The End of Abundance: Water Infrastructure and the Culture of Cornucopianism by Jason M. Kelly

watercolor of river by Re McBride

We are living in a profoundly disorienting and disquieting historical moment. Populist authoritarianism is on the rise around the globe. We have seen leaders of supposedly liberal states attack the press and flout norms that have been mainstays of politics for generations—actively attempting to undermine trust in the very institutions it is their duty to preserve. We have seen children put into cages. We have seen white supremacists terrorize communities. All the while, these leaders cajole their xenophobic, misogynistic, and racist followers to intimidate and murder vulnerable populations. A surge in nationalism has seen leaders refuse aid to immigrants, use their armies to invade and occupy neighboring regions, and dissolve longstanding agreements. The gulf between the wealthiest and the poorest is growing ever wider, sustained by the political assault on unions, the expansion of corporate power, and the disintegration of regulatory frameworks. The veil of liberalism is disintegrating, exposing the deep structural inequities and latent hatreds that define late capitalism.

All this is set against the background of a rapidly changing climate, which promises to further destabilize societies across the globe. The most optimistic forecasts—those that assume massive, global cooperation to rapidly decrease carbon emissions—promise widespread disruptions of the planet’s ecosystems. We have already begun to experience the first effects of these changes: unpredictable weather patterns, drought, high-intensity storms, sea level rise, and the acidification of oceans.

In the best case scenario—one that assumes governments across the globe will enact the Paris Agreement developed at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 21)—humans across the globe will be forced to live through unprecedented environmental upheavals and their unpredictable societal consequences. Unfortunately, though, key signatories (most notably the United States), have abandoned their obligations, in part, at the hands of populist leaders who deny the realities of anthropogenic climate change. The best case scenario is unlikely to be the one we live through…

continue reading at 

Film Announcement! ANTHROPOCENE: The Documentary will feature that the 2018 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF)

Opening Title Shot to Anthropocene Documentary



(Text Originally Published:

A cinematic meditation on humanity’s massive reengineering of the planet, Anthropocene is a four years in the making feature documentary film from the multiple-award winning team of Jennifer Baichwal, Nicholas de Pencier and Edward Burtynsky.

Third in a trilogy that includes Manufactured Landscapes (2006) and Watermark (2013), the film follows the research of an international body of scientists, the Anthropocene Working Group who, after nearly 10 years of research, are arguing that the Holocene Epoch gave way to the Anthropocene Epoch in the mid-twentieth century, because of profound and lasting human changes to the Earth.

From concrete seawalls in China that now cover 60% of the mainland coast, to the biggest terrestrial machines ever built in Germany, to psychedelic potash mines in Russia’s Ural Mountains, to metal festivals in the closed city of Norilsk, to the devastated Great Barrier Reef in Australia and surreal lithium evaporation ponds in the Atacama desert, the filmmakers have traversed the globe using high end production values and state of the art camera techniques to document evidence and experience of human planetary domination.

At the intersection of art and science, Anthropocene witnesses in an experiential and non-didactic sense a critical moment in geological history — bringing a provocative and unforgettable experience of our species’ breadth and impact.

Mongrel Media / Mercury Films Inc. / Edward Burtynsky

#AnthropoceneProject #TIFF18

COP23: The 10 Science ‘Must Knows’ on Climate Change

Read a new statement from Future Earth and the Earth League called “The 10 Science ‘Must Knows’ on Climate Change” delivered at the Bonn Climate Change Conference on 13 November.

Prepared by the Earth League and Future Earth for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 23rd Conference of the Parties (COP23), 2017.

The Paris Agreement aims to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels”. In 2016, global average surface temperature reached about 1.1 °C above pre-industrial levels, making it the warmest year on record1. Globally averaged concentrations for carbon dioxide (CO2) reached 403.3 parts per million in 2016, up from 400.0 ppm in 2015. This is a record annual increase2. The science is clear that meeting the Paris Agreement will require rapidly ridding society of fossil fuels. In addition, the world will have to safeguard and enhance existing carbon sinks, and major efforts will be needed to build societal resilience in the face of unavoidable climate change . . . .

(continue reading here)

The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health Report

The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health has recently released a report examining the relationship between environmental pollution and public health.   Their Executive Summary is below. To read the full report, visit the commission’s website at

Executive Summary

For decades, pollution and its harmful effects on people’s health, the environment, and the planet have been neglected both by Governments and the international development agenda. Yet, pollution is the largest environmental cause of disease and death in the world today, responsible for an estimated 9 million premature deaths.

The Lancet Commission on pollution and health addresses the full health and economic costs of air, water, and soil pollution. Through analyses of existing and emerging data, the Commission reveals pollution’s severe and underreported contribution to the Global Burden of Disease. It uncovers the economic costs of pollution to low-income and middle-income countries. The Commission will inform key decision makers around the world about the burden that pollution places on health and economic development, and about available cost-effective pollution control solutions and strategies.

The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health 

Philip J Landrigan, Richard Fuller, Nereus J R Acosta, Olusoji Adeyi, Robert Arnold, Niladri (Nil) Basu, Abdoulaye Bibi Baldé, Roberto Bertollini, Stephan Bose-O’Reilly, Jo Ivey Boufford, Patrick N Breysse, Thomas Chiles, Chulabhorn Mahidol, Awa M Coll-Seck, Maureen L Cropper, Julius Fobil, Valentin Fuster, Michael Greenstone, Andy Haines, David Hanrahan, David Hunter, Mukesh Khare, Alan Krupnick, Bruce Lanphear, Bindu Lohani, Keith Martin, Karen V Mathiasen, Maureen A McTeer, Christopher J L Murray, Johanita D Ndahimananjara, Frederica Perera, Janez Potočnik, Alexander S Preker, Jairam Ramesh, Johan Rockström, Carlos Salinas, Leona D Samson, Karti Sandilya, Peter D Sly, Kirk R Smith, Achim Steiner, Richard B Stewart, William A Suk, Onno C P van Schayck, Gautam N Yadama, Kandeh Yumkella, Ma Zhong

Are We all Living in the Anthropocene? by Matthew Henry for the OUP Blog

A new blog post by Matthew Henry (PhD candidate in English and Environmental Humanities at Arizona State University) for the Oxford University Press blog is worth checking out. Asking the question, “Are We all Living in the Anthropocene?,” he challenges readers to remember that

the Anthropocene operates under the assumption that the human species as a whole is responsible for potentially irreversible environmental catastrophe without acknowledging that some (read: industrialized Western societies) are far more responsible than others (developing nations, indigenous peoples) for rising carbon emissions, ocean acidification, industrial pollution, and the like.

Read the entire post here.

Physical Geography in the Anthropocene (Editorial by Erle Ellis in Progress in Physical Geography)

In a recent editorial in Progress in Physical Geography, Erle Ellis asks the question

Should physical geographers be doing more to embrace the Anthropocene? As the term has come to embody the global-scale coupling of human and environmental change, it seems awkward that a discipline with such deep paradigmatic connections with this is not clearly associated with it. Why is geography not waving its flag at the head of the Anthropocene movement?

Ellis outlines some of the critiques of the Anthropocene concept–including the criticism that it is an “academic fad”–and asks what role, if any, geographers should play in engaging with the topic. His answer is that it is essential for geographers to be at the forefront of Anthropocene research and debate:

Geographers, with such a deep historic and processual understanding of the complex realities of human–environmental change, are ideally placed to lead in shaping the future of Anthropocene scholarship. Given that the Anthropocene is attracting interest to some of the most important core areas of geographic expertise, areas where geography can make major impacts across the academy and beyond, the Anthropocene is just too important to leave to others.

Readers can link to the full open access essay at

Ellis, Erle C. “Physical Geography in the Anthropocene.” Progress in Physical Geography 41, no. 5 (2017): 525–32.

Framing the Anthropocene

In 1976, the scholar Raymond Williams published Keywords. The subtitle describes the book as “a vocabulary of culture and society.”[1] Flipping through its pages, the volume reads like a dictionary. There are entries for dozens of words: “art,” “tradition,” “industry,” “violence,” etc. Below each word, he provides a bit of history about the words’ origins. But, this isn’t a typical dictionary. Williams wasn’t interested in providing definitions. Instead, he was interested in exploring ambiguities in meaning. He wanted to understand how different groups of people could use the same word to mean fundamentally different things and how those differences developed over time.

Take the word “nature” for example. We all have a sense of what we mean when we say “nature,” as well as “natural” and “naturalistic.” When we try to define it for other people, however, the word becomes difficult to explain. This is because “nature” is a concept that has developed and changed over decades and centuries. It has different meanings depending on our political perspectives, religious beliefs, and cultural backgrounds. What is “natural,” and what is “unnatural?” We tend to give the word a moral sense: for example, “nature is good.” That’s why marketers tell us that our food is “all natural.” But, sometimes we talk of “nature’s wrath,” for example, when forest fires or floods affect us. What do we mean when we say “human nature?” Are humans guided by reason or emotion, or some combination of two? Is “human nature” good or is it evil? Are humans part of the “natural world” or are we something apart from it – special somehow?

These are the types of questions that Williams asked in Keywords. He wasn’t interested in clarifying word meanings. Rather, he was interested in pointing out that the words we use have unstable definitions, and that some of them are particularly loaded with meaning. The “Anthropocene” is one of these words. For some, it is a scientific term, designating a measurable geological epoch. For others, it is a throwaway jargon word, bereft of any significance. For still others, it represents an ethical stance, one which recognizes the impact that humans have had on the planet and one that holds them morally accountable for it.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there are many other words that are often associated with the term “Anthropocene”: “environment,” “justice,” “anthropogenic,” etc. These are themselves words whose meanings might be ambiguous or which mean different things to different people. We might think of these as “fuzzy words.” With “fuzzy words,” we have a sense of what they mean, but this meaning is often contextual—to culture, place, and time. The meanings might depend on who is using the term and the assumptions that they bring to it. Their interpretation might be contingent on their upbringing or cultural knowledge.

Raymond Williams would not have encouraged us to abandon our “fuzzy words” or try to give them precise definitions. He recognized that this was impossible. Rather, Williams wrote Keywords to remind us of the ways in which our words might have unintended meanings – to encourage us to inquire about what we mean when we say something. Williams noted for us the importance of understanding what other people mean when they use a ”fuzzy word.” And, he prompted us to probe our hidden assumptions and ask ourselves why we use words in particular ways.

Researchers who work in collaborative, interdisciplinary contexts – including those who work on projects related to the Anthropocene – have long recognized that “fuzzy words” can undermine their research agendas. When a word such as “resilience” goes unquestioned, researchers can end up talking past each other. One person’s idea about what is “resilient” might be fundamentally at odds with another’s notions. In the policy sector, this type of confusion can weaken effective environmental management. To address this, researchers have increasingly focused on framing “fuzzy words” (often called “boundary concepts”) within their disciplinary contexts at the outset of new projects. That way, each researcher is more aware of the ways they understand and use concepts differently. This practice helps avoid confusion and helps generate better collaborations, not just for researchers but for those who work in philantrophy, museum curation, policy making, business, and more. How then can “fuzzy words” be unpacked and meaning clearly articulated? One approach that we suggest is through concept mapping.

Exercise: Framing the Anthropocene through Concept Mapping


This activity can be done alone, or it can be organized for groups as large as 70 people.

Materials Needed
  • Scissors
  • Paper
  • Tape (optional)
  • Printer (optional)
Objectives and Outcomes
  1. demonstrate the many assumptions that we each bring to our understanding of the Anthropocene.
  2. illustrate the importance of framing concepts before embarking on interdisciplinary and collaborative work.

For this two-part exercise, we have created a list of “fuzzy words” related to the Anthropocene.

In the first part of the exercise, we encourage you to examine these words and consider the multiple meanings that they might have. How might they be understood differently in different contexts? What is your take on the concept? How have their meanings changed over time? Given different cultural or political contexts, how might their meanings differ? How do certain definitions reflect underlying assumptions, attitudes, beliefs, and biases? In the second part of this exercise, we encourage you to relate these words to each other by creating a concept map. How does each concept inform the other? How do they build on each other? How do they add to or undermine nuanced definitions? Can you create concept clusters with the word list?

Activity (Part 1): Definitions
 Step 1

(before meeting)

Remove the list of words from the primer and separate them by cutting along the dotted lines. If you are using a digital copy of An Anthropocene Primer, you can download a .pdf of the wordlist here.

Step 2

(2 minutes)

Distribute the words evenly to all participants.

Step 3

(15 minutes)

Break participants into groups of 2-6 and ask each person to present one of their words to their group. Have group members try to identify as many meanings as possible for each of the words.

Activity (Part 2): Concept Mapping
Step 1

(5 minutes)

Explain what a concept map is to participants. Simply put, a concept map is a visual method for representing ideas and relationships between ideas. In this exercise, we are interested in creating clusters of “fuzzy words” that relate to each other. Participants will work with each other to decide which concepts should be grouped together and why.

Step 2

(30 minutes)

Have participants lay out their concept map and designate core concepts around which other words can cluster. Our example provides one model for how to do this. There are many other possible variations. We have identified key concepts through color and surrounded them with “fuzzy words” that relate to the key concept. If a “fuzzy word” is related to more than one concept, we have placed it between concepts. Likewise, if “fuzzy words” related to each other, we grouped them together.

Step 3

(15 minutes)

Have participants explain why they chose to lay out their concept map the way they did. Us this as a chance to unpack cultural specificity and illuminate the complexity of language in the work we do.

Step 4

(10 minutes)

Have participants suggest other models for laying out their concept map. Ask participants how different configurations transform the way that we understand “fuzzy words”? How do they help us understand the Anthropocene? How might their concept map change by adjusting some of their assumptions and/or key framing concepts?

Step 5

(10 minutes)

Ask participants what new words they would you add to the concept map. How do these words help us better understand the Anthropocene?


[1] Raymond Williams, Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society, revised ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).