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]

Planetary health equity – the equitable enjoyment of good health and wellbeing in a sustainable ecosystem – is under threat from anthropogenic climate change and economic and social inequities. Driving these major challenges is the global consumptogenic system that encourages excessive production and consumption goods and services that are harming human and planetary health. Growth models lie at the core of the consumptogenic system. This paper examines the sources of economic growth in Australia, the coalitions that sustain this approach politically, and the implications of these dynamics for planetary health equity. Australia's consumption-led growth model is underpinned by a combination of rising house prices and a permissive credit regime. This growth model is supported by a dominant growth coalition of producer interests, elements of organised labour, and property owners. The growth coalition has been able to successfully generate growth model policy convergence between the mainstream political parties. In turn this growth model, and associated growth coalition, has undermined the pursuit of planetary health equity in Australia by incentivising and driving excessive consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and economic inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an account of the undermining of collegial governance at the University of Alberta in relation to the restructuring of the university in 2020 by the senior administration and board on advice provided by the Australian consultancy firm, the Nous Group. The current president of the university has publicly promoted the restructuring in venues including the Times Higher Education supplement as a model for other universities. The model, a disastrous one for collegial governance, demands widespread attention along with the means by which it was achieved. As Bill Readings declared in his 1997 book The University in Ruins, "the changing institutional form of the university is something that intellectuals cannot afford to ignore." At the University of Alberta, that changing form is being determined by fossil-fuelled academic capitalism. The account of what has happened is provided by a professor who has served on the university's senior academic body, the General Faculties Council, for almost a decade. It concludes with several concrete recommendations for bolstering collegial governance at universities in Alberta, elsewhere in Canada, and possibly worldwide--wherever collegial governance is being undermined by restructuring, the corporatization of the academy, academic capitalism, or the disrespect of university boards for the authority of faculty and the academic mission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]