Climate migration myths Misleading claims about mass migration induced by climate change continue to surface in both academia and policy. This requires a new research agenda on 'climate mobilities' that moves beyond simplistic assumptions and more accurately advances knowledge of the nexus between human mobility and climate change.

The recent global climate change discourse is a prominent example of a securitization of environmental issues. While the problem is often framed in the language of existentialism, crisis or even apocalypse, climate discourses rarely result in exceptional or extraordinary measures, but rather put forth a governmental scheme of piecemeal and technocratic solutions often associated with risk management. This article argues that this seeming paradox is no accident but follows from a politics of apocalypse that combines two logics -those of security and risk -which in critical security studies are often treated as two different animals. Drawing on the hegemony theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, however, this article shows that the two are inherently connected. In the same way as the Christian pastorate could not do without apocalyptic imageries, today's micro-politics of risk depends on a series of macro-securitizations that enable and legitimize the governmental machinery. This claim is backed up by an inquiry into current global discourses of global climate change regarding mitigation, adaptation and security implications. Although these discourses are often framed through the use of apocalyptic images, they rarely result in exceptional or extraordinary measures, but rather advance a governmental scheme of risk management. Tracing the relationship between security and risk in these discourses, we use the case of climate change to highlight the relevance of our theoretical argument.

The recent rise of resilience thinking in climate security discourse and practice is examined and explained. Using the paradigmatic case of the United Kingdom, practitioners' understandings of resilience are considered to show how these actors use a resilience lens to rearticulate earlier storylines of climate conflict in terms of complexity, decentralisation, and empowerment. Practitioners in the climate security field tend to reinterpret resilience in line with their established routines. As a result, climate resilience storylines and practices turn out to be much more diverse and messy than is suggested in the conceptual literature. Building on these findings, the recent success of resilience thinking in climate security discourse is explained. Climate resilience -not despite but due to its messiness -is able to bring together a wide range of actors, traditionally standing at opposite ends of the climate security debate. Through resilience storylines, climate security discourse becomes something to which a wide range of actors, ranging from security to the development field, can relate.

This article furthers the debate on the political implications of the Anthropocene – the most recent geological epoch marked by catastrophic environmental change – by engaging it through the lens of political theology. The article starts from the observation that discourses on the Anthropocene and related political projects are deeply influenced by a linear temporality and a common orientation towards the threat of the end of time. It distinguishes three competing discourses of the Anthropocene, eco-catastrophism, eco-modernism and planetary realism. The article analyses how these discourses invoke and update key symbols, images, and storylines of Christian political theology. Furthermore, it studies how each discourse mobilises these secularised Christian motifs to promote competing planet political projects. Each of these projects develops a different position towards the unfolding planetary crisis and the related threat of the end of time. Eco-catastrophism calls for a planetary emergency management, eco-modernism promotes ongoing experimentation with the planet, whereas planetary realism translates into what could be called a ‘realpolitik of resilience’. Revealing the Western theological roots of the Anthropocene and planet politics is essential if the emerging literature on the Anthropocene wants to live up to its promise of pluralising and decolonising IR.

The Anthropocene epoch,' as Claire Colebrook describes it, 'appears to mark as radical a shift in species awareness as Darwinian evolution effected for the nineteenth century' (Colebrook 2017). The recent outpouring of ontological speculation on the Anthropocene across the humanities and social sciences certainly testifies to such a radical shift. Dipesh Chakrabarty's insights about the Anthropocene are emblematic (Chakrabarty 2009). The Anthropocene, he argues, marks not only the moment in which the human, Anthropos, becomes fully expressed in the Earth System, but also, paradoxically, the moment in which we lose our ability to grasp what it means to be human. Such a perspective captures well a sense in which the Anthropocene marks our passage into a geohistorical interregnum. As we depart from the geologic stability of the Holocene, so we leave behind the conceptual certainties of modernism, not least the fraught separation of Nature and Culture that has underpinned Euro-Western humanism from at least the fifteenth century onwards. Entering now an epoch in which the entanglements of social and geologic life are more and more ratified by the geosciences, it is no wonder that the social sciences and humanities have responded to the Anthropocene thesis by turning to ontological speculation. The Anthropocene is a scary business. Yet while the Anthropocene carries such far-reaching ontological consequences, those writing about it have had surprisingly little to say about the ontological primacy of mobility and movement, the ever-presence of movement in social life, and the insight that mobility is political and thus a fundamental mechanism of social stratification (although notable exceptions include Clark and Yusoff 2017; Colebrook 2017). This is unexpected given that the Anthropocene concept, by re-embedding human ontological awareness in deep time, draws us into ever closer proximity to Earth's geomorphology, its dynamism, its fluidity, the inherent mobility of the Earth system, or what Bronislaw Szerszynski calls 'planetary mobility' (Szerszynski 2016). One of the aims of this special issue of Mobilities on 'Anthropocene Mobilities' is to add to this speculative moment by positioning 'mobility' as a key term of reference for thinking with, through and against, the Anthropocene as either a philosophical problem, a political concept, a material condition, or an epoch of deep time. But if 'mobility' has been a somewhat muted category within discussions of the Anthropocene, so also it would seem the Anthropocene has been held to the peripheries of the mobility paradigm. A cursory keyword search of Mobilities, for example, suggests that concepts of 'Anthropocene', 'climate change' (i.e. impacts) and the 'environment' (i.e., the milieu of bio-and geophysical relations) have all played a relatively minor role in the mobilities paradigm since the inaugural issue of Mobilities in 2006 (notable exceptions include Szerszynski 2016; Adey and Anderson 2011; Blitz 2011). In pointing this out, however, we are not suggesting th...