The TANC ResourceZine is a shared space where registered participants can circulate work connected to the themes, questions, and spirit of the conference. You can access the ResourceZine submission form here. The ResourceZine is intended as an extension of the conversations opened through TANC. It offers a space to foster connection among participants, and to support participants in disseminating diverse practices, reflections, and creative works related to conference themes. Contributions may include profiles, websites, books, articles, essays, poems, songs, videos, artworks, podcasts, projects, or other relevant resources. All shared resources will be published in this page on a rolling basis. Participants can share as many resources as desired. If you are registered for the conference and would like to contribute to the ResourceZine, please complete the submission form.
Apocalyptic Authoritarianism: Climate Crisis, Media, and Power (Oxford University Press, 2025)
In Apocalyptic Authoritarianism: Climate Crisis, Media, and Power, Hanna E. Morris reveals how national anxieties following the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump have shaped U.S. news coverage of climate change in ways that severely limit how it has come to be known, imagined, and contended with. In the book, Morris identifies a new mode of reactionary politics called “apocalyptic authoritarianism” to describe the post-2016 alignment of historically privileged figures united by a common enemy of the “new” New Left and a shared appeal to apocalyptic visions of “total crisis.” Their antidemocratic paradigm portends national and planetary disarray if progressive social and climate justice “warriors” are not controlled at home and if “unruly masses” of climate migrants are not contained abroad. Ultimately, Morris proposes more transformative forms of climate journalism capable of facilitating—as opposed to impeding—radically democratic responses to climate change.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/apocalyptic-authoritarianism-9780197807675?cc=us&lang=en&
Normative Implications Examining the Case for a Democratic Versus an Authoritarian Environmental Approach to Addressing Climate Change: A Systematic Review of the Published Evidence, 2000–2022
Over the last two decades, academic research on how political regimes address the consequences of climate change has grown significantly. While the relationship between democracy and climate action has been thoroughly studied, increasing attention has been paid to authoritarian regimes, particularly authoritarian environmentalism (AE) as a viable and justifiable response to climate change. Thus, this study focuses on this emerging tension within academic narratives. We examine the extent to which some of the scholarly literature questions the fundamental principles of democratic governance by advocating for an authoritarian environmental model. Using the PRISMA method, we systematically reviewed 53 qualitative and quantitative studies from 2000 to 2022, analyzing the normative implications of this tension. Our findings identify three key normative concerns associated with AE proponents that should be considered for future research: 1) potential erosion of democratic values and institutions, 2) diminished public participation and civic engagement, and 3) undermining scientific credibility.
Do countries with similar environmental impact share values? An integrated analysis to inform environmental education
Understanding which values associate with sustainable outcomes is essential for rethinking environmental education (EE). This study investigates whether countries with high human development but low environmental impact share distinctive value patterns that could inform EE frameworks. Using an integrative approach, we combined data from two sustainability databases –the Global Footprint Network and the Sustainable Development Index– with the European Values Study/World Values Survey (2017–2022). A total of 591 categorical variables were analysed using Cramér’s V to identify significant differences between low, medium, and high environmental impact country groups, selected among countries with high and very high human development.Results show that religiosity, spirituality, and intergenerational household structures associate with lower environmental impact, while secular-rational and individualistic orientations align with higher impact. Non-denominational spirituality also emerges as significant across contexts, suggesting that spiritual and relational worldviews may be overlooked resources for sustainability policy and education. By contrast, pro-environmental attitudes and indicators of subjective well-being, such as happiness, freedom, and health, do not consistently differentiate between impact groups. Additional factors such as insularity and average national temperature further relate to sustainability outcomes, highlighting the interplay of cultural and structural dimensions.These findings suggest that current EE frameworks may be too narrowly focused on cognitive and attitudinal factors. To be effective, EE must incorporate spiritual, moral, and communal dimensions, engaging with the plurality of worldviews that guide human–environment relations. More nuanced sustainability indicators, sensitive to cultural and contextual diversity, are needed to better understand and foster comprehensive pathways towards sustainability.