No abstract

No abstract

Despite the truism that less is known about the deep-sea than outer space, deep-sea mining (DSM) is being promoted as the next frontier of resource extraction. In 2019, Nautilus Minerals hopes to become the world's first company to mine the deep seabed in the waters off Papua New Guinea (PNG). DSM thus stands at the threshold of becoming a matter of politics; it has provoked a wide range of geopolitical imaginaries variously relating to 'resource security' and 'progress', on the one hand, and environmental disaster and precaution on the other. However, these accounts do little to address the specific 'nature' of the deep-sea, seabed and their extreme location and materialities, and are instead framed by classic geopolitical concerns with interstate relations. Against this background and illustrated by examples centred on PNG, this paper argues that future engagements with the geopolitics of DSM are more accurately conceptualised by an engagement with time as well as three dimensional space. This includes the multiple spatial and temporal registers through which both the geology and ecologies of seabed and seawater operate. By highlighting the importance of resource temporalities, it suggests that the geopolitics of both DSM and extraction in extreme places more generally is not only spatially complex, it is also a matter of time.

No abstract

Given a history in political ecology of challenging hegemonic 'scientific' narratives concerning environmental problems, the current political moment presents a potent conundrum: how to (continue to) critically engage with narratives of environmental change while simultaneously confronting the 'populist' promotion of 'alternative facts'? We ask how political ecologists might situate themselves vis-à-vis the presently growing power of contemporary authoritarian forms, highlighting how the latter operates through socio-political domains and beyond-human natures. We argue for a clear and conscious strategy of 'speaking power to post-truth', so as to enable two things. First, to come to terms with an 'internal' paradox of addressing those seeking to obfuscate or deny environmental degradation and social injustice, while retaining political ecology's own historical critique of the privileged role of Western science and expert knowledge in determining dominant forms of environmental governance. This involves understanding (post-)truth, and its twin pillars of 'alternative facts' and 'fake news', as operating politically by those regimes looking to shore up power, rather than as embodying a coherent mode of ontological reasoning regarding the nature of reality. Second, we differentiate 'post-truth' from analyses affirming diversity in both knowledge and reality (i.e. epistemology and ontology, respectively) regarding the drivers of environmental change. This enables a critical confrontation of contemporary authoritarianism whilst still allowing for a relevant and accessible political ecology which engages with marginalized populations most likely to suffer most from the proliferation of post-truth politics.