Environmental Politics (2022-2023)
Summary of all the readings and the guided reading questions in the syllabus(Total: …
pages)
Content:
Lecture 1: Introduction (no reading)
Lecture 2: Power and the Environment
Lecture 3: Modernity and the Environment
Lecture 4: Environmental Authoritarianism and Fascism
Lecture 5: Eco-socialism
Lecture 6: Colonialism, Racism and Environmental Justice
Lecture 7: Climate-related Migration, Mobility and Movement
Lecture 8: Gendered Environments
Lecture 9: The Politics of Eco-Grief, -Guilt and -Anxiety
Lecture 10: Climate (In)Action and (Dis)Engagement
Lecture 11: Review Session (no reading)
,Lecture 2: Power and the Environment
Reading ‘Power, Nature and Neoliberalism: The Political Ecology of Water in Chile’:
In "Power, Nature, and Neoliberalism: The Political Ecology of Water in Chile," Budds
examines the intersection of neoliberalism, power, and nature in the management of water
resources in Chile. The article argues that the neoliberal model implemented in Chile has led
to the commodification and privatization of water, resulting in the concentration of power in
the hands of a few actors who control the access to and distribution of this vital resource.
Budds uses a political ecology approach to analyze the social and environmental impacts of
water privatization, drawing on fieldwork conducted in two contrasting regions of Chile. The
article demonstrates how water privatization has led to unequal access to water resources,
exacerbating social inequalities and environmental degradation.
The article also highlights the role of transnational corporations and the Chilean state in
shaping the neoliberal model of water governance. Budds argues that this model prioritizes
the interests of powerful actors over the well-being of local communities and ecosystems.
Overall, the article provides a critical analysis of the political ecology of water in Chile,
offering insights into the complex and often contested relationship between power, nature,
and neoliberalism in the management of natural resources.
1) What is political ecology? What, according to Budds, are its key concepts and
claims?
Political ecology is a multidisciplinary field that studies the complex interactions between
social, economic, and ecological processes. It seeks to understand how power relations,
institutions, and cultural values shape environmental change and resource management.
According to Budds, the key concepts and claims of political ecology include:
1. The recognition that nature is socially constructed and that human activities shape
the environment in which they live.
2. The understanding that power relations are central to environmental change and
resource management. Political ecology seeks to uncover the power imbalances and
social inequalities that underlie environmental problems.
3. The emphasis on the political economy of natural resource management. Political
ecology highlights the economic and political processes that shape the distribution of
natural resources, and the social and environmental consequences of these
processes.
4. The recognition of the importance of local knowledge and environmental values in
shaping environmental change and resource management. Political ecology seeks to
understand the cultural and social dimensions of environmental problems and to
involve local communities in environmental decision-making processes.
5. The critique of mainstream environmentalism and its focus on technical solutions to
environmental problems. Political ecology argues that environmental problems are
often the result of social and economic processes that require structural change.
Overall, political ecology provides a critical framework for understanding the complex
relationships between society and the environment and for developing more sustainable and
equitable approaches to natural resource management.
, 2) How does Budds deploy a political ecological perspective in her analysis of
water use in Chile?
Budds deploys a political ecological perspective in her analysis of water use in Chile by
examining the social, economic, and political processes that shape the distribution and
management of water resources. She argues that the neoliberal model of water governance
implemented in Chile has resulted in the commodification and privatization of water, which
has had significant social and environmental consequences.
Through fieldwork conducted in two contrasting regions of Chile, Budds examines the
unequal access to water resources and the social and environmental impacts of water
privatization. She shows how the concentration of power in the hands of a few actors has led
to the marginalization of small-scale farmers, indigenous communities, and other
marginalized groups who rely on water for their livelihoods. She also highlights how water
privatization has led to environmental degradation, as corporations and large-scale
agriculture operations use water resources for profit at the expense of local ecosystems.
Budds also examines the role of transnational corporations and the Chilean state in shaping
the neoliberal model of water governance, and the way in which this model prioritizes the
interests of powerful actors over the well-being of local communities and ecosystems.
Overall, Budds uses a political ecological perspective to critically analyze the power
relations, institutions, and cultural values that shape the management of water resources in
Chile, highlighting the social and environmental consequences of water privatization and the
need for more equitable and sustainable approaches to water governance.
3) Where is power located in Budds’ study? Who or what exercises power on her
reading of the Chilean case?
In Budds' study, power is located in the hands of a few actors who control the access to and
distribution of water resources in Chile. These actors include transnational corporations,
large-scale agriculture operations, and the Chilean state, which have implemented a
neoliberal model of water governance that prioritizes the interests of powerful actors over the
well-being of local communities and ecosystems.
Budds argues that the concentration of power in the hands of these actors has led to the
commodification and privatization of water, resulting in unequal access to water resources
and the marginalization of small-scale farmers, indigenous communities, and other
marginalized groups who rely on water for their livelihoods.
Furthermore, Budds highlights how this concentration of power has led to environmental
degradation, as corporations and large-scale agriculture operations use water resources for
profit at the expense of local ecosystems. She argues that the neoliberal model of water
governance has enabled these actors to exercise power over water resources, and that this
power imbalance has had significant social and environmental consequences.
Overall, Budds' study emphasizes the ways in which power is unequally distributed in the
management of water resources in Chile, and the need for more equitable and sustainable
approaches to water governance that prioritize the well-being of local communities and
ecosystems over the interests of powerful actors.
, Reading ‘Depoliticized Environments: The End of Nature, Climate Change and the
Post-Political Condition’:
In his article "Depoliticized Environments: The End of Nature, Climate Change and the Post-
Political Condition," Erik Swyngedouw argues that the concept of the environment has been
depoliticized in contemporary society, leading to the emergence of a post-political condition.
According to Swyngedouw, the idea of the environment as a neutral and apolitical entity has
become widespread, which has allowed environmental issues to be discussed purely in
scientific and technical terms, without engaging with the underlying power relations and
social inequalities that shape environmental problems.
Swyngedouw argues that this depoliticization of the environment has been facilitated by the
emergence of a global consensus on climate change, which has led to the idea that all
actors share a common goal of reducing carbon emissions, regardless of their political
affiliations or economic interests. This consensus has led to the marginalization of alternative
viewpoints and the suppression of political debate on the best strategies to address climate
change.
Swyngedouw also argues that the depoliticization of the environment has resulted in the
emergence of a post-political condition, in which political debate is limited to technical and
managerial issues, and fundamental questions about the distribution of power and resources
are no longer discussed. This post-political condition has been reinforced by the rise of
technocratic forms of governance, in which decision-making is handed over to technical
experts and bureaucrats, rather than elected representatives.
Overall, Swyngedouw argues that the depoliticization of the environment and the emergence
of a post-political condition have led to a narrowing of the political imagination and the
suppression of alternative visions of the future. He calls for a re-politicization of
environmental issues, in which fundamental questions about power, justice, and democracy
are once again central to debates about the future of the planet.
1) Why, in Swyngedouw’s view, must the environment be seen as a political
domain?
In Swyngedouw's view, the environment must be seen as a political domain because
environmental issues are fundamentally shaped by power relations and social inequalities.
He argues that the idea of the environment as a neutral and apolitical entity is a myth that
obscures the underlying power dynamics that shape environmental problems.
Swyngedouw contends that the way in which environmental problems are framed and
addressed is inherently political, as it involves questions about the distribution of resources,
the allocation of costs and benefits, and the role of different actors in decision-making
processes. He argues that environmental issues cannot be divorced from questions of
power, justice, and democracy, and that they require political solutions that address the
underlying causes of environmental degradation and social inequality.
Furthermore, Swyngedouw argues that the depoliticization of the environment has led to a
narrowing of the political imagination and a suppression of alternative visions of the future.
By reducing environmental issues to technical and managerial problems, he contends that
