Search

This paper starts from the point that our current political‐economic‐climate conjuncture demands new engagements at the dynamic interface of climate capitalism. Using two cases of climate capitalist responses to climate challenges, I demonstrate the reparative potentials that emerge from the tensions and ambiguities that typify that conjuncture. In the first case, I examine financialised climate infrastructure in Jakarta, Indonesia, that promises to protect the city from flooding while enriching city elites, but against which diverse social movements and collectives have organised. The second case is about a cooperative energy provider in Australia, operating on the terrain of a neoliberalised electricity market and climate change, and working towards multifaceted repair by collectivising and redistributing surplus and modelling democratic engagement. Those involved in these vastly different cases both pursue repair and reparations through climate capitalist projects by reckoning with historical and present climate debts while constructing forward‐looking programs. As such, they chart the first steps towards reparative climate futures. This paper identifies the political and socioecological potentials from two key climate capitalist projects: flood protection infrastructures in Jakarta and cooperative energy in Australia. From this, it builds a framework of repair and reparations for engaging with climate capitalism and argues that the emerging tensions and ambiguities facilitate steps towards reparative climate futures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Jakarta is widely lauded by global consultancies, technology giants and critical scholars as an increasingly important 'smart' city. One of the reasons for this is the attempted use by state, corporate and individual actors of smart technologies, discourses and practices to solve the urban challenges of flooding, traffic and waste management in the context of climate change and urbanisation. In this paper, we examine the efforts of the Jakarta Smart City programme and office to govern these challenges. Where smart cities are often described as offering speed and real‐time efficiency, we instead find that the technologies and practices mobilised by the Jakarta Smart City programme govern by projecting, delaying and hypothesising into the future. We describe these governance strategies and outline three of their key forms: keeping track of objects and people, calculating and projecting state savings, and mundane watching but not acting. Rather than facilitating exacting and real‐time policy responses to address these urban problems, these practices instead produce temporal relations of delay that push action further into the future. Building on existing research about futuring and anticipation, and the tempos and rhythms of smart cities, our contribution is to highlight slowness and delay as a key mode of governing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]