The DOI matches its Crossref record; 160 of the 160 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 34 of the 173 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The political ecologies of "green" extractivism(s): An introduction
Open accessAbstract
What is so-called 'green' extractivism and where did it come from? The introduction to this Special Section examines the origins and implications of the concept, linking it to a long history of exploitation, dispossession and (neo)colonialism under the guise of green-washing notions such as 'sustainable development.' Conducting an in-depth literature review, we first revisit the concept of extractivism, exploring its origins, development and analytical purchase. We link extractivism to 'extra-action,' implying taking more than what is viable for ecosystems and argue for a supply-web oriented, rather than a point of extraction-focused understanding. Subsequently, we examine key theoretical frameworks in political ecology that paved the way to the study of 'green' extractivism, notably Ecological Distribution Conflicts (which we argue could better be labeled Ecological Destruction Conflicts) and green grabbing. Based on this, we discuss the core features of green extractivism, which are twofold: (1) the use of socioecological and climate crises to reinforce existing or generate new markets and profit-generation opportunities; and (2) the mobilization of claims of ecological sustainability and 'carbon neutrality' to legitimize and rationalize extraction. After outlining the Special Section contributions, we end by considering gaps in existing scholarship on green extractivism and suggest ways forward.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This introduction to a *Journal of Political Ecology* Special Section theorizes "green extractivism" as a system of extractive development that harnesses climate and socioecological crises as profit-generating and re-branding opportunities, legitimized through claims of sustainability and "carbon neutrality." The authors conduct an in-depth literature review to trace the concept's origins, link it to ecological distribution conflicts and green grabbing, and propose a supply-web-oriented understanding that distinguishes direct from indirect green extractivism.
Key findings
- Green extractivism has two distinguishing features: (1) it uses socioecological, weather and climate crises to generate new or reinforce existing "green" markets and profit opportunities; and (2) it mobilizes claims of ecological sustainability, "carbon neutrality" and climate mitigation to legitimize and rationalize extraction.
- The authors argue classic (Gudynas-style) definitions of extractivism are inadequate because they are nationalist and state-centered, ignoring the networked, multi-scalar nature of extraction; they propose a supply-web rather than point-of-extraction approach.
- They argue Ecological Distribution Conflicts (EDCs) could better be labeled Ecological Destruction Conflicts, since EDCs implicitly accept the erasure of relations and alternative ways of being.
- They distinguish direct green extractivism (extractive processes at sites justified as "green") from indirect green extractivism (mines, smelting, chemical production, digital technologies that enable it), citing examples such as wind velocity deficits of "10% or more" downstream and a "significant warming trend of up to 0.72c per decade" found in west-central Texas (2003–2011).
Methods
- Design: conceptual/theoretical introduction to a Special Section, based on an in-depth literature review of extractivism, political ecology, EDCs and green grabbing.
- The paper reviews and synthesizes existing scholarship and outlines the Special Section's contributions (case studies spanning the Arctic, India, Namibia, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, the UK and Germany).
- Main analysis is conceptual: defining extractivism's core features (appropriation, breakdown of socioecological reciprocity, political-economic/ideational systems) and green extractivism's four features, plus the direct/indirect distinction.
Limitations
- The paper is an introduction and literature review rather than an empirical study; it explicitly frames itself as identifying "gaps in existing scholarship" and suggesting "ways forward," including a call for multi-scalar, mixed-methods research on extractive supply-webs.
- The authors note that "political-industrial ecology" as a companion approach is offered speculatively ("we speculate").
- Evident from the text: the argument is explicitly normative/advocacy-oriented (e.g., calling for postcapitalist, post-extractivist futures and "extra-Activisms"), which shapes its framing rather than presenting neutral findings.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
80 Own interpretation · 40 Sources not found · 18 Not checked yet · 17 No full text of the sources · 14 Partly supported · 9 No basis given · 7 Supported · 5 Couldn’t confirm · 2 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Digital technologies are now notoriously central to agricultural production (Rotz et al., 2019;).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Rotz et al., 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 1) treats digital technologies as increasingly important to farming, and the discussion on p. 6 describes current adoption by larger farms. But it also emphasizes uneven access and adoption, so it does not establish that digital technologies are already central to agricultural production generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Moreover it demonstrates how 'green' discourses work to expand capitalist relations, land control and extractivism to intensify modernist development and wealth accumulation (Banerjee, 2003; Kirsch, 2009; Sullivan, 2009; Fairhead et al., 2012; Corson et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Banerjee, 2003 source
- Not matchedcites Kirsch, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Sullivan, 2009Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Loss” (page unavailable), Sullivan describes green capitalism as creating markets, new frontiers of accumulation, and enclosures. “The Ecosystem Marketplace” describes how these schemes can constrain livelihoods and shift control over landscapes, while “Serving nature?” critiques their appeal to ecological modernisation. The copy does not establish the claim that green discourses expand extractivism, so the full sentence is only partly supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Emerging alongside, or even intertwined, with EDCs has been a renewed emphasis on land grabbing and land control (Peluso & Lund 2011; White et al. 2012).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Peluso & Lund 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page not provided) describes new frontiers in scholarship on land control and discusses contemporary land grabbing, supporting the claim of renewed emphasis on those topics. It does not establish that this emphasis emerged alongside or was intertwined with EDCs. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Supportedcites White et al. 2012 source
The Introduction describes rapid recent growth in large-scale land deals, or ‘land grabbing.’ In ‘Contexts, causes and mechanisms,’ the paper identifies infrastructure corridors as an emerging mechanism of accumulation and links such development to land expropriation. These passages support the claimed connection between renewed land grabbing and corridors. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Mainstream environmental justice scholars, however, are moving away from this position (Temper, 2019; Menton et al., 2020)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Temper, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Menton et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Environmental justice frameworks’ section describes a general shift in EJ scholarship, and the ‘Abolitionist and decolonial environmental justice’ section discusses approaches that move beyond reliance on the liberal state and the human–nature divide. But the paper distinguishes these approaches from mainstream EJ; it does not say that mainstream scholars specifically are moving away from state-centered developmentalism and materialist ontology. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“a manifestation of extractivism almost purely driven”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Andreucci et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available indexed passages are bibliographic information, including the title and citation details, rather than discussion of ecotourism. Searches for ecotourism, extractivism, and tourism-related rent did not find a passage stating that ecotourism is driven almost purely by value grabbing. (LLM, conf=0.74)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“green grabbing and extractivism therefore share overlap with accumulation by”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Harvey, 2003
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Perreault, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Andreucci et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The passages available from our copy are bibliographic metadata (labelled Abstract, with no page number), not the paper's argument. Searches for “green grabbing,” “extractivism,” and “accumulation by dispossession” returned no passage addressing whether they overlap. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“it reinforces a system where many existences, notably Indigenous peoples and their knowledges, are excluded from protected areas”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Marijnen et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Duffy & Brockington, 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section “4. Developing a political ecology of security” says security-oriented conservation can cut out or alienate local communities. “Ethical engagement: human rights, militarization and conservation” discusses abuses affecting forest peoples and Indigenous-rights concerns. Neither section attributes exclusion from protected areas to ecotourism or says Indigenous knowledges are excluded. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not matchedcites Fletcher, 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Ecotourism aims for the preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, rather than their depletion.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“which is frequently compounded by companies using”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Büscher & Davidov, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Le Billon, 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Growing affinities between extraction and conservation’ section says conservation organizations facilitate extractive companies’ conservation claims and help improve mining companies’ environmental image. The ‘Extraction offsets’ section says offsets facilitate extraction permits and discusses a dam offset scheme, but it does not establish that companies frequently use conservation to justify mega-infrastructure projects specifically. The passages provided do not show page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.81)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Green financialization plays a growing role in this, as ecotourism projects are enabled by”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Duffy, 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Neoliberalising Nature section describes nature being priced and commodified through tourism and discusses financial derivatives, supporting a broad connection between ecotourism and market-based finance. It does not say that ecotourism projects are financed through carbon markets or blockchain, or establish that green financialization plays a growing role in them (pages unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites Le Billon, 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Explaining extraction and conservation partnerships” (page unavailable), the paper says conservation organizations can receive funding and use extractive infrastructure to develop ecotourism. It does not say that this funding comes from carbon markets or blockchain technology, or establish a growing role for those forms of green finance in ecotourism. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not matchedcites Tornel, 2023b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Green financialization is also key to ecotourism”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Andreucci et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available indexed passages, labeled Abstract with no page number, contain bibliographic information rather than the paper’s argument. Searches for ecotourism, green financialization, and related terms returned no passage addressing whether green financialization is key to ecotourism. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
- It may state two separate claims as one. 55
- Probably not a substantial claim. 94
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“So-called sustainable development and climate change mitigation projects are leading to land grabbing, displacement, dispossession, ecological destruction, repression and elite profiteering”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dunlap & Fairhead, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Hunsberger et al., 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available indexed passages contain the title and bibliographic metadata, but no substantive discussion of project outcomes. Searches for land grabbing, displacement, ecological destruction, repression and elite profiteering returned no passage establishing the claimed effects; the title alone does not establish them. (LLM, conf=0.74)
- Partly supportedcites Franco & Borras, 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and section 3 (pages unavailable in our copy) link climate-framed conservation and land projects to land grabbing, villagers’ displacement or dispossession, and environmental damage. Section 3 also describes companies using biofuel claims to gain forest access for profit. The copy does not substantiate repression as an outcome of these projects or specifically establish elite profiteering across sustainable-development projects, so the full list overstates its account. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Researching extractivism extends to the subsoils (Hokkanen, 2024), the deep sea (Childs, 2022) and outer space (Klinger, 2017), as well as to “solar extractivism” (Hu, 2023) “wind extractivism” (Dunlap & Marin, 2022, 7), recycling lower-carbon technologies (Sovacool et al., 2020), and hydrological extractivism”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hokkanen, 2024 source
- Supportedcites Childs, 2022 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not matchedcites Klinger, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Combined, these features lead to a high level of environmental degradation and deleterious labor opportunities and conditions, while also intensifying forms of (neo)colonialism (Gudynas 2009; Lang & Mokrani, 2013; Nygren et al., 2022).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gudynas 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Lang & Mokrani, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Nygren et al., 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction links extractivism to ecological degradation, limited local employment, and a proliferation of subcontracted, temporary, and piecemeal labour. It does not explicitly say that these features intensify (neo)colonialism, nor does it establish the claimed combined effect of four features. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Green extractivism, moreover, reproduces colonially shaped North-South relations or various forms of internal colonization2 (Zografos & Robbins, 2020; Fjellheim, 2023; Vela-Almeida et al., 2023; Dunlap & Tornel, 2024), advancing the intersecting processes of green and energy colonialism (Lang et al., 2024; Lohmann, 2024; Müller, 2024).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zografos & Robbins, 2020 source
- Not matchedcites Fjellheim, 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Vela-Almeida et al., 2023 source
The citation to Vela-Almeida et al. is attached to the first clause, about green extractivism reproducing colonial relations; the later clause about green and energy colonialism has separate citations. Section 3 (p. 3) says the European Green Deal maintains colonial relations of power under the banner of decarbonization, while §3.4 (p. 8) describes extraction and the shifting of environmental harms away from Europe to support the green transition. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“processes of 'green financialization,' involving carbon markets, payment for ecosystems services and green”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lohmann, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Andreucci et al. 2017 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed passages labeled Abstract contain bibliographic details and a link to an accepted manuscript, but no substantive discussion of green financialization. Searches for carbon markets, ecosystem services, green bonds, and financialization found no passage that addresses the claimed examples. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites Bruna, 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For us, then, extractivism can be described as a specific socioeconomic pattern (or structure of”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Chagnon et al., 2022 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Not matchedcites Benally, 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Drawing inspiration from Klein (2007), Sullivan (2009) and Fletcher (2012), we interpret this as disaster green extractivism as the process of enlisting ecological catastrophes to advance extractivism ranging from ecotourism, data centers, deepsea mining, 'green' hydrogen, climate 'smart' agriculture and geoengineering to mineral mining to produce lower-carbon technologies.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Klein (2007)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Sullivan (2009)
The cited paper’s “Loss” section says that crises create new frontiers of capitalist accumulation and that environmental crisis has become one such frontier. The citing authors explicitly present “disaster green extractivism” and its list of activities as their own interpretation, drawing inspiration from Sullivan and others, rather than attributing that definition or list to Sullivan. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not matchedcites Fletcher (2012)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Ksenija Hanaček, Markus Kröger and Joan Martinez-Alier (2024, this Section) reveal how historical colonial ties mediated by fossil fuels are closely linked to the rise of green extractivism and climate colonialism in the region.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hanaček et al. (2024, this Section) source
The Conclusion explicitly links historical colonial relations through fossil fuel extraction to new green extractivism and climate colonialism. It also identifies hydropower and metal mining as part of those historical relations. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Sullivan further shows how elite access to 'recreational lands' for hunting exotic animals involves the dispossession of local people, alienating them from the land and creating 'securitized landscapes' to sustain this practice.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sullivan (2023, this Section) source
The conclusion (p. 23) says trophy hunting consolidates elite access to hunting grounds and exotic animals while removing local people's rights, alienating people from land, and concentrating wildlife in securitized landscape units. Section 1 (p. 5) also describes land being taken out of local use and control to serve hunting businesses. (LLM, conf=0.92)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Sian Sullivan (2023, this Section) illustrates how 'greenness' is utilized as part of a neocolonial project consisting of the extraction of wildlife in the form of hunting trophies.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sian Sullivan (2023, this Section) source
The Abstract (p. 1) says that killing African mammals and exporting their body parts as hunting trophies is justified as 'green' through conservation claims, while characterizing the extraction as arguably neocolonial. The conclusion (p. 23) describes trophy hunting as a neocolonial form of greenwashed extractivism. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Thus mitigation strategies are employed to displace historically marginalized peoples from their land, disrupting diverse ways of life and knowledge systems.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hanaček et al. (2024, this Section) source
The Introduction states that mitigation strategies continue to displace historically impoverished peoples from their land, disrupting plural ways of life and knowledge. The claim closely paraphrases that passage; the copy provides a section label but no page number. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Sullivan demonstrates how trophy hunting (re)produces violent land control relationships, while exhibiting classical extractive features in terms of animal corpse export.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sullivan (2023, this Section) source
Section 2 (p. 6) describes the export of preserved animal body parts as an immediate extractive feature of trophy hunting. The conclusion (p. 23) says trophy hunting removes local land rights and concentrates wildlife in securitized areas requiring paramilitarized management, supporting the characterization of violent land-control relationships. (LLM, conf=0.89)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The proliferation of ecological destruction conflicts (Scheidel et al., 2020; Temper et al., 2020), moreover, not only reflects the shortcomings of state-led forms of environmental justice, but also the erasure of life-worlds and, consequently, alternative ways of being, knowing, and doing in the world.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Scheidel et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Concluding discussion (page unavailable) says state procedures may be ineffective or unenforced and that bottom-up protest remains necessary, supporting the point about shortcomings in state responses. The Theoretical background (page unavailable) describes threats to livelihoods and cultural identities and conflicts between worldviews, but does not establish that proliferating conflicts reflect the erasure of life-worlds or alternative ways of being, knowing, and doing. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites Temper et al., 2020 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Sections 3.2.3.2 and 4.3 link energy-project conflicts to inadequate consultation, exclusion from decision-making, and threats to communities’ lands and cultural practices. Section 3.3.1 also describes dispossession of Indigenous peoples. The paper does not clearly make the broader claim that the proliferation of these conflicts reflects an erasure of life-worlds and alternative ways of being, knowing, and doing. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“the authors trace how BHP has attempted and failed (until now) to benefit from the rising demand for energy 'transition minerals' that underpins current technologies for decarbonization”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Barbesgaard and Whitmore (2024, this Section) source
Section 4, “BHP’s (failing?) strategies in the nickel commodity frontier,” describes BHP’s attempt to capitalize on decarbonization by making nickel central to its portfolio, then says that despite those efforts it was not yet significantly accumulating. The “Corporate strategies” section characterizes its nickel strategy, at the time of writing, as a failure. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“demonstrating that mining companies are seizing the 'opportunities' created by the climate crisis to 'widen' and 'deepen' their control over new mineral frontiers.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Barbesgaard and Whitmore (2024, this Section) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and “Expansion through commodity widening” describe mining companies pursuing transition-mineral opportunities, including BHP expanding nickel exploration and bringing new mines into production. But the Concluding remarks say BHP has sought to, yet generally failed to, accumulate significantly through expansion of the nickel frontier. The claim overstates that attempted expansion as companies successfully widening and deepening their control over mineral frontiers generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are still large research gaps and, as the subsection above suggests, numerous ways to organize extractivism research.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“technologies of financialization have blurred the boundaries between manufacturing and extraction, rendering extractivism an increasingly central feature of contemporary capitalism.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sando Mezzadra and Brett Neilson (2019)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Martín Arboleda (2020)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“leads to serious theoretical and methodological shortcomings.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Facundo Martín (2017, 26) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“extractivism entails an organized and internally coherent feature of capitalism—increasingly global in scope—that enables it to exert control over flows to maintain value extraction.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jingzhong Ye and colleagues (2020)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The relative importance of such production processes in extractivism has been contested.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gudynas (2021:8)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An expanded interpretation of extractivism does not mean that the word becomes meaningless.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The result is fear, illness and erratic and harmful behavior, which can lead to hurting animals, forests, rivers, mountains, humans and other more-than-human entities.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The concept, however, has wider applications.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We link extractivism to 'extra-action,' implying taking more than what is viable for ecosystems”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The concept of extractivism was further developed to denote not only physical processes of extraction, but also their embodied and gendered impacts.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Taking inspiration from Foucauldian notions of governmentality, a focus on subjectivities implies looking at how people's mentalities, attitudes and conduct are shaped by and shape extractive activity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So-called green extractivism depends on multi-layered and networked extractivisms, meanwhile taking on new dimensions and literal depths and heights.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While value grabbing has always been a central dynamic to extractivism, its importance has increased with the growing financialization of the world economy from the 1980s onwards.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The world economy has grown increasingly financialized from the 1980s onwards.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The body, human or otherwise, Latin American decolonial feminisms have shown (Ulloa, 2016; Cabnal, 2018; Caretta et al., 2020), is intimately connected to the territory they inhabit.”
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We must remember that as long as the so-called 'green economy' remains fundamentally driven by (liberal) capitalism, sustainability and green labels will remain fig leaves attempting to cover up ecocide.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The so-called 'green economy' remains fundamentally driven by (liberal) capitalism.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, what the term 'extractivism' ultimately describes is a particular way of seeing and being in the world—it accurately captures how theft, looting and pillage remain constant in the political economy of capitalism, no matter its differing (statist) political and economic accumulation regimes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, a supply-web rather than point-of-extraction-centered understanding of extractivism(s) will extend accountability for ecosystem degradation and habitat loss.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“While extractivism has often been described as a “mode of accumulation” (Acosta, 2013, 62; Perreault, 2013), it also encompasses what Diego Andreucci and colleagues (2017, 28) have labeled “value grabbing.””
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Acosta, 2013, 62
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Perreault, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Diego Andreucci and colleagues (2017, 28)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Extractivism, Judith Shapiro and John McNeish (2021) argue, is the result of a particular ontological assemblage which is animated by a mindset that shapes expressions, contestations, and logics for and/or against a singular worldview that sees human and nature as separate and (some) humans as more exploitable than others.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shapiro and McNeish (2021)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, extractivism can only be accurately grasped when exploring multiple direct and indirect forms (as described below), and intersecting extractivism(s) and their planetary ramifications.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“This action and communiqué illuminate—in theory and practice—the growing salience of what has been called 'green extractivism,' exemplifying the increasing critique and resistance to extractive projects branded 'green.'”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Anonymous, 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As we further elaborate below, we consider green extractivism to constitute a system of extractive development that harnesses climate change and other socioecological crises as profit-generating and re-branding opportunities.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Approaches to extractivism do not limit this to drawing or pulling from the soil, but conceptualize it in terms of the appropriation of resources (Gudynas, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gudynas, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“one of the key features of extractivism is that it cannot be reduced to simply taking from the non-human world.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jingzhong Ye and colleagues (2020)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Gavin Bridge (2023) reminds us that the concept of extractivism is far from 'mined-out.'”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gavin Bridge (2023)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extractivism, in short, remains the ideology of normalizing and executing violence against the body/territory that operates on multiple micro- and meso- scales as well as cumulatively on a planetary scale.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It also implies looking differently at foreign influence and ownership, which we do not consider a determining factor for extractivism.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Classic approaches therefore lead to obscuring broader crises embedded in value chains of, for example, building materials like concrete or glass production4 and overlooking the relational politics of extractive activities.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Stemming from its roots in dependency theory, this first wave of extractivism scholarship strongly emphasizes how extractivism is tied up with capitalism's unequal global divisions of production and consumption.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These logics point to what Grosfoguel calls 'epistemic' and 'ontological' extractivism, relating to how one views and knows the world.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Grosfoguel
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extractivism, whether”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The importance of value grabbing within extractivism is only reinforced through the rise of green extractivism, which is importantly driven by processes of 'green financialization,' involving carbon markets, payment for ecosystems services and green”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As Chagnon and colleagues argue,”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Chagnon and colleagues (2022, 777)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The first feature relates to the appropriation of resources (Gudynas, 2009) and rendering them legible, specifically for the purposes of value creation (Moore, 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gudynas, 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Moore, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, green extractivism differs from extractivism in that it uses socioecological, weather and climate crises to generate new or reinforce existing 'green' markets or profit-generating activities.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, it has opened up space for identifying and understanding processes of green extractivism.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A political ontology lens also changes how we understand politics, by critically assessing the hegemonic modes of knowing that shape what is tolerated and allowed on the 'political menu' in policy debates or mainstream media outlets.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This worldview, categorical imposition and ideology is normalized, institutionally reproduced and, thus, becomes hegemonic.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Green grabbing, following Fairhead and colleagues (2012), positions itself as”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fairhead and colleagues (2012)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We posit that green extractivism always entails Ecological Distribution Conflicts (EDCs) and green”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extractivism, said simply, takes on various”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“With the rise of global commodity prices, (neo)extractivism involves governments extracting more rents and accumulated value (see Bebbington, 2012; Perreault, 2013), which, in the case of rentierism, advances the “collateralization” of national assets through legal-technical instruments (Rosales 2019, 1317).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bebbington, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Perreault, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rosales 2019, 1317 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The world economy has grown increasingly financialized from the 1980s onwards.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Said simply, political ecologists have been at the forefront of investigating green extractivism.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The result is the commodification of ecosystems and the reorganization”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second core feature of extractivism is that appropriation and the related process of producing”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This system inscribes the expansion of capitalist techno/industrial production and economic growth as 'progress' regardless of the deleterious”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The latter charts the asymmetrical distribution of costs and benefits, which also extends to center-periphery exchange dynamics.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“entails identifying, measuring, mapping, labeling and often quantifying phenomena in order”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Scott, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Li, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Avila, et al., 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Green extractivism, nevertheless, goes beyond this by looking not only at processes and relations of extraction and distribution but also at the structures and broader conditions (material/political/ontological) that enable them.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite this emphasis on socio/cultural values, much EDC research has insufficiently recognized the political/ontological dimensions of destruction conflicts, being implicitly inscribed in state-centered developmentalism and a related materialist ontology.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Green grabbing is driven by and creates the conditions for green extractivism—it establishes and enables the complex supply-webs that sustain it, by promoting the successful commodification, marketization and extraction of humans, nonhumans (flora, fauna, etc.) and more-than-humans (river spirits, mountains, etc.) to propel the expansion of capitalist mentalities, development, and natures.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unequal distribution of harms combined with the unequal, adverse or highly limited benefit sharing, pointing to”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of the severing of”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Another key dynamic of green financialization is governmental 'de-risking,' or favorable private-public partnerships (PPA), which are currently being used to finance climate change mitigation and industry decarbonization projects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: De-risking seeks to reduce or eliminate investment risks by leveraging public funds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This entwined socioeconomic/political-ontological pattern or system is characterized by the appropriation of resources and existences and non-reciprocal relations with the planet, which are ultimately grounded in the objectification”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A third core feature of extractivism is that it is not limited to processes of appropriation that lead to”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The harm inflicted by creating socioecological disbalance is generally externalized, implying extractive corporations do not account for it, but they offload harms onto local ecosystems”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the current energy mix as well as the mining of 'critical' minerals continue to rely on hydrocarbons (see Dunlap, 2021b, 2023c; Dunlap & Marin, 2022)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dunlap, 2021b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Dunlap, 2023c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dunlap & Marin, 2022 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Extractive, or green extractive, hegemony thus entails an”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gómez-Barris (2017, 4-5)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Kröger, 2022
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hokkanen, 2024 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As further elaborated below, green extractivism scholarship emerges from, but also goes beyond the EDC framework, redressing its limitations by centering the epistemological and ontological dimensions of extractivism.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Green grabbing is the logistical preparation, act or 'event' that encloses land;”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As mentioned above, agricultural plantations and soil extractivism exemplify these concerns (Kröger, 2022; Hokkanen, 2024), but so does hydrological, solar and wind extractivism (Kelly, 2021; Hu, 2023; Dunlap & Marin, 2022), the impacts of which are often difficult to observe, happen slowly and progressively over time.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, jaguars conservation enacts green extractivist practices while justifying conventional extractivism.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The authors reveal how jaguar conservation regiments environments, integrates market relationships, further justifying the so-called 'Tren Maya' megaproject—a 1,500-kilometer train in southeast of Mexico.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ruelas and Dunlap (2023, this Section)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As Astrid Ulloa (2023, this Section) shows, the putative energy transition reproduces the same territorial, environmental, and sociocultural impacts as conventional forms of extraction, yet it makes dispossession fashionable, rendering it invisible, legitimate, and even agreeable.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ulloa (2023, this Section) source
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The dominant gaze of climate masculinities to intervene at a planetary scale (e.g. earth system science and geoengineering) combines with the ontological and physical invisibilization inflicted by 'sustainable development' projects built on notions such as terra nullius, which entail deploying a matrix of physical and symbolic violence to render certain people and places visible for extraction and”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Scott, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Li, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Vidalou, 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To sum up, green extractivism leverages socioecological, weather and climate crises as investment and profit-generation opportunities.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Examining one of Latin America's coal mining regions, La Guajira, Colombia, Ulloa argues that pressures to decarbonize have led to a proliferation of proposals seeking to incorporate wind and solar energy into the region, thereby depoliticizing territorial demands by the Wayúu people.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ulloa (2023, this Section) source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The authors argue that jaguar conservation advances green extractivism, while greenwashing conventional extractive and infrastructural development schemes.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ruelas and Dunlap (2023, this Section)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The high-modernist eye—and materialist ontologies it is grounded in—fails to, refuses, and simply cannot acknowledge or experience these progressive ecological degradations and changes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This has led to the paradoxical situation that the extraction of minerals to combat climate change exacerbates climate-related risks for marginalized populations in the Peruvian highlands by degrading sensitive ecosystems and undermining local livelihoods.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Heikkinen (2024, this Section) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The HS2 project sought to cut through habitats and towns from London heading north.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brock (2024, this Section)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, much of the capital invested in 'green' projects is derived from conventional extractivist projects, whereas the profits of green extractivisms are reinvested in conventional extractive activities.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The author challenges the notion of energy justice, revealing its roots in colonial objectives, capitalist imperatives and modernist developmental thinking.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Feeney illustrates how Colombia's reliance on the 'greenness' of large-scale infrastructure projects, in this case a dam, diverts attention from their extractive socioecological realities, which coincide with violent tactics to suppress dissent from local communities and environmental defenders.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Feeney (2024, this Section) source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Employing the concept of indirect green extractivism, the article further demonstrates how Peruvian mining policies, actions, and discourses are intertwined with the global extractive apparatus and its power dynamics, perpetuating the contradictions inherent in green extractivism.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Heikkinen (2024, this Section) source
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Heikkinen underscores how zinc, alongside other 'transition minerals,' are crucial raw materials for wind turbines, solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, electric cars and other technologies positioned as central for mitigating the ongoing climate crisis.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Heikkinen (2024, this Section) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Ruelas and Dunlap describe how the complex interplay of voluntary carbon markets, NGOs, corporate financing, environmental policies, and blockchain technologies are used to further integrate ecosystems into the circuits of capitalist control and accumulation.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ruelas and Dunlap (2023, this Section)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is green extractivism, not 'green energy,' 'sustainable,' renewable,' 'clean' or 'decarbonized'.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Brock contends that by portraying the project as 'sustainable,' 'green,' and 'necessary,' the government is benefiting the British construction industry, political and economic elites, affluent commuters, and the City of London, all while leveraging 'zero carbon imaginaries' to disregard the devastating socioecological consequences the project was due to have.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brock (2024, this Section)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are entire equipment factories, mining operations, chemical processing facilities, smelting and manufacturing facilities that produce wind, solar, hydrological and tidal wave extraction technologies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So-called renewability involves degradation, irreparable damage, and exhaustion.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, David Singh (2023, this Section) demonstrates how the green transition not only conceals its extractive nature but also becomes entangled with forms of spatial reconfiguration, in this case, around nationalist projects.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites David Singh (2023, this Section) source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this context, the 'greenness' of infrastructural extractivism serves as a tool to legitimize and rationalize the same injustices, violence, and social and ecological harms as other forms of industrial development.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brock (2024, this Section)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Anna Heikkinen (2024, this Section) contends that the expansion of zinc mining in the Peruvian highlands exacerbates climate vulnerabilities.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Heikkinen (2024, this Section) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Tornel argues that it seems paradoxical to speak of energy justice as long as the concept, its formulations, and manifestations remain tethered to a Westernized conception of modernity.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Green projects also extract—directly or indirectly—from ecosystems, and are often enabled by capital from or tools and infrastructure produced by conventional hydrocarbon extractive projects (Dunlap, 2021b; Andreucci et al., 2023; Marin et al., 2023; Deberdt & Le Billion, 2024).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dunlap, 2021b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Andreucci et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Marin et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As further explained below, these claims obscure the fundamental entanglements between conventional and 'green' extractivism, making deception a central feature of the latter.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Here, Feeney reveals how the implementation of neoliberal conservation tools by the government and private sector, such as environmental offsets, leads to the creation of both 'carbon' and biodiversity sacrifice zones necessary to secure access to natural resources as compensation mechanisms.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Feeney (2024, this Section) source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“He further argues that wind power infrastructures become key sites for the expansion of extractive development and the assertion of state sovereignty aligning with the ethno-nationalist political project of reshaping land and space along religious and caste lines.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Singh (2023, this Section) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, trophy hunting emerges as an unsuspecting form of green extractivism, perpetuating extractive patterns historically established through colonialism.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Drawing on the colonial history of the British railways, Brock argues that state-building and state legitimacy require extractive infrastructures as a means of accumulation, political pacification, and the domestication of subjects.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brock (2024, this Section)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Focusing on India, Singh illustrates how an almost ready-made justification for the expulsion of Muslims from land is articulated in the emerging demand for so-called renewable energy, leading 'green' energy production to converge with Narendra Modi's ethno-nationalist project.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Singh (2023, this Section) source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is done by branding extractivist projects 'green' or ecologically sustainable that, when in reality, they are just extracting more from the earth and its inhabitants to advance industry, technology, and elite control, thereby enabling and disabling different possibilities for people and the planet.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Energy justice, Tornel shows, risks reproducing injustices instead of resolving them.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Andrea Brock (2024, this Section) reveals how environmentalists' enthusiastic endorsement of railway development was exploited by the UK government to justify the controversial High-Speed Two (HS2) trainline megaproject”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brock (2024, this Section)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In the same vein, the author shows how discourses presenting humans, and peasants in particular, as invaders, further entrench (neo)colonial conservation policies —like offsets— that enable rather than hinder green grabbing and extractivism.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Feeney (2024, this Section) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The claims to 'sustainability', 'climate friendliness' and 'green-ness' harnessed by green extractivism are deeply inscribed in specific ontologies and epistemologies, further underscoring how extractivism inevitably entails political/ontological conflict.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“So-called green projects extract— directly or indirectly—from ecosystems, and are often dependent on conventional hydrocarbon extractive projects (Dunlap, 2021b; Andreucci et al., 2023; Marin et al., 2023; Deberdt & Le Billion, 2024).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Dunlap, 2021b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Andreucci et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Marin et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ignoring the extractivist reality of lower-carbon energy production stifles and prevents people from adequately assessing the harms of modernity and, consequently, working towards creating sociopolitical systems based on genuine socioecological sustainability and renewability.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This, as mentioned above, extends to charting how extractivist activities entail slow and progressive forms of socioecological degradation, related to the quality and vitality of wind, wave, river and solar flows.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While green extractivism is a farce—it is just extractivism— we argue that it deserves greater analytical specificity and it remains a useful tool for conceptualizing capitalism's techno/industrial growth.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We are witnessing a remarkable expansion of 'extra-actions' accompanying the relentless, often brutal, and intensifying spread of extractivism into 'less developed' or previously inaccessible areas ranging from material sources at the bottom of the ocean, to the Moon, or even Mars, and mineral deposits at greater depths.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such research is a precondition for holding conventional and green extractive industries accountable.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This proliferation of extra-actions can only be countered by an intensification of extra-Activisms.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This expansion includes indirect and so-called 'immaterial' forms of extractivism, such as global value-chains, logistics, financialization, and data-extraction algorithms required to sustain green extractivism.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
Green extractivism has mostly been studied in a compartmentalized manner, divided by sector and often in the form of individual case studies.
“Because of its diverse manifestations—as well as the diverse understandings of extractivism—green extractivism has mostly been studied in a compartmentalized manner, divided by sector (e.g., minerals, agriculture, infrastructures, etc.) and often in the form of individual case studies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The so-called 'green economy' remains fundamentally driven by (liberal) capitalism.
“as long as the so-called 'green economy' remains fundamentally driven by (liberal) capitalism”
The paper relies on this without support.
Capitalist growth imperatives must be stopped for sustainability and to prevent extractivism.
“all conversations about lower-carbon technologies and greening are pointless until capitalist growth imperatives are stopped.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The different manifestations of 'green' extractivism can be placed under a single analytical umbrella.
“This Special Section aims to place the different manifestations of 'green' extractivism under a single analytical umbrella and develops a comprehensive theoretical approach”
The paper relies on this without support.
The project of capital accumulation retains little-to-no respect for boundaries, whether of economic sectors or nation states.
“The project of capital accumulation retains little-to-no respect for boundaries, whether of economic sectors or nation states.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The world economy has grown increasingly financialized from the 1980s onwards.
“with the growing financialization of the world economy from the 1980s onwards.”
The paper relies on this without support.
De-risking seeks to reduce or eliminate investment risks by leveraging public funds.
“De-risking seeks to reduce, or eliminate, investment risks by leveraging public funds.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ecotourism aims for the preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, rather than their depletion.
“While ecotourism aims for the preservation of biodiversity and”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 5. Exploring green extractivism: Special Section contributors
“Finally, Mads Barbesgaard and Andy Whitmore (2024, this Section) draw on Jason Moore's (2015)”
§ References
“Barbesgaard, M. & Whitmore, A. (2023). "Blood on the floor": The nickel commodity frontier and inter- capitalist competition under green extractivism. Journal of Political Ecology 31(1), 567-585.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 4. The history and meaning of green extractivism
“transfer of emission rights (Bruna, 2022a, 839).”
§ References
“Bruna N. (2022a). Green extractivism and financialisation in Mozambique: The case of Gilé National Reserve. Review of African Political Economy 49(171), 138-160.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 4. The history and meaning of green extractivism
“infrastructure development (see Brock, 2023, this Section)”
§ 5. Exploring green extractivism: Special Section contributors
“Directing our gaze towards the Northern Hemisphere, Andrea Brock (2024, this Section) reveals how”
Citations
Cites
Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native
Wolfe, P. (2006) · Journal of Genocide Research · doi:10.1080/14623520601056240 · Cited by 6,491 · cited 1×
“The relation between green grabbing and green extractivism can thus be understood by Patrick Wolfe's (2006, 388) famous quote on settler colonialism: "invasion is a structure not an event."”
BackgroundSeeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed
(1998) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.36-1224 · Cited by 4,105
Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital
Boscov-Ellen, D. (2016) · Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal · doi:10.5840/gfpj201637226 · Cited by 2,461 · cited 3×
“This process, generally driven by state-capital-science complexes (Moore, 2015), entails identifying, measuring, mapping, labeling and often quantifying phenomena in order to commodify them and render them governable and extractable (Scott, 1998; Li, 2014; Avila, et al. , 2022; Vidalou [2017] 2023).”
BackgroundThe Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism
Wells, P. (2007) · Community Development Journal · doi:10.1093/cdj/bsn030 · Cited by 1,967
Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of nature?
Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012) · The Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.671770 · Cited by 1,928 · cited 4×
“…workers, fences) means to organize land enclosures and the capture and commodification of (traditionally) rapidly regenerative and renewable natures, leading to the displacement, subjugation, or destruction of the human and non-human inhabitants of the targeted areas (Fairhead et al. 2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe environmentalism of the poor: a study of ecological conflicts and valuation
Pádua, J. A. V. (2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-4110 · Cited by 1,289
New frontiers of land control: Introduction
Peluso, N. L., & Lund, C. (2011) · Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.607692 · Cited by 1,181
What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment
Li, T. M. (2014) · Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers · doi:10.1111/tran.12065 · Cited by 1,032 · cited 2×
“This process, generally driven by state-capital-science complexes (Moore, 2015), entails identifying, measuring, mapping, labeling and often quantifying phenomena in order to commodify them and render them governable and extractable (Scott, 1998; Li, 2014; Avila, et al. , 2022; Vidalou [2017] 2023).”
BackgroundTerritories of Difference: Place, Movements, Life, Redes
Escobar, A. (2008) · Repositorio Universidad de Caldas · Cited by 1,028
The new enclosures: critical perspectives on corporate land deals
White, B., Borras Jr., S. M., Hall, R., Scoones, I., & Wolford, W. (2012) · The Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2012.691879 · Cited by 913 · cited 1×
“Emerging alongside, or even intertwined, with EDCs has been a renewed emphasis on land grabbing and land control (Peluso & Lund 2011; White et al. 2012).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Journal of Political Ecology Vol. 31, 2024 455
- Batel, S. & Rudolph, D. (2021). A critical approach to the social acceptance of renewable energy infrastructures: Going beyond green growth and sustainability. Palgrave.
- Bridge, G. (2023). Conclusion. Extractive orientations. In S. Postar, N. Elodie Behzadi, & N. Doering (eds.),
- Journal of Political Ecology Vol. 31, 2024 456
- Journal of Political Ecology Vol. 31, 2024 457
- Dunlap, A., Ruelas, A. & Hammelbo, L. (eds.) (2023). Debates in post-development and degrowth: Volume
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–125 of 125
From vanishing to terricide: Political ontology and the colonial negation of worlds
Tornel, C. (2026) · Dialogues in Human Geography · doi:10.1177/20438206261452190 · Cited by 2
Self-citationGarcía, J. A. Q. (2026) · Revista Española de Desarrollo y Cooperación · doi:10.5209/redc.109181
“…por avanzar hacia un modelo energético más sostenible están, de manera paradójica, alimentando un nuevo ciclo extractivista 2 a escala global, cuyas consecuencias cuestionan la justicia y la sostenibilidad de la propia transición (Sovacool, 2021; Andreucci et al., 2023; Dunlap et al., 2024).”
Borg, E., & Policante, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2026.1766628
Diphda, B. C., & Triarda, R. (2026) · KARSA Journal of Social and Islamic Culture · doi:10.19105/karsa.v34i1.23862
The violence of Net-Zero: Towards pluriversal engagements with ecology and place
Acosta, P., Böhm, S., Döbbe, F., Ehrnström‐Fuentes, M., Ergene, S., Nyberg, D., Pansera, M., & Ramírez, M. F. (2026) · Organization · doi:10.1177/13505084261454775 · Cited by 1
Ideological drivers of climate obstruction and delay: political parties and public opinion in Spain
Ochoa, C. Y., Terán, M. T., Alix, L. M. L., & Domínguez, M. G. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences · doi:10.1007/s13412-026-01127-7
Piva, A., Kondi, A., Couto, B., Deshpande, C., da Costa, D. E., Smith, J., Agbeko, J., Leung, O., & Chen, S. (2026) · Planning Practice and Research · doi:10.1080/02697459.2026.2685575
Pulla, S. P. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-19260-8_3
Green occupation: low-carbon energy and territorial control in Western Sahara
Cantoni, R. (2026) · Territory Politics Governance · doi:10.1080/21622671.2026.2691048
Stanton, N. B. (2026) · Environmental Sociology · doi:10.1080/23251042.2026.2707187
Espinosa, F. G., Camargo, C. Q., & O’Neill, S. J. (2026) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2026.2702624
Labour, land and the libidinal in the struggle for liveable futures
Barry, J. (2026) · Globalizations · doi:10.1080/14747731.2026.2709286
“At the same time, there are increasingly obvious multiple and multiplying social and ecological harms of a so-called ‘green transition’ in the global North/minority world based on ‘green colonialism’ and ‘renewable energy extractivism’ (Andreucci et al., 2023; Dunlap et al., 2024).”
Green electricity, blue innovation and state power on Belgium's offshore commodity frontier
van Dooren, K., van der Horst, D., den Broeck, P. V., et al. (2026) · Environment and Planning E Nature and Space · doi:10.1177/25148486261476322
Pernicious extractivism and the perils of artisanal and small-scale mining formalisation
Busia, K. A., & Arthur-Holmes, F. (2026) · Local Economy The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit · doi:10.1177/02690942261477989
“…the sector can normalise slow environmental violence, reinforce generational poverty traps, and institutionalise forms of exclusion and violence under the banner of sustainability and legality (see Dunlap et al., 2024; Heikkinen et al., 2023; Lahiri-Dutt, 2018; Z ´ arate Rueda et al., 2023).”
InfluentialFandiño, G., & Kumar, P. (2026) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83742-268-520260003
Transformative resistances to extractivisms
Kröger, M., Nygren, A., & Gills, B. K. (2026) · Third World Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01436597.2026.2718173
“Extractivism as a concept can bind these problematic accumulations together and offer the possibility to go deeper into the ideologies and mindsets behind them, including the environmental aspects of ‘green’ climate solution-framed accumulations (Brodie 2025; Dunlap, Verweijen, and Tornel 2024).”
Moeinu, I.-D., Kowszyk, Y., Razak, A., et al. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7428801
Sisimayi, T. P., & Muperi, J. T. (2026) · African Geographical Review · doi:10.1080/19376812.2026.2729969
Extractive rearticulation and lithium governance in Ghana
Faanu, P. (2026) · Resources Policy · doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2026.106061
Comparative energy justice scholarship: Toward an empirical research agenda
Hancock, K. J., Chelminski, K., Hoicka, C. E., et al. (2026) · Energy Research & Social Science · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2026.105018
Tracing Colonial Continuities: Internal Colonialism and Energy Transition in Sardinia
Loi, M., & Salimbeni, A. (2026) · Antipode · doi:10.1111/anti.70218
Climate governance as care: Towards an Indigenous Environmental Justice approach
McKenna, M. B. (2026) · Urban Political Ecology · doi:10.1177/30497515261492733
No justice for all! Green masculinity, extractivism, and global energy transitions
Fünfgeld, A., & Kammler, L. (2026) · Environment and Planning D Society and Space · doi:10.1177/02637758261498693
Visualizing a resource frontier: contact zones and transition spatialities in deep-sea mining
Rodríguez, S. (2026) · GeoJournal · doi:10.1007/s10708-026-11721-5
“…the technologies necessary for decarbonization continue to depend on intensive material extraction processes, generating new pressures on territories, communities, and ecosystems (Banoub et al., 2021; Bustos-Gallardo et al., 2021; Deberdt et al., 2024; Dunlap et al., 2024; Rodríguez et al., 2026).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunlap, A., Verweijen, J., & Tornel, C.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Secretaría de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación (MX)
- Corresponding author
- Dunlap, Alexander
- Venue
- Journal of Political Ecology
- Publisher
- University of Arizona
- Published
- 2024-07-23
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1073-0451 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4400924818
- Semantic Scholar
- 72d9a4e38a6280c8b061b0d4cbb11d7933fca039
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 155
- Citations by year
- 2026: 65 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 9
- FWCI
- 89.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Political Ecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Extractivism and Socioeconomic Issues
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Environmental Movements and Political Ecology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Economy and Marxism
- Keywords
- green extractivism, extractivism, political ecology, greenwashing, sustainable development, green grabbing, climate change, carbon neutrality, neocolonialism, dispossession
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-27, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-27 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
