This interview is based on Hanna Morris’s book “Apocalyptic Authoritarianism”
Morris, H.E. (2025). Apocalyptic Authoritarianism: Climate Crisis, Media, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Apocalyptic Authoritarianism – Paperback – Hanna E. Morris – Oxford University Press
This interview was conducted by Kat Fuller.
***
In your book, you discuss the “good versus bad” polarization often present in the public sphere around the environment, particularly how ecofeminist women of color and the Global South are Othered, dismissed, or even blamed in conversations about climate justice, while the Global North, often those who are white, elite, and “tech bros,” are seen as more authoritative, “visionary sages” with legitimacy. What do you want readers to better understand about these unequal power dynamics in climate conversations?
Thank you for this great question and for conducting this interview! In my book, I argue that the simple story of “good versus evil” effectively decontextualizes climate change and impedes a necessary engagement with its structural causes and various impacts. I show how simplified moral tales of heroes and villains have proven to be very convenient narratives for reactionaries because they are used to justify their own claims of absolute authority. Resultingly, young leftists and climate justice activists across borders who question these claims of absolute authority are either literally or figuratively cast as demonic entities who must be expelled from “Global North” nation-states in order to “save” “Western civilization.” In turn, and via implicit and explicit anti-communist/red scare undertones, young leftists (and especially young women of color and nonbinary folks on the left) who question the unabridged authority of the self-ascribed “visionary sages,” like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, are deemed to be grave (and evil) threats that must be eliminated. In other words, historically privileged (white) figures in the U.S. and other “Western” nations are panicking about the prospect of mass democratic politics. These (usually white and male) figures fundamentally fear the structural political-economic changes that young leftists are popularly rallying around, such as U.S. congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – whom Musk and Thiel repeatedly and specifically name as a literal demonic threat (e.g., see Thiel’s “Antichrist lectures”). These men are absolutely terrified of the diverse, vibrant, and transnational movement of young women on the left who are calling for accountability and more equitable forms of politics through radical societal change; these men are so terrified of these young women because if (or rather, when) these women succeed with their calls, it will mean the loss of their own outsized political and material advantages.
What are your thoughts on AI and on the extent to which techno-capitalists use environmental rhetoric to legitimize and greenwash AI development?
There are a lot of parallels between how AI and climate change are positioned by techno-capitalists. For example, techno-capitalists position both as inevitable and as something that only they can manage on their own, without any democratic process or oversight. As I show in my book, claims of inevitability are often leveraged by antidemocratic figures to once again simplify the story and narrow possible political responses. On the one hand, climate change is positioned as inevitable and as all-encompassing via decontextualized narratives of “good versus evil” which elevate just a few “visionary sages” as heroes who will “save” us all. AI is also positioned as a planetary-scale threat. But AI is, on the other hand, positioned as a potential all-encompassing “solution” to “solving” the climate crisis. Either way, the same techno-capitalists and a historically privileged few remain at the helm and are positioned as the ultimate and only authorities capable of navigating these supposedly apocalyptic conditions.
How do you make sense of the tension between the narratives that blame working-class and BIPOC communities for “overpopulation” and the current U.S. shift toward pro-natalist policies for higher birth rates?
Of course, this concern with white birth rates stems from an overt racism as hyper-visibly seen with the “replacement” theory talking points repeatedly touted by the MAGA base and other white nationalists. As I argue in my book, men like Trump, Musk, and Thiel are overwhelmingly anxious about not only “white death” but also about their own mortality and potential personal irrelevancy amid mass calls for social change (of which, as I already mentioned, would eliminate their own privilege, authority, and centrality). Trump, for example, is absolutely terrified of dying and also how he will be remembered – as evident by his desperate attempts to, for example, rename public buildings after himself and place his image on U.S. currency. It’s notable as well that Vladimir Putin has a whole team of scientists dedicated to trying to “cure” his own mortality. And tech-bros are equally obsessed with becoming “immortal” and have made massive investments in projects ranging from biological “enhancements” for “superhumanity” (with racist and eugenicist undertones) to downloading their consciousness onto a computer. These (white) men’s own unaddressed personal anxieties, I argue in my book, often propel reactionary and overtly racist forms of politics.
How can environmental movements resist ecofascist narratives while still addressing legitimate public fears surrounding climate change and ecological collapse?
This is super important, and I think also returns us right back to where we began this interview! In short, all-or-nothing stories of “good versus evil” need to be let go of. In my book, I argue that the ongoing violence of settler-colonialism, extractive capitalism, militarized nationalism, and the policing of racialized “Others” must be contended with to meaningfully address the root causes and material ramifications of climate change in robustly democratic ways. My book shows how simple stories of “good versus evil” and heroes and villains do not open routes for more equitable modes of politics. A glorious (white and male) hero is not what is needed and only expands and entrenches reactionary and highly exclusionary structures of power. Contrary to a top-down “fix” or technological “solution” to “save” the world from “evil” forces, what my book calls for are pluriversal forms of climate discourse and politics that center the lived experiences and knowledges of many different people from many different places for truly transformative responses to climate change.
***
Hanna E. Morris is an Assistant Professor at the School of the Environment at the University of Toronto. Her research concentrates on the climate-media-democracy nexus and explores questions of power, identity-formation, and meaning-making around climate change. Her newest book is titled Apocalyptic Authoritarianism: Climate Crisis, Media, and Power (Oxford University Press, 2025). Hanna is also the co-chair of the Critical Studies of Climate Media, Discourse, and Power Working Group a part of Brown University’s Climate Social Science Network (CSSN), an Associate Deputy Editor at Climatic Change, and the Co-chair of the Environment, Science, and Risk Communication Section of the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR).
Kat Fuller is the co-founder of the Canadian Institute of Far-Right Studies and a PhD student in sociology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Fuller’s research mainly focuses on disinformation in digital spaces, especially from anti-trans groups related to detransitioning. This includes topics such as anti-intellectualism, fascist politics, conspiracy theories, and far-right media.
Hanna Morris and Kat Fuller are members of the RPRN
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0