Disaster Making in the Capitalocene

(cid:129)
Shannon O’Lear, Francis Masse, Hannah Dickinson,
and Rosaleen Duffy*

Abstract

We live in a new normal of increasing, crosscutting, and shifting patterns of disasters
fueled by large-scale environmental change, from ﬂoods to wildﬁres to pandemics.
Our intervention in this forum piece makes the case that disasters, and responses to
disasters, must be understood within the context of the global political-economic system
of capitalism. We situate disasters, their making, and their politics within the Capitalo-
cene and argue that disasters and the physical processes that underpin them are not nat-
ural: they are unevenly produced through, and exacerbated by, processes inherent in the
capitalist system, with uneven consequences. We suggest that the predominantly techno-
managerial approaches to disasters pursued within the neoliberal state and multilateral
governance institution system reveal the tensions in addressing the causes of environ-
mental change and the new normal of disasters under capitalism. We argue that through
an engagement with the Capitalocene, environmental politics could further contribute to
nuanced, critical understandings of disasters and their making in ways that foreground
their in/justice implications.

This forum piece focuses on situating disasters, and speciﬁcally their making,
within the Capitalocene. We live in a new normal of increasing, crosscutting,
and shifting patterns of disasters, from ﬂoods to wildﬁres to pandemics, fueled
by large-scale environmental change. There is considerable scholarship across
disciplines focused on analyzing, predicting, and developing responses to disas-
ters of many types. Our intervention here argues that disasters, their making,
and related politics must be understood within the context of the global
political-economic system of capitalism that underpins processes of environ-
mental change, as well as the ways in which they are governed and addressed.
We suggest that a useful lens through which we can understand these dynamics
of disaster is the “Capitalocene” (Moore 2015). While it is now common to
eschew any understanding of disasters as “natural” given how the destruction

* This project was made possible with support from European Research Council grant 694995 for

the BIOSEC Project.

Global Environmental Politics 22:3, August 2022, https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00655
© 2022 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

2
2
3
2
2
0
3
6
2
8
0
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
5
5
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Shannon O’Lear, Francis Masse, Hannah Dickinson, and Rosaleen Duffy

(cid:129) 3

and loss associated with hazards like ﬂoods, ﬁres, and drought are sociopolitical
outcomes, we extend this logic further by foregrounding the political-economic
dimensions that shape the biophysical processes of environmental change. Tak-
ing the Capitalocene seriously accounts for the ways in which the biophysical
processes underlying and precipitating hazards and disasters are themselves no
longer natural. They are unevenly produced through, and exacerbated by, pro-
cesses inherent in the capitalist system, with uneven consequences. This is what
we refer to as disaster making in the Capitalocene. This shift in focus matters for
environmental politics, because it could create an opportunity for intervention
rather than after-the-fact response.

The Capitalocene framework complements critical work in international
political economy of the environment (IPEE) by examining the political dimen-
sions of the uneven costs and beneﬁts resulting from how nature and its gover-
nance are organized and deeply altered through capitalist systems of production
and consumption (Newell and Lane 2017; Paterson 2000; Saurin 2001;
Sovacool and Linnér 2016). In line with the emerging recognition of Capitalo-
cene thinking in the social sciences, we argue here that the framework of the
Capitalocene could be further integrated into the broader discipline of global
environmental politics, and speciﬁcally critical work on disasters, in productive
ways. While capitalism is by no means the only political-economic system that
has wrought environmental damage, several analyses connect the rapidly prolif-
erating anthropogenic environmental change that underpins our new normal to
the equally rapid development of global capitalism (especially industrial capi-
talism), as a way of organizing production, consumption, and, importantly,
nature (Kallis and Sager 2016; Malm 2020; Moore 2015). Hence, scholars
invoke the term Capitalocene, rather than Anthropocene, to make sense of the cur-
rent era of global environmental change. Unlike the Anthropocene, the Capita-
locene necessarily extends to the dominance and functioning of the neoliberal
state and multilateral governance institution system, which works to manage
human–environment relations within a global capitalist framework (Moore
2015; Wainwright and Mann 2018). More speciﬁcally, we suggest that the
predominantly technomanagerial approaches to disasters pursued within this
system reveal the tensions in addressing the causes of environmental change
and the new normal of environmental change and disasters under capitalism.
We argue that through an engagement with the Capitalocene, environmental
politics could further contribute to nuanced, critical understandings of disasters
and their making that in ways that foreground their in/justice implications.

Disasters in the Practice and Scholarship of Global
Environmental Politics

The underlying processes of disaster making are largely overlooked by dominant
systems and thinking on the politics of disasters. For example, the international
framework to address and govern disasters, the Sendai Framework for Disaster

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

2
2
3
2
2
0
3
6
2
8
0
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
5
5
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

4 (cid:129) Disaster Making in the Capitalocene

Risk Reduction (2015–2030), focuses largely, although not exclusively, on
assessing and mitigating disaster risk by improving disaster preparedness and
resilience measures. While mentioning the exacerbating effects of climate
change and rightly seeking to build resilience and improve information systems
to adapt to the growing threats it poses and to reduce socioeconomic and mate-
rial vulnerabilities, the framework does not address adequately the structural or
systemic causes of the hazards or disaster processes, such as the burning of fossil
fuels driving anthropogenic climate change and industrial processes of land-use
change. Rather, it offers a primarily technomanagerial approach to mitigating
and managing the impacts of disasters and subsequent socioeconomic and
material losses (de la Poterie and Baudoin 2015).

Much work on disasters in politics and international relations (IR) simi-
larly looks to institutional and technomanagerial approaches to increase resil-
ience and adaptive capacity of governments and governance systems (Chu 2018;
Ferguson 2019; Gillard 2016; Rajão & Georgiadou 2014). There is an explicit
acceptance within this framework that climate change will lead to more frequent
and more complex disasters. While adaptation is certainly necessary, the frame-
work is apolitical and implicitly accepts working within and adapting to this
political-economic-ecological and governance reality, and thereby “skirt[ing]
over questions of causality and responsibility” ( Vanhala and Hestbaek 2016,
125). While acknowledging the damaging tendencies of capital and the current
global political-economic system, certain approaches to environmental gover-
nance in political science, like earth systems governance (Biermann 2014;
Galaz 2014) and planet politics (Burke et al. 2016), are subject to similar cri-
tiques (Albert 2020; Lövbrand et al. 2015; Swyngedouw 2013; Wainwright and
Mann 2018).

Traditional, realist approaches and more liberal approaches reinforce exist-
ing governance structures and systems by framing environmental concerns in
ways that tend to be addressed through those very same structures and systems
(Albert 2020). International governance systems currently distinguish between
frameworks on disaster risk reduction, like the Sendai Framework, and those
frameworks or conventions addressing the underlying causes of increasing “nat-
ural” hazards or biophysical processes leading to disasters, such as the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ( Vanhala and Hestbaek
2016). The separation of the governance of disasters and underlying processes
of disaster making reﬂects existing systems, structures, and thinking that are fail-
ing. Indeed, the system of sovereign states and the dominant, technological
response to environmental disasters are inadequate to respond to or even
understand cascading disasters (Park 2021). Unlike scholarship on disaster cap-
italism, which examines shifting responsibility for security and the commodiﬁ-
cation of disaster (Lawrence and Wiebe 2017), we are interested in the role of
the capitalist system in setting the biophysical stage for disasters to unfold and
intersect. We suggest that the Capitalocene provides a critical starting point for
understanding human–environmental disasters, from climate change impacts

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

2
2
3
2
2
0
3
6
2
8
0
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
5
5
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Shannon O’Lear, Francis Masse, Hannah Dickinson, and Rosaleen Duffy

(cid:129) 5

to zoonotic pandemics, that can further invigorate scholarship on the global
environmental politics of disaster making by centering how global processes
of capitalism are part and parcel not only of disaster making but of shaping
mainstream responses that fail to address disasters’ underlying causes. It will
be essential in these efforts to overcome (or undermine) modern governance
systems that do not operate with a cosmopolitan comprehension of the inher-
ently integrated and uncertain aspects of disasters (Selchow 2021).

Anthropocene: Useful, but Not Far Enough

The Anthropocene acknowledges that human activity since the Industrial Revo-
lution and the widespread practice of using nitrogen-based fertilizers have effec-
tively shifted the planet into a new geological era in which we cannot separate
human activity from an idealized, external environment (if we ever could)
(Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). However, critics argue that work in IR and global
environmental politics scholarship has not sufﬁciently engaged with the Anthro-
pocene (see, e.g., Simangan 2020). Newell and Lane (2017) further argue that
we need a more critical IPEE to address the challenges of the Anthropocene, rec-
ognizing that productive Anthropocene-related thinking has happened outside
of IPEE. For example, geographer Susan Cutter (2020) argues that the new nor-
mal and changing nature of disaster risk and hazards in the Anthropocene are
characterized by more mundane, everyday, chronic and cascading events with
effects that stretch over space and time, often far away from a large disaster event
and often intersecting with increasingly unequal distribution of disaster risk.
Anthropocene thinking thus considers the ways that human-induced alterations
to social and natural systems have emergent impacts on each other and con-
siders what these interactions mean for disasters.

Critics of Anthropocene thinking highlight that the Anthropocene can
apolitically present environmental change and human impacts as somehow
universal, instead of resulting from highly uneven political-economic and eco-
logical processes that reinforce systems of power, beneﬁt, and (dis)advantage
(Castree 2014). Although a fuller consideration of critical perspectives on the
Anthropocene is beyond the scope of this short piece, a key critique to mention
is that Anthropocene framings are too monolithic to be useful to society or
polity development or as an analytical construct (Biermann et al. 2016). There
is, argues Schlosberg (2019, 54), “an empty space, or even a negative space, in
much Anthropocene writing in relation to justice and environmental justice.”
A growing body of critical IR and global environmental politics scholar-
ship similarly argues that the broader global environmental politics focus on
“treaties, institutions and regimes that are concerned explicitly with the intersec-
tion of the economy and the environment” misses and even obscures the struc-
tural underpinning of environmental change and its consequences (Brondizio
et al. 2016; Inoue 2018; Newell and Lane 2017, 137; Pattberg and Zelli 2016;
Saurin 2001; Wapner 2014; Whetung 2019). The Capitalocene moves

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

2
2
3
2
2
0
3
6
2
8
0
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
5
5
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

6 (cid:129) Disaster Making in the Capitalocene

responsibility for environmental change and harm away from a broad, general-
ized, undifferentiated category of human activity to the more speciﬁc, political-
economic system of industrial capitalism.

Capitalocene and the (Unjust) Organization of Nature

Our intervention builds on this critical IPEE scholarship that engages with
aspects of the systemic, structural processes of capital and how they contribute
to global environmental change, even if they do not speciﬁcally invoke the term
Capitalocene (Albert 2020; Dalby 2004, 2020; Newell and Lane 2017). Capitalo-
cene, however, adds a speciﬁc emphasis to existing IPEE scholarship: “capitalism
is not an economic system; it is not a social system; it is a way of organizing
nature” (Moore 2015, 2).

A core contribution of Capitalocene to critical thinking on the politics of
disasters and disaster making that we also see elsewhere in political ecology
starts with an understanding of the artiﬁcial Nature–Society divide produced
under the Capitalocene. Speciﬁcally, Capitalism sees and produces Nature as
external to Society and as something to be used and worked through for eco-
nomic growth and capital accumulation. “If proﬁt was to govern life, a signiﬁ-
cant intellectual state shift had to occur: a conceptual split between Nature and
Society” (Patel and Moore 2017, 24). Any thinking on the politics of disasters
must start with how nature is organized as (cheaply) separate from society
under and for the purposes of Capitalism. The cheapening of Nature, made pos-
sible by artiﬁcially separating us humans and societies from it and the broader
web of ecological life that sustains us, makes Capitalism possible (Patel and
Moore 2017). Two processes that result from this separation and cheapening
that make Capitalism possible are also utterly destructive and directly responsi-
ble for disaster making in two ways: ﬁrst, by destroying our socioecological sys-
tem through unchecked extraction and use of Nature, and second, with negative
externalities of industrial capitalism’s production and consumption that further
harm and restructure our socioecological systems (e.g., CO2 emissions from
burning of fossil fuels leading to climate change). Importantly, the Nature–
Society divide also encourages divisive thinking in other areas, such as which
parts of “nature” should be protected or let to die (Biermann and Anderson
2017); scientiﬁc categories and rankings that open pathways to harm (Lidström
et al. 2015); and, to be clear, divisions between groups of people (Patel and
Moore 2017) that effectively serve as boundaries that shape the distribution
and experience of environmental harms, disasters, and related (in)justice.

The popular dualism that divides humans from the environment con-
tinues to be prevalent in some academic engagement with the Anthropocene,
as others have noted (Simangan 2020; Wapner 2014). This is despite the fact
that critique of this dualism is foundational to the problematization of environ-
mental politics within global environmental politics itself (Simangan 2020;

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

2
2
3
2
2
0
3
6
2
8
0
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
5
5
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Shannon O’Lear, Francis Masse, Hannah Dickinson, and Rosaleen Duffy

(cid:129) 7

Wapner 2014) and in other disciplines, like political ecology and geography,
that engage with Capitalocene thinking (Moore 2015; Wainwright and Mann
2018). The normalization of the separation of human and nature poses a chal-
lenge for understanding and addressing environmental politics and challenges
of disasters ( Wapner 2014), as it contributes to obscuring the actual causes of
disasters and the “natural” phenomena or events that trigger them. Simply put,
we cannot separate capitalism from nature or the biophysical processes tied to
disasters, for capitalism is inherently an ecological project (Moore 2015).

Seeing capitalism as an ecological system itself is necessary for understanding
the unnaturalness of disasters beyond already common understandings of disasters
as sociopolitical, not natural, phenomena. It is commonly understood, for exam-
ple, that while certain physical phenomena or hazards, such as ﬂoods, hurricanes,
drought, and wildﬁres, might be “natural” phenomena, the negative impacts of
these events—death, injury, destruction, hunger, human and nonhuman
suffering—are not (Cannon 1994). This is precisely why drought in sub-Saharan
Africa might be a much larger “disaster” in terms of human death and suffering than
drought in the Midwest of the United States. However, much disaster thinking and
politics maintains a distinction between biophysical processes (read: hazards), like
ﬂoods, hurricanes, droughts, and wildﬁres, and their human and nonhuman or
societal impacts, which are inherently social, political, and economic.

A politics of disasters and their making in the Capitalocene necessitates a
shift in how we understand disasters and their “natural” hazard triggers. In accept-
ing the premise of the Capitalocene, and even the Anthropocene, it is no longer
accurate to refer to or address the “biophysical” processes of storms, hurricanes,
droughts, wildﬁres, or even zoonotic outbreaks and their severity and increasing
frequency as natural processes that have differentiated impacts on people in the
form of disasters. Under the Capitalocene, these biophysical processes are socio-
natural (Saurin 2001). They are the product of historic, ongoing processes of sys-
tematic, environmental harm, sanctioned by state and multilateral governance
institutions in ways that have radically reorganized interactions across different
spheres of life and the earth’s physical processes for the beneﬁt of capital accumu-
lation. This conceptual shift entails a move from understanding the unnatural-
ness of disasters in terms of long-term structural processes that produce uneven
geographies of risk and vulnerability to natural hazards to the unnaturalness of
biophysical processes that precipitate hazards and processes like ﬂoods, wildﬁres,
hurricanes, and drought themselves. The Capitalocene goes further than the
Anthropocene by foregrounding the uneven causalities and distribution of bene-
ﬁts and impacts of the separation of Nature and Society and subsequent environ-
mental changes to focus attention on inequity and injustice, on who wins and
who loses (Patel and Moore 2017). Acknowledging the falsity and harm of the
Nature–Society divide could also help do away with the separation between
disaster governance mechanisms and frameworks and those focused on broader
drivers of socioenvironmental change, like climate change, for a more integrated
approach to politics of disaster mitigation.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

2
2
3
2
2
0
3
6
2
8
0
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
5
5
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

8 (cid:129) Disaster Making in the Capitalocene

Conclusions: A Politics for Disaster Making in the Capitalocene

In line with critical approaches in IPEE, rather than offering tools and solutions
aligned with the same system that generated the problem, Capitalocene thinking
recognizes that the systems of production and consumption, as well as gover-
nance arrangements, are embedded in a global system of organizing the econ-
omy, nature, and human–environment relations in ways that further capitalist
growth and accumulation. Additionally, this framework emphasizes that these
systems and governance structures are in fact contributing factors to the fre-
quency, severity, and complex nature of contemporary disasters. Integrating a
Capitalocene perspective into existing debates in global environmental politics
opens the possibility to further question existing dominant systems and address
them as foundational to and complicit in the socioecological crises and disasters
we face. Reframing disasters and their politics in the framework of the Capita-
locene brings to the fore the socio-politico-economic-ecological processes of
environmental change and altered biophysical processes—disaster
making—that any politics of disaster must account for, engage with, and work
to disrupt. We propose this work as one potential step toward more critical
thinking on the political, social, and economic transformation that is required
for structural change to address environmental change that underpins disasters
and their making, paying necessary attention to the injustices that characterize
our current socio-economic-political systems.

Shannon O’Lear is a political geographer in the Department of Geography and
Atmospheric Science and director of the Environmental Studies Program at the
University of Kansas. Her recent publications include A Research Agenda for Geogra-
phies of Slow Violence: Making Social and Environmental Injustice Visible (2021); Envi-
ronmental Change and Human Security Research Directions for the National Science
Foundation, a report of the NSF Advisory Committee for Environmental Research
and Education (2021; https://www.nsf.gov/ere/ereweb/reports/AC-ERE
-Environmental-Security-Report_508.pdf); and “Environmental Geopolitics of
Climate Engineering Proposals in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report,” Frontiers in
Climate, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.718553/abstract.

Francis Masse is a human–environment geographer and political ecologist. He
is a senior lecturer in the Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences
at Northumbria.

Hannah Dickinson is a postdoctoral research associate working in the Depart-
ment of Geography at Durham University, United Kingdom. Her work draws
upon approaches in political ecology, critical geopolitics, and political geogra-
phy to think about the intersections of environmental governance, biodiversity
conservation, and international trade in marine species and their derivatives.
Hannah’s current research on shrimp-derived chitosan contributes to the

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

2
2
3
2
2
0
3
6
2
8
0
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
5
5
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Shannon O’Lear, Francis Masse, Hannah Dickinson, and Rosaleen Duffy

(cid:129) 9

Leverhulme-funded “Circulatory Entanglements” project, which explores how
marine organisms and their biomaterials circulate through different policy, eco-
nomic, and scientiﬁc contexts as part of Blue Economy initiatives that tie human
and ocean health together.

Rosaleen Duffy is a political ecologist whose research centers on the interna-
tional politics of conservation. She held an ERC grant (2016–2020) for the BIO-
SEC Project and is currently principal investigator on the ESRC-funded Beastly
Business Project (2021–2023) on political ecologies of green collar crime, exam-
ining the illegal trade in European wildlife. She is author of a forthcoming book,
Security and Biodiversity (2022).

References

Albert, Michael J. 2020. Capitalism and Earth System Governance: An Ecological Marxist
Approach. Global Environmental Politics 20 (2): 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep
_a_00546

Biermann, Christine, and Robert M. Anderson. 2017. Conservation, Biopolitics, and the
Governance of Life and Death. Geography Compass 11 (10): e12329. https://doi.org
/10.1111/gec3.12329

Biermann, Frank. 2014. Earth System Governance: World Politics in the Anthropocene. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262028226.001
.0001

Biermann, Maureen, Kevin C. Hillmer-Pegram, Corrine Noel Knapp, and Richard E.
Hum. 2016. Approaching a Critical Turn? A Content Analysis of the Politics of
Resilience in Key Bodies of Resilience Literature. Resilience 4 (2): 59–78. https://
doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2015.1094170

Brondizio, Eduardo S., Karen O’Brien, Xuemei Bai, Frank Biermann, Will Steffen, Fans
Berkhout, Christophe Cudennec, Maria Carmen Lemos, Alexander Wolfe, Jose
Palma-Oliveira, and Chen-Tung Arthur Chen. 2016. Re-conceptualizing the
Anthropocene: A Call for Collaboration. Global Environmental Change 39: 318–327.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.02.006

Burke, Anthony, Stefanie Fishel, Audra Mitchell, Simon Dalby, and Daniel J. Levine.
2016. Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the End of IR. Millennium 44 (3): 499–523.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816636674

Cannon, Terry. 1994. Vulnerability Analysis and Explanation of “Natural” Disasters. In
Disasters, Development and Environment, edited by Ann Varley, 13–30. New York,
NY: John Wiley.

Castree, Noel. 2014. The Anthropocene and Geography I: The Back Story. Geography

Compass 8 (7): 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12141

Chu, Eric K. 2018. Transnational Support for Urban Climate Adaptation: Emerging
Forms of Agency and Dependency. Global Environmental Politics 18 (3): 25–46.
https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00467

Crutzen, Paul J., and Eugene F. Stoermer. 2000. The Anthropocene. International
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Global Change Newsletter 41 (May): 17–18.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

2
2
3
2
2
0
3
6
2
8
0
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
5
5
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

10 (cid:129) Disaster Making in the Capitalocene

Cutter, Susan L. 2020. The Changing Nature of Hazard and Disaster Risk in the Anthro-
pocene. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111 (3): 819–827. https://
doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1744423

Dalby, Simon. 2004. Ecological Politics, Violence, and the Theme of Empire. Global Envi-
ronmental Politics 4 (2): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638004323074156
Dalby, Simon. 2020. Anthropocene Geopolitics: Globalization, Security, Sustainability.
Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvx5w8dk
de la Poterie, Arielle Tozier, and Marie-Ange Baudoin. 2015. From Yokohama to Sendai:
Approaches to Participation in International Disaster Risk Reduction Frameworks.
International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 6 (2): 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s13753-015-0053-6

Ferguson, Peter. 2019. Discourses of Resilience in the Climate Security Debate. Global
Environmental Politics 19 (2): 104–126. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00500
Galaz, Victor, editor. 2014. Global Environmental Governance, Technology and Politics: The
Anthropocene Gap. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337
/9781781955550

Gillard, Ross. 2016. Questioning the Diffusion of Resilience Discourses in Pursuit of
Transformational Change. Global Environmental Politics 16 (1): 13–20. https://doi
.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00334

Inoue, Cristina Yumie Aoki. 2018. Worlding the Study of Global Environmental Politics
in the Anthropocene: Indigenous Voices from the Amazon. Global Environmental
Politics 18 (4): 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00479

Kallis, G., and J. Sager. 2016. Oil and the Economy: A Systematic Review of the Literature
for Ecological Economists. Ecological Economics 131: 561–571. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.011

Lawrence, Jennifer L., and Sarah Marie Wiebe, editors. 2017. Biopolitical Disaster. Oxford-

shire, UK: Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315620213

Lidström, Susanna, Simon West, Tania Katzschner, María Isabel Perez-Ramos, and
Hedley Twidle. 2015. Invasive Narratives and the Inverse of Slow Violence: Alien
Species in Science and Society. Environmental Humanities 7 (1): 1–40. https://doi
.org/10.1215/22011919-3616317

Lövbrand, Eva, Silke Beck, Jason Chilvers, Tim Forsyth, Johan Hedrén, Mike Hulme, Rolf
Lidskog, and Eleftheria Vasileiadou. 2015. Who Speaks for the Future of Earth?
How Critical Social Science Can Extend the Conversation on the Anthropocene.
Global Environmental Change 32: 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha
.2015.03.012

Malm, Andreas. 2020. Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency: War Communism in the Twenty-

First Century. London, UK: Verso.

Moore, Jason W. 2015. Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of

Capital. New York, NY: Verso.

Newell, Peter, and Richard Lane. 2017. IPE and the Environment in the Age of the
Anthropocene. In Traditions and Trends in Global Environmental Politics, edited by
Olaf Corry and Hayley Stevenson, 136–153. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9781315206967-8

Park, Susan. 2021. The Role of the Sovereign State in 21st Century Environmental
Disasters. Environmental Politics 31 (1): 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016
.2021.1892983

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

2
2
3
2
2
0
3
6
2
8
0
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
5
5
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Shannon O’Lear, Francis Masse, Hannah Dickinson, and Rosaleen Duffy

(cid:129) 11

Patel, Raj, and Moore, Jason W. 2017. A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things: A
Guide to Capitalism, Nature, and the Future of the Planet. Berkeley: University of
California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520966376

Paterson, Matthew. 2000. Understanding Global Environmental Politics: Domination, Accumula-
tion, Resistance. Berlin, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230536777
Pattberg, Philipp, and Fariborz Zelli. 2016. Global Environmental Governance in the
Anthropocene: An Introduction. In Environmental Politics and Governance in the
Anthropocene, 15–26. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324
/9781315697468

Rajão, Raoni, and Yola Georgiadou. 2014. Blame Games in the Amazon: Environmental
Crises and the Emergence of a Transparency Regime in Brazil. Global Environmental
Politics 14 (4): 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00259

Saurin, Julian. 2001. Global Environmental Crisis as the “Disaster Triumphant”: The
Private Capture of Public Goods. Environmental Politics 10 (4): 63–84. https://doi
.org/10.1080/714000578

Schlosberg, David. 2019. Disruption, Community, and Resilient Governance: Environ-
mental Justice in the Anthropocene. In The Commons in a Global World: Global Con-
nections and Local Responses, edited by Tobias Haller, Thomas Breu, Tine De Moor,
Christian Rohr, and Heinzpetere Znoj, 54–71. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi
.org/10.4324/9781351050982-5

Selchow, Sabine. 2021. Planetary Disasters: Moving the UN Disaster Risk Reduction
Framework into Cosmopolitised Reality. Environmental Politics 31 (1): 28–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2020.1868819

Simangan, Dahlia. 2020. Where Is the Anthropocene? IR in a New Geological Epoch.

International Affairs 96 (1): 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiz248

Sovacool, Benjamin K., and Björn-Ola Linnér. 2016. The Political Economy of Climate
Change Adaptation. Berlin, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057
/9781137496737

Swyngedouw, Erik. 2013. The Non-political Politics of Climate Change. ACME: An Inter-

national Journal for Critical Geographies 12 (1): 1–8.

Vanhala, Lisa, and Cecilie Hestbaek. 2016. Framing Climate Change Loss and Damage in
UNFCCC Negotiations. Global Environmental Politics 16 (4): 111–129. https://doi
.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00379

Wainwright, Joel, and Geoff Mann. 2018. Climate Leviathan: A Political Theory of Our

Planetary Future. New York, NY: Verso.

Wapner, Paul. 2014. The Changing Nature of Nature: Environmental Politics in the
Anthropocene. Global Environmental Politics 14 (4): 36–54. https://doi.org/10
.1162/GLEP_a_00256

Whetung, Madeline. 2019. (En)gendering Shoreline Law: Nishnaabeg Relational Politics
Along the Trent Severn Waterway. Global Environmental Politics 19 (3): 16–32.
https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00513

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
g
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

2
2
3
2
2
0
3
6
2
8
0
g
e
p
_
a
_
0
0
6
5
5
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Download pdf