, November.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:raagxx:v:111:y:2020:i:3:p:900-912
DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1843995
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:raagxx:v:111:y:2020:i:3:p:900-912. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/raag .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.