Friday October 1, it is time for Irma Allen to defend her thesis Dirty coal – Industrial populism as purification in Poland’s mining heartland. The defence is open for the public by registration, and will happen on zoom. Find link to registration below, as well as the thesis abstract!
Time: Fri 2021-10-01 16.00 Subject area: History of Science, Technology and Environment Doctoral student: Irma Allen , Historiska studier av teknik, vetenskap och miljö Opponent: Professor Christopher Hann, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Supervisor: Professor Sverker Sörlin, Historiska studier av teknik, vetenskap och miljö; Associate Professor Sabine Höhler, Historiska studier av teknik, vetenskap och miljö
In the second half of the 2010s, far-right populist parties gained increasing power and influenceacross Europe, and around the world. Core to their ethnonationalist, anti-elite agenda, and theiremotive politics, has often been a defense of fossil fuels, threatening action to address the climatecrisis and raising the spectre of fascism. Increasingly-perceived-as-‘dirty’ coal, the raw material thatmade the industrial modern world order possible and contributed most to its mountingcontradictions, has acquired a special status in contemporary far-right ideology. What is theemotional intersection between them at a time of far-reaching economic, environmental and energyinstability and change, when coal has not only been losing its material value and its symbolic link tomodernity, but is increasingly widely deemed immoral too?
To date, studies of far-right populism have largely overlooked how energy and environmentalchange feature in their present rise. This reflects how these issues have been largely treated astechnical matters, and therefore relegated to the domain of scientific expertise, rather thanrecognized as inherently social, cultural and political concerns. Tending to adopt a macro-levelapproach, far-right studies have also not yet fully addressed the historically, geographically, andculturally-situated reasons for this success, particularly among the (white, male) industrial workingclass.From a bottom-up, ethnographic perspective, the role of intersectional (class-based,occupational, gendered, racialized regional and national) ecologically-positioned embodiedsubjectivities and identities and their emotional lived experience remains to be considered.
This PhD thesis, set within the concerns of a transdisciplinary environmental and energy humanitiesframework, addresses this lacunae in the context of Poland; the most coal-dependent country in theEuropean Union where a pro-coal platform unexpectedly helped the far-right populist party Lawand Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) into majority government in 2015. It is primarily based on ayears’ ethnographic research conducted in 2017 with both residents and particularly coal miners andtheir families in a minescape in Upper Silesia, the nation’s, and one of Europe’s, last remainingmining heartlands. Adopting a postcolonial postsocialist perspective, and drawing on rare empiricaldata from participant observation and qualitative interviews, the thesis explores the politics ofincreasingly ‘dirty’ coal expressed in localized conflicts over air pollution, domestic heating, andthe meaning of work, dignity, respectable personhood, the economy and community, setting themwithin their historical context. The rapidly shifting material and symbolic meaning of coal withinthe context of Silesia’s long-standing troubled history is particularly studied in light of Europeanintegration, a post-industrial, neoliberal, ‘green’-cosmopolitan project that links East and West in anunequal relationship. The naming of coal and its way of life as increasingly ‘dirty’ in newlystigmatizing senses from ‘outside’, is found to be experienced by the mining community as an eliteimposedprocess of ecological dispossession. This generates a toxic intersectionally-andecologically-mediated shame in the bodies of those that particularly labour intimately with itsmaterial touch; a shame that resonates with what this thesis terms industrial populist politics and itsemotive charge as a felt common sense. In the postsocialist context of the marginalization anddevaluation of industrial working-class lives, and pervasive and normalized orientalist classismexperienced as an attack on one’s ecologically-enmeshed Silesian-Polishness, the relational longingfor a sense of a purified home, that can cleanse dirt’s discomforting and shame-inducing stigmas inoverlapping economic, social, cultural and environmental terms by refusing and reversing itsdesignation, is proposed as lying at the heart of industrial populism’s visceral draw.
Authors: Alejandra Mancilla, professor in Philosopy, UiO & Peder Roberts, associate professor in Modern history, UiS & researcher, Division of History of Science, Technology and Environment, KTH
The most recent IPCC report paints a dark picture. Among other things, melting Antarctic ice could put many parts of the world underwater. We therefore want to pose two questions: do we have the necessary tools to preserve Antarctica, and thereby also the world? And can the Antarctic Treaty states (including Norway) claim that they are fulfilling their commitments under the Treaty when they continue to pursue oil-focused policies?
Photo by Derek Oyen on Unsplash
Norway is one of the 29 consultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty, which marks its 60th anniversary in 2021. Many celebrate that the treaty has achieved peace and scientific cooperation. Additionally, it is 30 years since the Protocol on Environmental Protection (widely known as the Madrid Protocol) was agreed. Since then no further legal instruments have been developed to deal with new challenges – above all, the climate crisis. We argue that the Antarctic Treaty does not lack the necessary tools to address this challenge, and that instead it is a matter of more ambitiously interpreting the texts that already exist, and the responsibilities of the individual countries involved.
The Madrid Protocol states that the parties commit to protecting “the Antarctic environment and dependent and associated ecosystems.” This phrase (which occurs nineteen times in the text) leads to the question: what does it mean to protect ecosystems that are dependent and/or associated with Antarctica? The Protocol, like the Treaty itself, covers the area from the South Pole to latitude 60 degrees south, but to attain that goal it is necessary to act further north. Actions outside the geographic boundaries of the Antarctic Treaty should therefore be taken into account when evaluating the extent to which a state fulfills its commitments to protect Antarctica.
The Protocol also asserts that Antarctica has “intrinsic value”. Intrinsic value stands in contrast to instrumental value. Using Antarctica as a laboratory is an example of the latter, where Antarctica functions as a means to achieve the end of increasing scientific knowledge. Intrinsic value, on the other hand, demands that we treat Antarctica as an end in itself. What exactly that means is a discussion that the Antarctic Treaty parties are yet to have, but which could lead to a more ambitious interpretation of the Protocol’s mandate.
The processes that drive climate change and loss of biodiversity do not follow political geographical boundaries. For Antarctica, it is not enough to regulate activities within the Treaty area itself: activities beyond must also be considered. The states that signed the Madrid Protocol committed themselves, in a way, to protect the whole world. It is high time that citizens of the signatory states voiced that demand, particularly in the context of elections. Committing to meet or exceed the targets set in the Paris Agreement would be a good start.
Map of the South Pole Traverse
As a founding member of the Antarctic Treaty that continues to be active in the continent, Norway should take the lead in this process. The country has a self-image as an enthusiastic advocate of human rights and environmental causes at the global level. If it wishes to live up to its reputation, Norway ought to begin by stopping issuing new permits for oil exploration and taking concrete steps toward reducing fossil fuel production. Thus can Norway truly make a contribution to protecting Antarctica.
As digitisation and computers in general are advancing rapidly, many engineers and scientists work on the possibilities and challenges developing artificial intelligence might pose. AI as a topic is also being researched by a handful of members of our division.
As such, researcher Lina Rahm has published a new article with the title “Education, automation and AI: a genealogy of alternative future” in the journal Learning, Media and Technology. She discusses the co-development of education technologies with both new trends in digital advancements and views on these issues from the past. The way we do education as humanities scholars has already changed profoundly during the ongoing pandemic. Furthermore, change is an ongoing thing and thus Lina’s research is necessary more than ever.
If you are interested in the article you can find it here.
Abstract:
The relationship between technical development and education is a reciprocal one, where education always stands in relation to those skills, competencies, and techniques that are anticipated as necessary in a technological future. At the same time, skills and competencies are also necessary to drive innovation and technical development for the progressive creation of desirable futures. Jumping back to the 1950s, this article illustrates how automation and AI have been anticipated as both problems and solutions in society, and how education has been used to solve these problems or realize these solutions. That is, computerization debates have concentrated on both the growing opportunities and the increasing risks, but almost always also on the need for corresponding education. The article uses a genealogical approach to show how, from the 1950s and up until today, education has been mobilized as an important tool for governance in computer policies.
Sabine Höhler recently contributed with the chapter “Creating the Blue Planet from Modern Oceanography” in the sixth volume of the The Cultural Histories of the Sea in the Global Age (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021).
Throughout history, how has the sea served as a site for cross-cultural exchange, trade and migration? As historians, how do the fields of naval history, maritime history and oceanic history intersect? About the series, from Bloomsbury
The full series can be purchased through the Bloomsbury link under the above qoute.
Information
Hoehler, S. (2021)
Creating the Blue Planet from Modern Oceanography: Creating the Blue Planet from
Modern Oceanography
In: Franziska Torma (ed.), A Cultural History of the Sea in the Global Age (pp. 21-44).
London: Bloomsbury Academic
The Cultural Histories Series
Life moves on, a new term has started and we as a division are very glad to welcome our new PhD-student Erik Ljungberg, who works in the History of Media and Environment with a focus on AI and autonomous systems. We have asked him a few questions to introduce himself and you can read his answers below.
Given that you had to switch countries for your new position, how was your transition to KTH?
I have to say that KTH has made the transition very easy. With the opportunity to get an apartment within a short space of time through KTH Relocation, making the jump from Oslo to Stockholm has been pretty effortless. Although shifting COVID restrictions have made the process a little unpredictable at times.
Could you please tell us a bit about yourself and the topics you are working on, especially within your PhD?
I am a historian of knowledge and started at KTH as a PhD student in August. I am more or less associated with the Mediated Planet project, which looks at how data gathering practices, data access and data ownership shape environmental perception and politics. Though my project is also a bit freer to go in different, but related directions. I have backgrounds in both history of knowledge, which was the discipline I wrote my M.A. thesis in at the University of Oslo, and cultural anthropology, which I did a second B.A. in while doing my masters. Specifically my M.A. thesis looked at the advent of phenology, or in other words the measurement of rhythms of nature, in British natural science in the 18th-century. Phenology is a fascinating endeavor to study from a history of knowledge perspective because the possibility of mapping seasonal variations among plants and animals only really came into being once there was a knowledge infrastructure capable of gathering and processing big amounts of data. Basically you had to make daily observations over several years. Particular ways of handling paper were really at the center of this process. But you also needed ways to structure the recorded data in purely visual terms in order to streamline the process of recording and reading data. So one of the things I highlighted in my research was the importance of the table as the condition of possibility for this kind of knowledge production, stressing the fact that knowledge is simultaneously material and cognitive.
My PhD project will maintain this media theoretical focus on how knowledge emerges through being circulated through socio-material infrastructures, but focuses instead on the role of AI and autonomous systems in environmental understanding. It is exceedingly likely that AI and autonomous systems will fundamentally change the way that human society monitors, models, and manages the Earth’s natural systems. What is interesting to me is placing this development within a longer history of shifting Earth-human relationships wherein mediation plays a crucial role. As the environment becomes increasingly dataified, a central question also revolves around usage and access to data. This becomes especially salient once the issue of monetization comes into the picture. Who should capitalize on the use of data that is public, free, and ubiquitous? Questions such as these are important to address as big tech companies currently stand a fair chance of developing a hegemony of expertise when it comes to these issues.
What is coming up right now? What do you aim for in the near future in terms of research, (side-)projects, or public outreach?
Right now I am making an outline of my project, and also simply trying to get an overview of the field, or several fields actually, that I will be working in. Otherwise, I have a couple of things on the agenda. I am working on a paper for the Nordical Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies, and I had a paper accepted for one of the panels at the upcoming 4S conference. Also, I hope to have a blog up and running in the next months which can serve as a kind of outlet for some of the developments that are unfolding so rapidly within the field of AI and the environment.
Starting during the pandemic is challenging, although we all hope that regular work routines can be resumed during this term. What kind of impact has Covid-19 had on your work?
Actually I got a scholarship to go to London and spend time in the archives, but that proved unfeasable during the pandemic. Certainly my M.A. thesis suffered from this. On the other hand, since a lot of workshops and conferences have gone digital, it has been possible for me to take part in discussions that I never would have been able to if I had to fly. Hopefully the landscape of post-COVID academia will include a lot less flying, while still acknowledging our need to interact face-to-face.
*
Thank you, and “Välkommen!” Erik, it is good to have you with us!
Division professors Sverker Sörlin and Nina Wormb’s article “Environing technologies: a theory of making environment” from the 2018 December issue of History & Technology, is available open access. Read the abstract and find the link for the full article below
Abstract
The central proposal of this article is that environing technologies shape and structure the way in which nature becomes environment, and as such used, perceived and understood. The argument builds on the understanding that environment is the result of human intervention. Technology is here understood broadly as a terraforming practise, materially and conceptually. We suggest that the compound environing technologies enable us to see environmental change on multiple scales and in new registers. That technologies alter the physical world is not new; our contribution focuses on the conceptual, epistemological, economic and emotional appreciation of systems and aggregates of technologies that is part and parcel of material change. The environing technologies that enable such articulation and comprehension hold potential in the future transformation that our societies need to undergo to overcome the crisis of environment and climate.
On this Friday, 20 August 2021, at 4pm Stockholm Time PhD-Candidate Dmitry V. Arzyutov will defend his dissertation with the title “Reassembling the Environmental Archives of the Cold War”. Dima’s opponent is Assistant Professor Bathsheba Demuth from Brown University in Providence, USA (State of Rhode Island). We are looking forward together with his supervisors Peder Roberts (Stavanger), Per Högselius (KTH) and Julia Lajus (St. Petersburg) to this major event in our division’s PhD-education.
If you want to join check out the official announcement including the Zoom-link here.
Abstract
To what extent the environmental history of the Arctic can move beyond the divide between Indigenous peoples and newcomers or vernacular and academic ways of knowing? The present dissertation answers this question by developing the notion of an environmental archive. Such an archive does not have particular reference to a given place but rather it refers to the complex network that marks the relations between paper documents and human and non-human agencies as they are able to work together and stabilise the conceptualisation of a variety of environmental objects. The author thus argues that the environment does not only contain information about the past but just like any paper (or audio and video) archive is able to produce it through the relational nature of human-environment interactions. Through the analysis of five case studies from the Russian North, the reader is invited to go through various forms of environmental archives which in turn embrace histories of a number of disciplines such as palaeontology, biology, anthropology, and medicine. Every case or a “layer” is presented here as a contact zone where Indigenous and academic forms of knowledge are not opposed to each other but, on the contrary, are able to interact and consequently affect the global discussions about the Russian Arctic. This transnational context is pivotal for all the cases discussed in the dissertation. Moreover, by putting the Cold War with its tensions between two superpowers at the chronological center of the present work, the author aims to reveal the multidimensionality of in situ interactions with, for instance, the paleontological remains or the traces of all-terrain vehicles and their involvement into broader science transnational cooperations and competitions. As a result, the heterogeneous archives allow us to reconsider the environmental history of the Russian North and the wider Arctic and open a new avenue for future research transcending the geopolitical and epistemic borders of knowledge production.
Abstract på svenska
I vilken grad kan en miljhöhistorisk analys av Arktis undvika klyftan mellan ursprungsfolk och nykomlingar, samt mellan folkliga och akademiska form för vetenskap? Avhandlingen svarar på denna fråga genom att utveckla begreppet ”miljöarkiv.” Ett sådant arkiv hänvisar inte till en särskild plats, men heller till et komplex nätverk som samlar ihop förhållande mellan dokument i papper och båda mänskliga och icke-mänskliga aktörskap. Tillsammans stabiliserar och konceptualiserer de ett antal miljöobjekten. Författaren argumenterar därför att miljö omfattar inte bara information om förtiden men liksom andra form för arkiv (antingen papper-baserat eller elektronisk) kan reproducera förtiden genom att belysa interaktioner mellan människor och natur. Genom fem case studier från det nordliga Ryssland bjudas läsaren på en tur av fem olika miljöarkiv som omfattar olika disciplinära traditioner, t. ex. paleontologi, biolog, antropologi, och medicin. Varje case eller ”lager” presenteras här som kontaktzon var ursprungliga och akademiska form för vetenskap inte nödvändigtvis står i opposition, men tvärtom påverkar varandra, och därmed får inflytelse över diskussioner om det ryska Arktis även på global nivå. Denna transnationella kontext är avgörande för alla cases i avhandlingen. Genom att sätta det kalla kriget i analysens centrum (kronologisk sett), med fokus på spänningarna mellan stormakterna, hoppas författaren att belysa de flerdimensionella interaktionerna mellan t. ex. paleontologiska fynd och spår från bandfordon och hur dessa interaktioner var kopplad till bredare frågor kring multinationella samarbete och konkurrens. En så heterogen uppfattning av arkivet öppnar för nye perspektiv på miljöhistorien av båda det ryska Arktis och Arktis set i sin helhet, samt öppna för nya forskningsfrågor som överskrider nuvarande geopolitiske och epistemologiska gränser innanför kunskapsproduktion.
This week the Environmental Humanities Laboratory at the division is hosting the long-awaited STREAMS-Conference (STREAMS-Transformative Environmental Humanities) digitally in Stockholm.
We are delighted that despite all the problems the organising committee had encountered during the Covid-19-pandemic the conference can finally take place – albeit only in a virtual format. The team has put together a very differentiated programme, encompassing a vast array of presentations, films, artwork, keynotes, roundtables and networking events. Scholars of Environmental Humanities, Energy History, Climate Change and the Anthropocene will meet artists, activists (e.g. from Extinction Rebellion Sweden) and editors on the new Streams EventsAIR Virtual Platform to facilitate a great networking experience despite the challenges of the new home-office-normality. The keynote-speakers are among others: Jürgen Renn, Adeline Johns-Putra, Michelle Bastian, Julie Sze, James Ogude and Dipesh Chakrabarty.
While many people slow down and prepare for vacation, the higher seminar coordinator is in heavy planning for the fall. The Higher Seminar is the colloquium series of the Division where invited guests as well as our own researchers presents seminar on themes from our core areas of history.
The fall of 2021 offers a mix of doctoral defenses, mid-seminars and the annual Archipelago Lectures. Read more in the preleminary program, and feel warmly welcome to attend. This coming semester we hope to be able to have some on-site seminars, but we start on zoom. Do you want som background on the seminar series? See cooridnator Katarina Larsen’s text from our report below.
The higher seminar series at the division reflects the broad range of exciting topics of research. From “A sea change in Environmental humanities” to studies of history of indigenous communities in the Arctic context, nuclear technology, educational imaginaries, science policy studies, health development projects and innovation in Mozambique, and urban water management. These were just a few of the topics that we had the chance to and discuss during 2019 and 2020. Usually, we have between eight to ten seminars per semester. Adding up the numbers for the past two years, we had about 34 presentations, in addition to a handful of doctoral dissertations and the annual Archipelago lectures.
The higher seminar has a longstanding history at the Division. A text is circulated about a week before the seminar, the author presents for 45 minutes and the next 45 minutes are devoted to discussion. The regular schedule is Mondays 13.15–14.45. The seminar is an institution allowing for scholars at the division to present their ongoing work and also for us all to hear invited speakers. Among presentations we also follow the process that graduate students go through in the program, from presenting the from doctoral plan (the “PhD PM”), through mid-seminar (at 50%) and the final seminar (80 to 90%). Both the mid-seminars and final seminar have invited discussants. Moreover, these presentations give a chance for doctoral students in early stages of their PhD-project to “open a window” to see how the final stages of the doctoral projects take shape and allowing for cross-cohort learning for doctoral students.The seminar series is an open to anyone. The schedule is published online and we frequently have quests in the audience. As organizer of the higher seminars during 2019–2020, I often get comments like “it seems like your colleagues really do show up at your seminars” and “you have some really interesting topics so I would like to hear more about the upcoming seminars”.
During spring 2020, the pandemic turned the higher seminars into an online event, which provided both limitations and opportunities. More scholars from universities abroad, and in Sweden, have found their way to our higher seminar series. This is reinforcing the idea that the series should be a place to meet and exchange ideas, present arguments, discuss virtues and limitations of different research methods, and constitute a space for scholars to learn across scientific disciplines and thematic areas. So, we hope to see you, too at the next higher seminar, starting Monday 13.15, Stockholm time!
Warmly,
Katarina Larsen,
Coordinator of the Higher seminar series, 2019–2020
Div. History of Science, Technology and Environment
The WaterCentre@KTH is a hub of expertise in water research at our university. Its director and longstanding researcher at our division, David Nilsson, is working together with several scholars from the fields of EKV Kraft- & Värmeteknologi, Vatten- och Miljöteknik, Industriell Bioteknologi, Resursåtervinning, and Hållbarhet, Utvärd och Styrning. Furthermore, it cooperates with Stockholm Vatten och Avfall. Partners of the centre are ivl – Svenska Miljöinstitutet, Stockholms Stad, Stockholm Environment Institute and Värmdö Kommun. Multiple researchers at our division are also involved in the centre’s work or have been in the past, such as the Water Centre’s Research Coordinator Timos Karpouzoglou.
Water is crucial not only for the survival of living organisms, but also for many industrial purposes. It is here that the research interests of the Water Centre converges with ongoing projects at our division. Since the research project Nuclear Waters tries to put water at the centre of its historical nuclear studies, common interests occur frequently. The following is a repost from a text published on the Water Centre’s Blog, highlighting one example where both interests came together.
Kola Nuclear Power Plant at Lake Imandra, above the Arctic circle. RIAN Archive, Licence CC BY-SA 3.0.
We tend to associate nuclear power plants with many different things: smoking cooling towers, Homer Simpson-like operators, or dramatic TV series like HBO’s Chernobyl. But something people generally do not associate nuclear power plants with are massive amounts of water. Still, water is at the centre of nuclear power’s historical development, contemporary challenges, and further future.
The connection between water and generating nuclear power goes back to the Industrial Revolution, when steam technologies such as boilers and steam generators were used to heat up water, turn that water into steam, and use the energy of that steam to generate power. However, this led to many steam explosions with deadly casualties. Countries like the U.S., France and Sweden enforced safety rules, which stipulated how the boilers had to be designed and what the allowed pressures and temperatures were.
In the 1950s, more and more countries saw the potential of using nuclear technologies to generate power. With its Atoms for Peace-program, the U.S. took the lead and promoted the reactor type they developed: the light water reactor. This reactor type uses normal water as a coolant and had its origins in both naval propulsion and fossil fuel power generation. This continuity thus made water-cooled reactors a relatively simple way of rolling out nuclear power fast.
The safety in nuclear power plants was therefore determined by the control of water and the understanding of thermal-hydraulic phenomena, such as transients and steam explosions. The pressure vessels, steam generators, valves, pipes, tubes, and pumps of nuclear power plants suddenly became subjected to the steam regulations of the Industrial age. This created new risks since these codes and regulations did not consider radiation. One of the codes that underwent revision was the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The Code started travelling and was, for instance, almost directly implemented in all Swedish nuclear power plants. Gradually but surely, nuclear safety regulations in the West became more ‘nuclear’ as the intersection between water, steam, steel, and radiation became better understood and nuclear accidents, such as Three Mile Island, pushed governments for more safety legislation.
For the USSR water was equally crucial along all steps of the nuclear lifespan, such as mining, fuel element production, exploitation, and the storage of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. In general, all nuclear power plants were placed next to either a river, a lake or the coast – the latter being an exception. The most common source of coolant was river water. Interestingly, those rivers usually had to be previously ameliorated and often artificial water reservoirs were created.
A specific setup was used for so-called energy complexes, a special form of nuclear-hydrotechnical combine. They embodied the combination of nuclear and hydro power, agricultural irrigation, and fish cultivation in one location. Furthermore, constructing them meant to manipulate water bodies with newly created dams. In this way an energy complex was created to procure valuable synergies through the multiple usage and partial recycling of water.
Finding the right location was crucial for an envisioned energy complex. It needed to be a location with sufficient water supply, with suitable ground conditions, without earthquake or flood dangers. In addition, the complex needed to be within reasonable distance towards a (potential) industrial settlement to provide this population centre with electricity. Safe and ample water supply had to be considered during site selection and was one of the essential criteria for their construction. If there was not enough water, the complex could not be built.
A leading institute for the creation of energy complexes was Gidroproekt (Hydroproject). As the name suggests, Gidroproekt was a Soviet hydraulic research, design and construction agency. By joining its hydraulic expertise with newly introduced nuclear engineering, this institute was the very place where knowledge transfer between these two prestigious engineering communities took place. Here, the water-focused perspective prevailed and embedded nuclear technology into hydro-ameliorated aquatic systems. It promised prestige as well as quick results – and Gidroproekt readily delivered.
In sum, both in the East and the West, water played a crucial role in the development of nuclear power. In the West, knowledge about water was essential for developing nuclear safety practices. In the East, water was seen as a crucial resource, for powering energy complexes in the struggle for building a Communist state. Nuclear’s reliance on water meant that nuclear power plants and energy complexes were meeting places of different long-standing traditions and communities. Given the large number of water-cooled reactors in the world today, and including those under construction, it is fair to say that this crucial connection is there to stay.
Author
In the second half of the 2010s, far-right populist parties gained increasing power and influenceacross Europe, and around the world. Core to their ethnonationalist, anti-elite agenda, and theiremotive politics, has often been a defense of fossil fuels, threatening action to address the climatecrisis and raising the spectre of fascism. Increasingly-perceived-as-‘dirty’ coal, the raw material thatmade the industrial modern world order possible and contributed most to its mountingcontradictions, has acquired a special status in contemporary far-right ideology. What is theemotional intersection between them at a time of far-reaching economic, environmental and energyinstability and change, when coal has not only been losing its material value and its symbolic link tomodernity, but is increasingly widely deemed immoral too?
