Which author discusses how environmental knowledge is shaped by colonial histories and uneven power relations, offering a decolonial critique?

Which author discusses how environmental knowledge is shaped by colonial histories and uneven power relations, offering a decolonial critique?

• A. Parsons, Laurie. Skeletons, dragons and the 'climate war': Geography's colonial legacy and the uneven landscape of environmental knowledge
• B. Bubandt, N. et al. Rubber boots methods for the Anthropocene
• C. Collard, Rosemary-Claire. Animal traffic: Lively capital in the global exotic pet trade
• D. Havlick, David G. Bombs away: Militarization, conservation, and ecological restoration

Answer: (A)

Environmental knowledge isn’t neutral; it’s produced within histories of empire, extraction, and uneven power relations. Laurie Parsons’ work explicitly traces geography’s colonial legacy and shows how the ways we define climate, environment, and place are shaped by who holds power and who has a voice. The decolonial critique here asks who gets to decide what counts as legitimate knowledge, whose perspectives are centered, and how Western scientific frameworks can overshadow indigenous and local knowledges. By highlighting the uneven landscape of environmental knowledge, Parsons connects climate debates, conservation, and environmental policy to broader historical and political contexts, not just scientific findings. This focus on how colonial histories shape knowledge production is what makes her analysis a clear fit for a decolonial critique. Other authors address related environmental topics—methods for the Anthropocene, the global pet trade, or militarization of conservation—but they don’t center the colonial roots of knowledge production in the same explicit way.

Environmental knowledge isn’t neutral; it’s produced within histories of empire, extraction, and uneven power relations. Laurie Parsons’ work explicitly traces geography’s colonial legacy and shows how the ways we define climate, environment, and place are shaped by who holds power and who has a voice. The decolonial critique here asks who gets to decide what counts as legitimate knowledge, whose perspectives are centered, and how Western scientific frameworks can overshadow indigenous and local knowledges. By highlighting the uneven landscape of environmental knowledge, Parsons connects climate debates, conservation, and environmental policy to broader historical and political contexts, not just scientific findings. This focus on how colonial histories shape knowledge production is what makes her analysis a clear fit for a decolonial critique. Other authors address related environmental topics—methods for the Anthropocene, the global pet trade, or militarization of conservation—but they don’t center the colonial roots of knowledge production in the same explicit way.