Since fossil fuel consumption has been integral to the project of modernity, energy history offers one way of trying to understand the Anthropocene and link the histories of capital and climate.
Sherilyn MacGregor writes to James Lovelock in gratitude, arguing that his provocative opinions may inspire environmental action by encouraging people to think critically.
Jim Fleming gives an overview of the male-dominated state of climate engineering proposals and criticizes the current masculinist nature of climate intervention.
Oomen argues that science has an important role in climate communication as a common ground and honest broker.
Shortis suggests that the World Park Antarctica campaign offers a positive example of an environmental campaign that includes but does not center scientific authority.
SueEllen Campbell argues that effective simplification is needed to promote high-quality information.
Heike Egner critiques both the pessimism and idealism in Ulrich Beck’s risk theory, highlighting the limits of global cooperation and the role of science in amplifying risk.
This volume explores the potential contribution memory studies can make to policymaking, in particular on conservation and disaster resilience.
Meyer explores the need for a comprehensive politics of climate change.
In “The Climate of History: Four Theses,” Dipesh Chakrabarty examined the idea of the Anthropocene—the dawn of a new geological period dominated by human activities—in the context of history and philosophy, raising fundamental questions about how we think historically in an era when human and geological timescales are colliding.This volume of RCC Perspectives offers critiques of these “Four Theses” by scholars of environmental history, political philosophy, religious studies, literary criticism, environmental planning, geography, law, biology, and geology.
