Neoliberalism and the Biophysical Environment 1: What 'Neoliberalism' is, and What Difference Nature Makes to it

There now exists a significant body of theoretically informed empirical research into \u27neoliberal environments\u27. It comprises numerous studies which together explore the connections between neoliberal principles and policies, on the one side and the biophysical world on the other. These studies are, for the most part, political economic in character and authored by so-called \u27critical\u27 geographers. However, making sense of them is by no means straightforward, despite their common focus on neoliberal environments. This is because neoliberalism and the biophysical world are complex phenomena, making an holistic and comprehensive understanding of them very challenging to achieve. Accordingly, separate studies of their interconnections have focused on one or other aspect of the complexity in a particular time and context. It is currently left to readers of these studies to synthesise them into a wider, joined-up account of neoliberal environments. This and two companion articles aim for precisely this sort of broad and coherent understanding. This article begins with a discussion of neoliberalism and explains why it necessarily has environmental aspects to it. The second companion article presents a theory of \u27neoliberal environments\u27, while the third connects that theory to the empirical findings of studies published to-date. This final article also departs from the otherwise constructive tone of its companions. Together, the three articles offer readers both an overarching understanding of \u27neoliberal environments\u27 and some tools to question the way these environments are currently understood by many geographers

Sadly, this doesn\u27t change very much

Book review of Naomi Klein\u27s latest book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate (Simon & Schuster, 2014)

An official welcome to the Anthropocene epoch - but who gets to decide it\u27s here?

It\u27s literally epoch-defining news. A group of experts tasked with considering the question of whether we have officially entered the Anthropocene - the geological age characterised by humans\u27 influence on the planet - has delivered its answer: yes. The British-led Working Group on the Anthropocene (WGA) told a geology conference in Cape Town that, in its considered opinion, the Anthropocene epoch began in 1950 - the start of the era of nuclear bomb tests, disposable plastics and the human population boom. The Anthropocene has fast become an academic buzzword and has achieved a degree of public visibility in recent years. But the more the term is used, the more confusion reigns, at least for those not versed in the niceties of the underpinning science. Roughly translated, the Anthropocene means the age of humans . Geologists examine layers of rock called strata , which tell a story of changes to the functioning of Earth\u27s surface and near-surface processes, be these oceanic, biological, terrestrial, riverine, atmospheric, tectonic or chemical. When geologists identify boundaries between layers that appear to be global, those boundaries become candidates for formal recognition by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). The commission produces the International Chronostratigraphic Chart, which delimits verified changes during the planet\u27s 4.5 billion-year evolution. The chart features a hierarchy of terms like system and stage ; generally, the suffix cene refers to a geologically brief stretch of time and sits at the bottom of the hierarchy. We have spent the past 11,500 years or so living in the so-called Holocene epoch, the interglacial period during which Homo sapiens has flourished. If the Holocene has now truly given way to the Anthropocene, it\u27s because a single species - us - has significantly altered the character of the entire hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, lithosphere and atmosphere

The Anthropocene and the environmental humanities: Extending the conversation

The Anthropocene is now a buzzword in international geoscience circles and commanding the attention of various social scientists and humanists. Once a trickle, I review what is now a growing stream of publications authored by humanists about the Holocene\u27s proclaimed end. I argue that these publications evidence environmental humanists as playing two roles with respect to the geoscientific claims they are reacting to: the roles of inventor-discloser or deconstructor-critic. Despite their importance and their differences, as currently performed these roles hold environmental humanists at a distance from those geoscientists currently trying to popularise the Anthropocene proposition and a set of related grand ideas (like planetary boundaries ). This is unfortunate because geoscience-like other branches of science-tends to enjoy a higher profile in key decision-making arenas than do humanities subjects. The same can be said of particular social science fields, such as environmental economics. By surveying the wider, febrile geoscience landscape in which the Anthropocene proposition is situated, I reveal opportunities for engaged-analysis. This involves simultaneously working on and with geoscientists, so too their kindred spirits in the social sciences. The Anthropocene concept may soon be among the key signifiers that frame the thinking of societal decision-makers. Environmental humanists can, if so minded, shape its meaning and implications directly. But this will involve more practitioners interested in global environmental change operating outside the usual arenas, such as established disciplinary conferences and journals. Engaged analysis offers a way to play the inventor-discloser and deconstructor-critic roles in places where knowledge aspires to inform environmental policy and practice. Though challenging and risky, the potential rewards are considerable