Search

Over the past 15 years, international climate policy and governance practice have shifted from a linear model of carbon emissions management to a circular model. Whereas the former primarily focused on reducing absolute emissions, the latter focuses on balancing emissions sources and sinks. Australia, a major global exporter of 'old' carbon resources such as coal, has actively embraced circular carbon policies and their related 'new' carbon resources such as carbon credits. Focusing on Australia's Northern Territory as a site of old and new carbon economies, where government administrators have actively sought to host carbon circulations and loops, this paper examines three interlinked cases to illustrate the interdependencies generated through circular carbon policies. Identifying how sources, sinks, and the mediation of relations between them all constitute key contemporary carbon frontiers, we conclude by calling for a research agenda that analyses 'old' and 'new' carbon economies as a co‐produced assemblage rather than as isolated zones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During an unprecedented crisis of bushfires, the staff of emergency management control centers in southeast Australia pause to perform rites with their political leaders. They reenact decisions that have already been made and generate divinations of fiery futures that are unlikely to occur. Their work, like that of others in large centralized technical infrastructures, is made possible by ritualized structures and practices that constitute a double bind. Emergency managers know their performances of control over open systems will inevitably fail to command the world's hazardous surprises. Yet they must maintain these performances, even though they create impossible expectations and forestall self‐critique or desired transformations. Attending to this situation, these sites, and their inhabitants reveals persistent attachments to systems of control in our late‐industrial age and changing climate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Academic disciplines and traditions; engagement; intervention; epistemology; methodologies; methods; politics; power; governance EN Academic disciplines and traditions engagement intervention epistemology methodologies methods politics power governance 969 972 4 10/06/23 20230901 NES 230901 This issue of I Science, Technology, & Human Values i , published a year after the death of Bruno Latour, offers a collection of four articles reflecting on the unfolding legacy of a foundational thinker in our field. Academic disciplines and traditions, engagement, intervention, epistemology, methodologies, methods, politics, power, governance. [Extracted from the article]

Despite widespread acceptance that their emissions accelerate climate change and its disastrous ecological effects, new fossil fuel extraction projects continue apace, further entrenching fossil fuel dependence, and thereby enacting particular climate futures. In this article, we examine how this is occurring in the case of a proposed onshore shale gas "fracking" industry in the remote Northern Territory of Australia, drawing on policy and legal documents and interviews with an enunciatory community of scientists, lawyers, activists, and policy makers to illustrate what we call "divisible governance." Divisible governance—enacted through technical maneuvers of temporal and jurisdictional risk fragmentation—not only facilitates the piecemeal entrenchment of unsustainable extraction but also sustains ignorance on the part of this enunciatory community and the wider public about the impacts of such extraction and the manner in which it is both facilitated and regulated. Such governance regimes, we suggest, create felicitous conditions for governments to defer, forestall, or eliminate their accountability while regulating their way further and further into catastrophic climate change. Countering divisible governance begins, we suggest, by mapping the connections that it fragments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

First Nations peoples are revitalising diverse cultural fire practices and knowledge. Institutional and societal recognition of these practices is growing. Yet there has been little academic research on these fire practices in south‐east Australia, let alone research led by Aboriginal people. We are a group of Indigenous and settler academics, practitioners, and experts focused on cultural fire management in the Victorian Loddon Mallee region. Using interviews and workshops, we facilitated knowledge sharing and discussion. In this paper, we describe three practice‐oriented principles to develop and maintain collaborations across Aboriginal groups, researchers, and government in the Indigenous‐led revitalisation of fire on Country: relationships (creating reciprocity and trust), Country (working with place and people), and power (acknowledging structures and values). Collaborations based on these principles will be unique to each temporal, social, cultural, and geographic context. Considering our findings, we acknowledge the challenges that exist and the opportunities that emerge to constructively hold space to grow genuinely collaborative research that creates change. We suggest that the principles we identify can be applied by anyone wanting to form genuine collaborations around the world as the need for social–ecological justice grows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mitigating climate change requires us to constrain combustion in a double sense: decreasing both the use of fossil fuels and the flammability of the biosphere. Fire management by Indigenous peoples in Australia's northern savannas has been presented as a solution to offset the former and assist with the latter, leading to the foundation of a regional economy of projects generating 'premium' carbon credits on Indigenous lands. This article attends to the translational zone – predominantly made up of non‐Indigenous white professionals – that functions to configure the 'right story' of these credits across diverse epistemes and contexts. Following such commodities' interscalar connections, I suggest, helps illustrate the contingencies and contradictions produced by tradeable carbon, as individuals and organizations seek to maintain a niche within a changing climate and shifting global atmospheric relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past three decades, non-Indigenous peoples have repeatedly positioned Indigenous peoples as the bearers of redemptive environmental knowledge, particularly in relation to climate change and natural hazards. In southeast Australia, recent widespread interest in Aboriginal peoples' fire management practices has been bolstered by these international trends but more directly driven by a succession of severe bushfire seasons as well as popular accounts suggesting that such practices might "save" the fire-prone nation. This situation is one of both continuity and novelty. While the ways Aboriginal peoples burn landscapes have been previously (re)discovered by bushfire managers and scientists, contemporary Aboriginal "cultural burning" initiatives also represent new contact zones of encounter and recognition, offering paradoxical affordances for individuals and groups able to perform different articulations of Indigeneity. As non-Indigenous people search for Indigenous solutions, in Australia and elsewhere, they raise expectations and fuel emerging tensions, with potentially incendiary results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Submission guidelines tell authors that the journal is "committed to science and technology studies scholarship" but also welcomes work "that extends the purview of STS into new areas."[1] Functioning well, the peer-review process forms a recursive loop where authors and reviewers iteratively revisit and renovate what science and technology studies (STS) was, is, and can be. As part of the infrastructuring of STS, I ST&HV i needs to work with both centrifugal and centripetal forces, publishing both field-defining and field-extending work. We have been in the role of editors of I Science, Technology, & Human Values i ( I ST&HV i ) for a little over six months now. [Extracted from the article]

It is becoming apparent that changes in climatic and demographic distributions are increasing the frequency and social impact of many 'natural hazards', including wildfires (or 'bushfires' in Australia). Across many national contexts, the governmental agencies legally responsible for 'managing' such hazards been called upon to provide greater foresight into the potential consequences, occurrence and behaviour of these dynamic phenomena. These conditions, of growing occurrence and expectation, have given rise to new anticipatory regimes, tools, practitioners and expertise tasked with revealing near and distant fiery futures. Drawing on interviews with Fire Behaviour Analysts from across the fire-prone continent of Australia, this article examines how their expertise has emerged and become institutionalized, exploring how its embedding in bushfire management agencies reveals cultural boundaries and tensions. This article provides important insight into the human and nonhuman infrastructures enrolled in predicting and managing landscape fires, foregrounding the wider social and political implications of these infrastructures and how their 'fuzzy boundaries' are negotiated by practitioners. Such empirical studies of expertise in practice are also, we suggest, necessary to the continued refinement of existing critiques of expertise as an individual capacity, derived from science and serving established social orders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What are we talking about when we talk about decolonization? In this article, we differentiate between epistemic and reparative decolonizing approaches and then consider the differences between postcolonial and decolonial modes in two fields: histories of science and, separately, museology. Touring these fields leads us to affirm the need for scholars to consider the consequences of their allegiances to different critical movements and moments. Whatever it will mean to decolonize history, we conclude, it is both a necessary and necessarily relational enterprise with material and conceptual excesses to address. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholarship has often been suspicious of the role of scientific knowledge and scientists in environmental governance, notably through paying critical attention to the workings of calculative rationalities and techniques. However, recent reforms within certain extractivist regions and nations such as the United States of America and Australia suggest that calculative management and the environmental data on which it is based is no longer a given. Arguably, the politics of rendering the ecologies around us legible through measures and values has changed. This is apparent by examining the case of Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus), an invasive and fire-promoting 'weed' which is threatening the lives and futures of humans and nonhumans alike in Australia's Northern Territory. After becoming a target of environmental regulation in 2008, the plant has continued to thrive and expand its reach. Interviews and fieldwork with a range of practitioners engaged in bushfire and weed management show that there are many challenges to interceding in forms of environmental harm when we are governed by a politics of environmental illegibility. Pragmatic empirical engagements by STS scholars and others are necessary if these intercessions are to succeed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay narrates the 'slow violence', or creeping environmental harms taking place within contemporary environmental governance. It centres on a tall, dense and highly flammable introduced pasture species Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus), which was listed as a weed across north Australian jurisdictions in 2008. Since this time, it has continued to expand its reach across the Northern Territory (NT). With a potential invasion range of over 380,000 sqkm2, this grass is a serious threat to many more-than-human worlds in the north, including Indigenous-led and Indigenous-owned environmental service economies and multimillion-dollar projects engaged in savanna fire management for carbon credits. Drawing upon fieldwork and interviews with a range of public servants, landholders and researchers in the NT between 2015 and 2018, this essay demonstrates how environmental governance is being undermined through specific institutions and practices. Through an ethnographic reading of weed management documents, including several legal permits to grow Gamba grass within the NT's 'eradication zone', this essay narrates the diverse threads of a pressing 'slow' disaster. The unfolding story of Gamba grass, we suggest, is instructive for those seeking to understand the present and future of resource extraction or 'extractivism' in Australia and elsewhere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within certain settler colonial nations, Indigenous peoples are increasingly becoming present and influential in the agencies legally responsible for the management of their ancestral territories, their environments and their hazards. On the Australian continent, for example, Aboriginal peoples are becoming more formally involved in the management of bushfire (or 'wildfire' elsewhere). This environmental phenomenon is at once of profound cultural significance to many Aboriginal peoples and a major natural hazard to human life and property, managed by an extensive professional bureaucracy of settler government agencies. Drawing upon a case study of collaborative bushfire management between Dja Dja Wurrung peoples and settler bushfire management agencies on Dja Dja Wurrung country (or, ancestral territory) in the southeast Australian state of Victoria, this article argues for an understanding of such collaborations as 'decolonising experiments'. For geographers and others, this means paying attention to the open-ended character of collaborative initiatives, whether and how they materially improve the position of Indigenous peoples, as well as whether and how they give rise to new resources and strategies for the creation of other decolonising futures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Natural hazard management agencies across the settler countries Canada, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, and the United States (or CANZUS countries) are presently involved in an increasing range of collaborative and consultative engagements with Indigenous peoples. However, perhaps because these engagements are diverse and relatively recent, little has been written about how they emerged and, from these agencies' perspectives, little is known about how these engagements find their motivation within government natural hazard management frameworks. In this article, we review existing academic and grey literature to categorise the origins of recent and present engagements and then identify and elaborate on the key rationales informing natural hazard management agencies' interactions with Indigenous peoples. We argue both that the broad principles of sustainability and inclusion have transformed these interactions and that developmentalist approaches and an overemphasis on Indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge can sometimes undermine this work. Incorporating critiques of settler colonialism relevant to the CANZUS context, this review aims to support established, emerging, and future collaborative engagements by investigating and analysing the literature to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract As the natural fire regimes of Canada's Boreal forests have been transformed by dynamic social, economic, ecological and political drivers, wildfires have become a locus of increasingly complex land management decisions. But while, in Canada and elsewhere, social researchers have examined communities at risk of experiencing wildfire, the agencies and practitioners responsible for wildfire management have thus far been underrepresented in empirical inquiry. This article presents a case study of wildfire management in northern Alberta, examining how different forms of knowledge and experiences were incorporated into the creation of a new plan to support decision-making. Findings from interviews and a workshop confirm that 'science' in such applied contexts is not a pure entity. Instead, the objects represented internally and externally as 'scientific' have necessarily been shaped by the values and priorities of the individuals and institutions that have constructed them. Further, this case study revealed social factors that support the maintenance of institutional status quos, such as the commitment to total wildfire suppression policy, despite broad agreement amongst participants about superior alternatives. These findings support the need for further research on wildfire management agencies, and suggest that progress in wildfire management may be limited by mismatched expectations of 'good' policy between stakeholder groups and by practitioners' conceptions of their own institutional identity. Highlights • Wildfire managers are limited by their own institutional identity and conservatism. • Social values underlie managers' use of "scientific-based" knowledge and tools. • Expectations by the designers and the users of wildfire policies may be mismatched. • Wildfire managers feel their access to public engagement opportunities are limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humans are ‘fire creatures’ that have used fire for millennia to shape local environments to diverse purposes. Our capacity for combustion has also forced global climatic changes and rendered the planet increasingly flammable, creating the conditions for progressively higher impact bushfires now and into the future. Meanwhile, governments in fire-prone countries such as Australia have continued to allow settlements to be established (and re-established) in wildland-urban interfaces. Like other ‘natural hazards’, bushfire is thereby a social phenomenon bound up with human values, practices and decisions. But, while studies of the social dimensions of ‘natural hazards’ are steadily rising, this scholarship has rarely addressed natural hazard management practitioners directly, precisely those authorised and entrusted to intervene in the distribution of hazard probabilities and consequences. This paper seeks to help remediate this research gap, illustrating how cultural, ecological, economic and political factors thoroughly condition hazard management and modes of intervention. Drawing on a case study in the Northern Territory’s Greater Darwin region, this paper suggests not only that examining such sociocultural realities provides new insights into hazards and their distribution, but also that attention to such issues is crucial to understanding our flammable future in the Anthropocene. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I examine recent influential accounts of the bushfire knowledge and practices of Aboriginal peoples and their ancestors on the Australian continent, drawing attention to how these accounts accord with problematic and ecomodernist aspects of contemporary bushfire management discourse. Developing a two-part critique of this discourse, I suggest both that we should accord the ecological contributions of Aboriginal peoples and their ancestors significantly greater esteem, and that the recent accounts potentially limit the grounds for contemporary Aboriginal peoples' engagements in the management of their territories or "Country". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1970s witnessed the emergence of a protest-based environmental movement in Australia. We outline here the history of the unstable meeting of environmentalism and Aboriginal interests, before turning to Marcia Langton's recent critique of the progressive 'green left' in Australia. We summarise Langton's argument: environmentalists would deny Aboriginal groups the benefits that flow from native title-related agreements; environmentalists live at luxurious distance from the realities of remote and rural Aboriginal poverty and social problems; environmentalists exalt 'noble savages'. We critique these claims on the basis that they pay inadequate attention to the structural inequities that underpin the market in native title interests and, further, deny the reality that Aboriginal groups often seek to form strategic alliances with green groups, arguing for conservation of their country on their own-or shared-terms. We argue that any appraisal of the present status of 'green-black' relations needs to consider these factors seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pride in Australia's extreme climate has long been a part of Australia's national identity. Today, climate continues to be enrolled in a range of nationalistic projects, including the (re)development of climate science and other responses to climate change. In this paper, we outline some of the contours of the 'Australian national climate', claims to know it, and four idealised responses to it: bounce back, dismissal, endurance, and migration. We argue that the deeply cultural framing of climate in Australia-in particular, Australians' emphasis on the climate's inherent variability and unknowability, and their own historical adaptability-is being exploited by the federal government and hampering climate change mitigation nationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this special issue on ‘extraction’, we think critically about two urgent and entangled questions, examining the political economy of mining and Indigenous interests in Australia, and the moral economy of Indigenous cultural difference within Cultural Studies and Anthropology. In settler colonial states such as Australia, Indigenous cultural difference is now routinely presented as commensurate with, rather than obstructive of, extractive industry activity. Meanwhile, the renewed interest in ‘radical alterity’ across these disciplines has seen a movement away from regarding authoritative claims about ‘others’ as morally suspect – as only extracting from or mining Indigenous worlds for insights and academic prestige. The ‘ontological turn’, however, leads us to question the empirical status of the ontologies circulating through academic discussions. What happens when Indigenous people disappoint, in their embrace of environmentally destructive industries such as mining, for example? We argue that in cases where ‘they’ are not as different as ‘we’ might hope them to be, scholars should be concerned to foreground the potential role of colonial history and processes of domination in the production and reduction of ontological difference. Second, we call for critical assessment of the political, epistemological, and social effects of both academic and societal evaluations of difference. We conclude by urging for a scholarship that does not pick and choose between agreeable and less agreeable forms of cultural difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wildfire is a global environmental ‘problem’ with significant socioeconomic and socionatural impacts that does not lend itself to simple technical fixes (Gill et al., 2013: 439). In Australia, a country with a pronounced history of disastrous landscape fires, these impacts are expected to increase as the peri-urban population continues to grow and the climate continues to change. This paper draws upon the burgeoning literature on anticipatory regimes to analyse an in-depth case study of a government pilot in the highly fire-prone State of Victoria, where practitioners have utilised a simulation model to measure and intervene in the distribution of wildfire risk. The pilot presents the ‘calculative collective device’ (Callon and Muniesa, 2005) of wildfire management at a moment of what I label ‘calculative rearticulation’, wherein figurations of the future are rebooted, reconstructed or recalibrated; such moments, I suggest, can reorient the institutionally conservative spaces – such as environmental or risk management – providing opportunities for practitioners and others to interrogate the existing distribution of hazards and anticipatory interventions. Through such opportunities ‘hazardous’ more-than-human landscapes can be imagined otherwise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I focus upon the recent Wild Rivers Act controversy in Queensland, Australia, as an ‘experimental event’ that drew together a diverse cast of actors – including Indigenous traditional owners, state politicians, bureaucrats, environmentalists, mining companies, the late Steve Irwin, and waterways – to contest the future of a region historically (over)coded as ‘wild’. In attending to these actors, and the discourses and arguments mobilised, I argue that this controversy reveals emergent trends in the imaginaries of wildness and indigeneity surrounding indigenous lands and waters in contemporary settler colonial nations. Critical insight into such issues, I show, requires reconceptualising the static ‘matters of being’ through which indigenous territory is often captured – such as tradition and development – as contingent and contested ‘matters of becoming’. It is precisely in events such as the Act controversy that the contemporary politics of indigenous territory, and its contingent and contested foundations, becomes visible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent focus on the category of ‘culture’ provoked by Peter Sutton'sThe Politics of Suffering(2009) has revived questions of the meaning and utility of indigenous alterity in Australia. The ‘end of the liberal consensus’, contemporary with a declared ‘end of ideology’ in Australian Indigenous† public policy, has been doubled in ‘post-ethnic’ academic work harbouring a renewed suspicion of what Dombrowski (2010, 21: 129–140) has called indigeneity's ‘distinctive sympathy’. Within a cultural economy of commensurability, the fact that political claims are often ‘contingent on the indigenous people themselves maintaining sufficient alterity to warrant the special treatment afforded them’ is taken by some as proof of voluntarism and bad faith. In order to gauge this immanent reorientation of indigeneity in Australia, this paper surveys the works of two prominent figures in policy debates – the anthropologist Peter Sutton and indigenous public intellectual Noel Pearson – who have both argued that remote Indigenous communities suffer from a ‘cultural pathology’. This paper presents a conceptual critique of their popular press works between 2000 and 2011. Within the context of ‘post-ethnic’ government policy ‘after self-determination’ and scholarship ‘after identity’, this paper contends that we are witnessing the (re)appearance of an equalitarian humanism which proposes, following Esposito [2008 (Orig. pub. 2004)], to immunize indigenous polities and the settler-colonial state against the historical frames and alterity of indigeneity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers the 'duplicitous' functions of the word 'wild' in the arguments over the Queensland's Wild Rivers Act 2005. Certain traditional owners, environmentalist and state groups have deployed the term pragmatically, simultaneously endorsing its usage (through repetition) and disavowing its colonial associations (through explanation) against protestations by Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders. In a sense, this ambivalent 'duplicity' is entirely consistent with relations between the settler-colonial nation state and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander polities - relations aptly characterised by Povinelli as shaped by 'the cunning of recognition' - which stratify relations between groups through the endorsing of 'tradition'. Thus 'the Indigenous' can be posited both as one political minority amidst a multicultural polity and as a pre-modern and endemic precursor of the settler-colonial nation, constitutively conservationist 'first Australians'. Arguably, in the legislation's 'recognition' of the 'wild' past, Indigenous peoples - who were known in nineteenth century Queensland as 'wild blacks' or 'myalls' (meaning those who resisted leaving their lands - and 'could be shot with impunity')1 are recouped as the nation's first caretakers of 'pristine' waterways. However, this article regards the current use of this ambivalent word as also potentially authorising those recognised through this mythic form, providing a limited and uncertain opportunity for traditional owners to ground a form of sovereign right in lands and waterways. Against totalising settler-colonial critiques of hegemony, this article argues that the Wild Rivers legislation does not forget indigeneity, but rather relies on indigeneity. While much research concerning 'natural' ideologies such as 'the noble savage' has worked to show that faith in a belated era of historical fullness or presence can serve to evacuate the present of material details, it may also be that the 'wild' can also offer Indigenous peoples a valuable political authority to, in the words of Courtney Jung, 'contest the exclusions through which it has been constituted'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article present an conversation between Aboriginal fire practitioners, Mick Bourke and Amos Atkinson and non-Indigenous researcher, Timothy Neale who discusses about issues of cultural fire management; conduct burns on public land; and wildfires.

Conservation targets perform beneficial auxiliary functions that are rarely acknowledged, including raising awareness, building partnerships, promoting investment, and developing new knowledge. Building on these auxiliary functions could enable more rapid progress towards current targets and inform the design of future targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]