Return to Wildland Fire
Return to Northern Bobwhite site
Return to Working Lands for Wildlife site
Return to Working Lands for Wildlife site
Return to SE Firemap
Return to the Landscape Partnership Literature Gateway Website
return
return to main site

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Sections

Personal tools

You are here: Home / Resources / Climate Science Documents / Politics for the day after tomorrow: The logic of apocalypse in global climate politics

Politics for the day after tomorrow: The logic of apocalypse in global climate politics

The recent global climate change discourse is a prominent example of a securitization of environmental issues. While the problem is often framed in the language of existentialism, crisis or even apocalypse, climate discourses rarely result in exceptional or extraordinary measures, but rather put forth a governmental scheme of piecemeal and technocratic solutions often associated with risk management. This article argues that this seeming paradox is no accident but follows from a politics of apocalypse that combines two logics – those of security and risk – which in critical security studies are often treated as two different animals. Drawing on the hegemony theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, however, this article shows that the two are inherently connected. In the same way as the Christian pastorate could not do without apocalyptic imageries, today’s micro-politics of risk depends on a series of macro-securitizations that enable and legitimize the governmental machinery. This claim is backed up by an inquiry into current global discourses of global climate change regarding mitigation, adaptation and security implications. Although these discourses are often framed through the use of apocalyptic images, they rarely result in exceptional or extraordinary measures, but rather advance a governmental scheme of risk management. Tracing the relationship between security and risk in these discourses, we use the case of climate change to highlight the relevance of our theoretical argument.

Publication Date: 2012

DOWNLOAD FILE — PDF document, 1,514 kB (1,551,353 bytes)