Assignment Details:
Paper Name:The Postcolonial Studies
Paper No:203
Unit: 4
Topic:Who Broke the Planet? Colonial Histories, Environmental Injustice, and the Politics of the Anthropocene
Submitted to: Smt. S.B. Gardi, Department of English, MKBU
Submitted Date:19th October, 2026

Abstract

The Anthropocene is commonly understood as a period in which human activities have become a major force shaping the Earth’s climate, ecosystems, and geological processes. However, the idea of human responsibility raises an important question: are all human beings equally responsible for the environmental crisis? This assignment, titled “Who Broke the Planet? Colonial Histories, Environmental Injustice, and the Politics of the Anthropocene,” examines the relationship between colonialism, environmental destruction, climate change, and global inequality through the perspective of postcolonial ecocriticism. It argues that the present environmental crisis cannot be understood only as a consequence of human activities in general; it must also be examined through the historical structures of colonial exploitation, unequal resource distribution, and the continued domination of vulnerable communities. Drawing on the selected works of Graham Huggan, Leon Sealey-Huggins, Rachel Hartnett, Kylie Crane, and other scholars, the assignment explores how colonial expansion, extractive economies, and unequal political power have contributed to environmental injustice. It also considers the relationship between climate justice and the unequal distribution of environmental risks, particularly in formerly colonised societies and vulnerable regions such as the Caribbean. Furthermore, it examines how postcolonial ecocriticism challenges the tendency to present nature as separate from human history and politics. The study suggests that responsibility for ecological destruction must be understood historically and politically rather than distributed equally among all human beings. By connecting colonial histories with contemporary environmental inequalities, the assignment highlights the importance of justice, historical accountability, and collective responsibility in addressing the planetary crisis.

Keywords

Anthropocene, Postcolonial Ecocriticism, Colonialism, Environmental Injustice, Climate Justice, Climate Imperialism, Ecological Exploitation, Global Inequality, Environmental History, Coloniality.

Research Question

How does postcolonial ecocriticism reveal the relationship between colonial histories, unequal environmental responsibility, and environmental injustice in the Anthropocene?

Hypothesis

The assignment hypothesises that the contemporary environmental crisis is not simply the result of humanity’s collective activities but is deeply connected to colonial histories, extractive economic systems, and unequal structures of global power. Postcolonial ecocriticism reveals that the benefits of environmental exploitation and the burdens of ecological destruction have been distributed unequally. Therefore, understanding the Anthropocene requires historical accountability, climate justice, and recognition of the experiences of formerly colonised and environmentally vulnerable communities.

1. Introduction

1.1 Understanding the Anthropocene

The Earth is currently experiencing significant environmental changes, including global warming, rising sea levels, biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, and the depletion of natural resources. These changes have made the relationship between human beings and the natural environment an important subject of academic discussion. The term Anthropocene is widely used to describe the period in which human activities have become a major influence on the Earth's systems. Industrialisation, the burning of fossil fuels, large-scale agriculture, urbanisation, and the extraction of natural resources have transformed the environment on an unprecedented scale.

However, the Anthropocene raises a fundamental question: if human beings have contributed to the environmental crisis, does this mean that all human beings are equally responsible for it? A wealthy industrial society and a poor rural community may both consume natural resources, but their levels of consumption, historical contributions to emissions, and capacity to respond to environmental disasters can be very different. Consequently, describing the crisis simply as a result of human activity may hide the political and economic inequalities behind it.

A. Kumar’s discussion of the Anthropocene as a “crisis of justice” provides a useful starting point for examining this problem. The environmental crisis is not only a scientific or ecological issue; it also involves questions of fairness, responsibility, and unequal vulnerability. Certain societies have accumulated wealth through industrial development and resource extraction, while other communities continue to experience the consequences of environmental degradation without having received comparable benefits.

The title of this assignment, “Who Broke the Planet?”, therefore, is not intended to suggest that environmental destruction can be attributed to one individual or nation. Instead, it raises a critical question about historical responsibility. Who benefited most from the exploitation of natural resources? Who contributed most to the systems that produced environmental damage? Who continues to suffer from its consequences? These questions reveal that the environmental crisis must be understood through the relationships between ecology, history, economics, and power.

1.2 The Relationship Between Colonialism and Environmental Destruction

Colonialism was not only a system of political domination. It also involved the control of land, forests, minerals, agricultural production, waterways, and other natural resources. Colonial powers frequently reorganised local economies to serve imperial interests. Land was used for plantations, forests were commercially exploited, minerals were extracted, and agricultural production was directed towards external markets.

Such activities transformed both natural environments and the societies that depended on them. Traditional systems of land use could be disrupted, local communities could lose access to forests and common resources, and economies could become dependent on the extraction and export of raw materials. The consequences varied across regions, but the relationship between imperial expansion and environmental exploitation is central to understanding the historical background of the present crisis.

Graham Huggan's “Postcolonial Ecocriticism and the Limits of Green Romanticism” provides an important critical framework for examining this relationship. Postcolonial ecocriticism brings environmental concerns into conversation with colonial histories, cultural representation, and unequal power relations (Huggan). It questions approaches to environmental protection that celebrate nature in general terms while overlooking the historical circumstances in which landscapes and communities have been transformed.

For example, a forest may be described as a natural resource that should be protected, but this description does not automatically explain who controls the forest, who depends on it for survival, or who has profited from its commercial exploitation. Similarly, a discussion of climate change that focuses exclusively on individual behaviour may overlook the historical role of industrial economies and the continuing influence of unequal development.

Colonialism should not be considered the sole cause of every contemporary environmental problem. Industrialisation, consumerism, population pressures, technological development, and modern economic policies also influence ecological conditions. Nevertheless, colonial histories are essential to understanding why environmental resources and environmental risks are distributed unequally across the world.

1.3 Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Bringing Environment and Power Together

Postcolonial ecocriticism is an interdisciplinary approach that connects literary and cultural studies with environmental criticism and postcolonial theory. Traditional ecocriticism often examines representations of nature, ecological relationships, landscapes, and human interactions with the non-human world. Postcolonial ecocriticism extends this discussion by asking how colonialism, imperialism, racial hierarchy, and economic exploitation have shaped environmental relationships.

This approach challenges the assumption that nature can always be discussed independently of politics. A landscape is not merely a geographical space. It may also be a site of historical conflict, cultural memory, economic exploitation, and resistance. Forests, rivers, plantations, mines, and agricultural fields can carry the histories of the communities that have lived on, worked, or been displaced from them.

Huggan's examination of the limits of Green Romanticism is relevant because idealised representations of nature may overlook the material and political conditions that determine environmental experiences. omantic criptions of untouched landscapes can create an appealing image of nature, but they may leave unanswered questions about ownership, labour, colonial intervention, and environmental inequality.

Kylie Crane's discussion of postcolonial ecocriticism offers another relevant entry point into the relationship between postcolonial thought and ecological criticism. Together, these approaches encourage readers to examine environmental problems through multiple perspectives, including history, culture, political economy, and literary representation.

The central concern is not simply whether nature is being destroyed. It is also necessary to examine who controls natural resources, which communities are affected by environmental decisions, and whose experiences are recognised in environmental debates. Postcolonial ecocriticism makes these questions central to the study of the Anthropocene.

1.4 The Politics of the Question: Who Broke the Planet?

The phrase “Who Broke the Planet?” challenges the tendency to use the word humanity as though all human beings have contributed equally to ecological destruction. Although humans collectively depend on the Earth, they occupy different economic positions and possess unequal access to resources, political influence, and technological power.

For instance, the environmental consequences of large-scale industrial production are not identical to those of subsistence agriculture. Similarly, a community experiencing displacement because of mining or deforestation may have little influence over the decisions that transform its environment. The people who receive the profits from an extractive project may not be the same people who experience its pollution, land loss, or health consequences.

Rachel Hartnett's work on climate imperialism, ecocriticism, postcolonialism, and global climate change is particularly relevant to this question. The concept of climate imperialism encourages critical attention to the ways global power inequalities may continue to influence environmental policies, resource use, and the distribution of climate-related burdens.

Leon Sealey-Huggins also connects climate change with imperialism and justice in the Caribbean. The title of his article, “‘1.5°C to Stay Alive’: Climate Change, Imperialism and Justice for the Caribbean,” foregrounds the relationship between climate vulnerability and the unequal historical and political conditions in which climate change occurs. His work helps frame climate justice as a question of survival, political responsibility, and international inequality.

Therefore, asking who broke the planet involves more than identifying individual actions. It requires an examination of the systems that have enabled certain groups to benefit from environmental exploitation while leaving other groups more exposed to ecological damage.

2. Colonial Histories and the Exploitation of Nature

2.1 Colonialism as a System of Resource Extraction

Colonial expansion frequently depended on the appropriation and commercial exploitation of natural resources. Land, forests, minerals, and agricultural products became important sources of wealth for imperial powers. Colonised territories were often reorganised to support imperial trade and production, connecting local environments to wider economic systems.

Plantation agriculture provides one example of this process. Large areas of land were converted to produce commercially valuable crops for external markets. Such systems could transform local landscapes, concentrate ownership, and rely on unequal labour relations. Mining and forestry could produce similar tensions by placing commercial priorities above the needs of local communities and the long-term health of ecosystems.

Environmental change in colonial territories was therefore not always an unintended consequence of economic development. In many situations, the transformation of land and natural resources was part of the process through which colonial economies generated wealth.

Postcolonial ecocriticism examines these transformations by connecting environmental change with historical relations of domination. Huggan's work is useful here because it encourages a critical examination of environmental representations that separate nature from the political histories shaping it.

The relationship between colonialism and environmental destruction must nevertheless be understood in its historical context. Colonial practices differed according to region, period, resource, and political system. It would be inaccurate to suggest that all colonial administrations followed identical environmental policies or that every ecological problem originated under colonial rule. The more defensible argument is that colonial systems often intensified resource extraction and established patterns of unequal control that could influence later development.

2.2 Land, Ownership, and the Transformation of Local Environments

Land is more than an economic asset. It can provide food, shelter, cultural identity, social relationships, and spiritual meaning. For many Indigenous and rural communities, land is connected with collective memory and traditional knowledge. Colonial systems of ownership and administration sometimes transformed these relationships by introducing or expanding commercial forms of land control.

When land becomes primarily a commodity, its value may be measured through production, revenue, or market demand. Other values, such as biodiversity, community access, cultural heritage, and ecological stability, may receive less attention.

The establishment of plantations, commercial forestry, mining operations, and transport networks could change the ways local populations used and understood their environments. Communities might lose access to common lands, experience displacement, or become dependent on economic activities that offered limited benefits to them.

These changes demonstrate why environmental history cannot be separated from social history. A forest may remain physically present while the community's relationship with it changes dramatically. Likewise, an agricultural landscape may become more commercially productive while local food security and biodiversity are weakened.

Postcolonial ecocriticism draws attention to these contradictions. It asks whether environmental development benefits the people who live in a particular landscape or primarily serves distant economic interests. It also questions whose knowledge determines how land should be used.

The historical transformation of land under colonialism is therefore important to the politics of the Anthropocene. Environmental damage is not only about the physical destruction of ecosystems; it can also involve the loss of rights, livelihoods, cultural practices, and control over natural resources.

2.3 Colonialism and the Unequal Distribution of Environmental Benefits

One of the major issues in environmental justice is the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens. Economic systems may allow one group to accumulate wealth while another experiences the environmental costs of production. Colonial relationships historically provided numerous examples of this imbalance, particularly where natural resources and agricultural products were extracted from colonised territories for external markets.

The profits of resource extraction and the consequences of environmental damage do not necessarily remain in the same place. Resources can be removed from one region, processed elsewhere, and consumed in distant markets. Meanwhile, pollution, deforestation, disrupted livelihoods, and ecological degradation may remain concentrated in the places where extraction takes place.

This pattern helps explain why the language of universal human responsibility can be misleading. Although all people depend on the environment, they do not possess equal control over industrial production, international trade, land ownership, or political decisions.

The relationship between colonialism and environmental inequality is therefore both historical and contemporary. The disappearance of formal colonial administrations does not automatically remove every economic or political structure established during colonial rule. Unequal access to technology, capital, markets, and decision-making can continue to influence environmental outcomes.

Hartnett's focus on climate imperialism provides a useful framework for considering how unequal power relations intersect with global climate change. From this perspective, environmental justice requires an examination of who benefits from resource use and who bears the resulting costs.

2.4 Colonial Legacies and Contemporary Extractive Economies

Contemporary mining, large-scale agriculture, fossil-fuel production, and industrial development cannot simply be described as identical to historical colonialism. Modern governments, corporations, and communities operate under different legal and political conditions. Nevertheless, some contemporary economic arrangements reproduce patterns of unequal resource control and environmental vulnerability.

Extractive economies often depend on removing natural resources from particular places for wider commercial use. Such activities can create employment and public revenue, but they may also produce pollution, land degradation, displacement, and conflicts over access to resources. The outcomes depend on regulation, ownership, local participation, environmental safeguards, and the distribution of economic benefits.

A postcolonial approach does not require rejecting every form of development. Instead, it asks who defines development, whose needs are prioritised, and whether economic growth justifies the destruction of ecological systems and local livelihoods.

The concept of coloniality is useful in this context because it directs attention to the persistence of unequal hierarchies after formal colonial rule has ended. Nare, Moopi, and Nyambi examine global coloniality and ecological injustice through Imbolo Mbue's How Beautiful We Were. Their work provides a literary point of entry into questions about the relationships between global power, environmental exploitation, and the communities that experience its consequences.

The connection between colonial histories and present-day extractive economies is consequently central to the question posed by this assignment. The problem is not simply that human beings use natural resources. It is that decisions about resource use frequently take place within unequal economic and political structures.

3. The Anthropocene and the Problem of Universal Responsibility

3.1 The Meaning and Limitations of the Anthropocene

The Anthropocene has become an influential concept for discussing the scale of human influence on the Earth. It draws attention to the fact that human activities can transform atmospheric conditions, ecosystems, and geological processes. The concept also encourages a broader understanding of the environmental crisis as a planetary problem.

However, the term raises questions about the meaning of the word Anthropos, which refers to humanity. If humanity is described as the force responsible for environmental change, the different historical experiences of human societies may become less visible.

Industrial societies, colonised populations, wealthy consumers, and communities living with limited resources have not possessed the same capacity to transform the planet. Their contributions to ecological destruction and their exposure to environmental harm also differ.

Kumar's framing of the Anthropocene as a crisis of justice is important because it places questions of fairness within discussions of planetary change. Environmental responsibility cannot be assessed only by recognising that human activities have affected the Earth. It must also involve an examination of differences in historical contribution, economic benefit, and present vulnerability.

The Anthropocene is therefore useful for understanding the scale of the crisis, but its political implications require careful examination. A universal description of humanity must not erase the inequalities that shape environmental history.

3.2 Who Is Included in the Word “Humanity”?

The idea of humanity appears universal, but the term can hide substantial differences between people and societies. A wealthy industrial consumer and a person whose livelihood depends on a small plot of land are both human beings, yet their economic opportunities and environmental footprints may be very different.

The same problem arises when the responsibilities of states and corporations are compared with those of individuals. Personal choices matter, but individuals do not all possess the same power to determine energy systems, industrial practices, transport infrastructure, or environmental regulations.

A farmer may depend on chemical inputs because of economic pressures and limited alternatives. A worker may have little influence over the environmental practices of the industry that provides employment. A community may experience pollution without having the political influence necessary to prevent it.

These examples demonstrate that responsibility is shaped by power and opportunity. People should not automatically be treated as equally responsible merely because they all participate in social and economic systems.

A postcolonial reading of the Anthropocene therefore asks whose experiences are represented when humanity is described as a single environmental agent. It also examines whether the concept gives sufficient attention to colonial exploitation, racial inequality, and the unequal distribution of global wealth.

The question “Who Broke the Planet?” challenges the assumption that responsibility can be distributed equally without examining history. It asks readers to distinguish between contributing to a system, benefiting from it, controlling it, and suffering from its consequences.

3.3 Industrialisation, Capitalism, and Ecological Transformation

Colonial history is an important part of environmental change, but it should not be examined in isolation. Industrialisation and modern economic systems have also transformed the relationship between societies and natural resources.

The expansion of industrial production increased the demand for energy, minerals, transport, and raw materials. Fossil fuels became central to many industrial economies, while mass production and consumer markets encouraged the continuous movement of goods across the world. These developments contributed to economic growth but also intensified greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and resource consumption.

The benefits of industrialisation have not been distributed equally. Some societies accumulated wealth and developed advanced infrastructure, while others remained economically dependent on the export of raw materials or the provision of low-cost labour. In many cases, industrial production also shifted environmental burdens towards communities with less political and economic power.

This relationship complicates the idea that environmental damage results simply from human progress. Development can improve living standards, but its environmental consequences depend on how production is organised, which energy sources are used, and who controls the benefits.

Postcolonial ecocriticism helps reveal how colonial histories and contemporary economic structures intersect. Hartnett's work on climate imperialism is relevant to examining the global inequalities associated with climate change. The central issue is not that every industrial activity is inherently colonial, but that historical inequalities can influence the ways modern economic systems distribute environmental costs.

3.4 The Anthropocene as a Crisis of Justice

Environmental crises frequently produce unequal consequences. Rising temperatures, extreme weather, droughts, floods, and changing agricultural conditions can affect different communities in different ways. People with secure housing, savings, insurance, reliable infrastructure, and access to public services often possess greater capacity to respond to disasters than people without these resources.

This inequality creates a distinction between environmental change and environmental injustice. Environmental change describes a transformation in ecological conditions. Environmental injustice emerges when the causes, burdens, risks, and responses to that transformation are distributed unfairly.

Kumar's article, “Ruptures of the Anthropocene: A Crisis of Justice,” directly connects the Anthropocene with the problem of justice. This perspective is significant because it challenges the idea that the environmental crisis can be resolved through technical solutions alone.

Renewable energy, improved infrastructure, and scientific innovation can contribute to environmental protection. However, technical solutions must also consider affordability, access, displacement, employment, and the rights of affected communities. A climate policy may reduce emissions while creating new inequalities if its costs fall disproportionately on people with limited resources.

The Anthropocene is therefore not only a crisis of planetary systems. It is also a crisis concerning the distribution of responsibility, resources, and protection. A just response must address both environmental damage and the inequalities that make certain populations more vulnerable to it.

4. Postcolonial Ecocriticism and Environmental Representation

4.1 Beyond Romantic Images of Nature

Nature has frequently been represented in literature as beautiful, peaceful, timeless, and separate from human conflict. Such representations can encourage admiration for the natural world, but they may also create an incomplete understanding of environmental realities.

A landscape can appear untouched while concealing histories of displacement, labour, commercial exploitation, or colonial ownership. A forest may be represented as an attractive wilderness without considering the Indigenous or local communities whose relationships with it have been shaped by generations of knowledge and practice.

Huggan's article, “Postcolonial Ecocriticism and the Limits of Green Romanticism,” provides a useful basis for questioning idealised environmental representations. The term Green Romanticism can be understood here as a tendency to celebrate nature in ways that risk overlooking the historical and political conditions of environmental change.

The problem is not that romantic representations of nature are always false or unimportant. Literary descriptions of landscapes can communicate ecological beauty, emotional attachment, and the value of conservation. The limitation appears when the appreciation of nature replaces a critical examination of power and history.

Postcolonial ecocriticism therefore asks readers to look beyond the surface of a landscape. It examines who owns it, who works on it, who has been displaced from it, and how its resources have been used. These questions make environmental representation an important part of the study of colonial history.

4.2 Nature, Culture, and Colonial Knowledge

Colonial administrations frequently classified landscapes and natural resources according to administrative, commercial, or scientific priorities. Such classifications could influence land management, agricultural practices, and access to forests or other resources.

Local communities, however, may understand the environment through knowledge developed over generations. This knowledge can include agricultural practices, seasonal patterns, medicinal plants, water management, and ways of maintaining relationships with local ecosystems.

Conflict can arise when external systems of knowledge are treated as more authoritative than local experience. Environmental decisions may then exclude the people who understand the practical consequences of those decisions.

A postcolonial ecocritical approach examines this unequal relationship between knowledge and power. It asks whose descriptions of nature become official, whose experiences are dismissed, and whether environmental policies recognise the cultural and historical significance of land.

The issue is especially important when environmental protection requires restrictions on land use. Conservation can be valuable, but it may become unjust if communities are excluded from their own territories without meaningful consultation or fair alternatives.

This approach does not assume that all traditional practices are environmentally sustainable or that all modern scientific approaches are harmful. Instead, it argues for a critical examination of how different forms of knowledge are recognised and how environmental decisions are made.

Crane's work on postcolonial ecocriticism is relevant to this intersection of environmental thought and postcolonial criticism (Crane). The approach encourages a broader understanding of ecological relationships that includes culture, history, knowledge, and unequal authority.

4.3 Literary Representation and Environmental Injustice

Literature can reveal environmental experiences that are often overlooked in official accounts of economic development or ecological change. Through characters, settings, narrative voices, and conflicts, literary works can show how environmental destruction affects everyday life.

For example, a novel about a mining community may explore not only pollution but also the emotional effects of displacement, the loss of cultural memory, and conflicts between employment and environmental protection. A poem about a damaged landscape may connect ecological destruction with the historical experience of dispossession.

Literature does not replace scientific evidence or historical research. However, it can make the human consequences of environmental change more visible by representing the experiences of individuals and communities.

The study by Nare et al. on Imbolo Mbue's How Beautiful We Were is particularly relevant because it connects global coloniality with ecological injustice in a literary context. This connection demonstrates how fiction can become a site for examining the relationship between environmental exploitation, corporate or economic power, and vulnerable communities.

Qabaha and Daraghmeh's postcolonial ecocritical reading of Mahmoud Darwish's “The Red Indian's Penultimate Speech to the White Man” offers another important example of literary analysis informed by colonial history and ecological criticism. The article's focus brings together the representation of colonised peoples, the natural world, and the consequences of domination.

These studies demonstrate that literary criticism can contribute to environmental debates by revealing how ecological damage intersects with identity, historical memory, power, and resistance.

5. Climate Imperialism and Global Inequality

5.1 Understanding Climate Imperialism

Climate imperialism is a critical concept for examining how unequal global power relations influence climate change, climate policy, and environmental vulnerability. It draws attention to situations in which the interests of powerful states, corporations, or economic institutions may take priority over the needs of less powerful societies.

The concept does not suggest that all international cooperation is imperialistic. Climate agreements, financial assistance, technological exchange, and environmental partnerships can support collective action. The concern arises when these arrangements reproduce unequal control, transfer environmental burdens to vulnerable populations, or limit the ability of less powerful societies to determine their own development.

Hartnett's article, “Climate Imperialism: Ecocriticism, Postcolonialism, and Global Climate Change,” is central to this discussion. By bringing climate imperialism into conversation with postcolonial ecocriticism, the article provides a framework for examining environmental problems through global histories of power.

Climate imperialism can be considered through several questions. Do powerful countries bear responsibilities proportionate to their historical contributions to environmental damage? Do international climate policies provide adequate support to vulnerable societies? Can developing countries pursue better living standards without being forced to bear unfair economic burdens? Are the voices of affected communities included in climate decisions?

These questions show that climate change is not only a problem of atmospheric science. It is also a problem of international political relationships.

5.2 Climate Change and Historical Responsibility

Historical responsibility is an important principle in discussions of climate justice. Industrial development has taken place over different periods and under different economic conditions. Some countries industrialised earlier and accumulated substantial wealth through energy-intensive production, while many other countries continue to address poverty, infrastructure gaps, and the need for economic development.

This history matters because greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, and their consequences are global. Climate change cannot be understood only through the emissions produced in a single year. Historical contributions, present emissions, population size, economic capacity, and development needs all influence discussions of responsibility.

A postcolonial perspective adds another dimension by examining the relationship between industrial development and colonial exploitation. In some historical situations, colonies supplied raw materials, agricultural products, and labour that supported imperial economies. The environmental consequences of these arrangements were often experienced far from the places where wealth was accumulated.

It would be inaccurate to attribute all historical emissions directly to colonialism. The relationship between empire and industrialisation is complex, and countries have followed different development paths. Nevertheless, colonial histories help explain why some regions entered the modern global economy under conditions of unequal wealth and political power.

Sealey-Huggins's study of climate change, imperialism, and justice for the Caribbean provides a significant example of how climate responsibility can be discussed through historical inequality. His focus encourages an examination of why vulnerable societies may face serious climate risks despite having contributed relatively little to the historical accumulation of global emissions.

5.3 Climate Vulnerability in the Caribbean

The Caribbean provides an important context for examining the relationship between climate change and unequal vulnerability. Many Caribbean territories face exposure to hurricanes, coastal flooding, rising sea levels, and other climate-related hazards. Their vulnerability varies according to geography, infrastructure, income, public services, and the resources available for preparation and recovery.

Environmental disasters do not affect all communities equally. A wealthy household may be able to relocate, repair damaged property, or purchase insurance, while a low-income household may struggle to recover from the same event. Small economies can also face substantial financial pressures when severe storms damage housing, transport, agriculture, and public infrastructure.

Sealey-Huggins's article, “‘1.5°C to Stay Alive’: Climate Change, Imperialism and Justice for the Caribbean,” connects the climate crisis with imperialism and justice in this region. Its focus demonstrates why climate targets are not merely abstract scientific measurements. For vulnerable populations, limiting global warming can be connected directly with livelihoods, territorial security, and the possibility of continuing to live safely in their communities.

The Caribbean's colonial histories provide an important background to this issue. Historical patterns of plantation production, unequal ownership, and external economic dependence have shaped many Caribbean societies, although the circumstances differ across islands and territories. These histories should be considered alongside present economic conditions and the specific environmental risks each community faces.

Climate justice therefore requires more than encouraging vulnerable societies to adapt to environmental changes. It also involves examining the responsibilities of wealthier countries, the availability of climate finance, the protection of vulnerable populations, and the fairness of international decision-making.

5.4 The Unequal Distribution of Climate Adaptation

Adaptation refers to measures that help societies prepare for and respond to the consequences of climate change. These measures may include flood protection, improved water management, resilient infrastructure, early-warning systems, agricultural adjustments, and disaster preparedness.

However, adaptation requires financial resources, technology, planning, and effective institutions. Communities with limited resources may find it difficult to implement these measures even when their environmental risks are serious.

This situation creates an important contradiction. The communities most exposed to climate-related harm may not be those with the greatest capacity to protect themselves. Consequently, climate adaptation cannot be treated as an individual responsibility alone.

From a postcolonial perspective, adaptation policies should be examined in relation to historical inequalities and the unequal distribution of global resources. International support can be essential, but it should not become a mechanism through which powerful institutions impose priorities without consulting affected communities.

The relationship between climate justice and the Caribbean discussed by Sealey-Huggins highlights the importance of connecting climate policy with questions of imperialism and responsibility.

An equitable approach would recognise that climate protection is both an environmental necessity and a social obligation. It would support vulnerable communities without treating their vulnerability as a problem created exclusively by their own decisions.

6. Environmental Injustice and the Global South

6.1 Understanding Environmental Injustice

Environmental injustice occurs when environmental benefits, risks, and burdens are distributed unfairly. It can involve the unequal exposure of communities to pollution, the loss of land and livelihoods, restricted access to natural resources, and exclusion from environmental decision-making.

Environmental injustice is closely connected to social and economic inequality. Communities with limited political influence may find it difficult to challenge environmentally harmful projects. People who depend directly on forests, rivers, agricultural land, or coastal ecosystems may experience immediate consequences when those environments are damaged.

The concept is particularly important in discussions of the Global South, a broad term commonly used for countries and communities shaped by unequal global development. It should not be treated as a single, uniform category: countries within the Global South differ substantially in income, political systems, environmental conditions, and historical experiences.

Nevertheless, the term helps draw attention to inequalities in the international distribution of wealth, technology, and environmental risk. In some regions, the effects of resource extraction and industrial production are closely connected to historical patterns of colonial control and economic dependence.

Kumar's discussion of the Anthropocene as a crisis of justice provides a conceptual basis for understanding these inequalities (Kumar). Environmental injustice becomes visible when the ecological costs of development are imposed on people who have limited power to prevent them.

6.2 Poverty, Pollution, and Unequal Protection

Environmental problems often interact with poverty. Communities with limited financial resources may live in areas more exposed to flooding, industrial pollution, or inadequate waste management. They may also lack access to quality healthcare, reliable transport, secure housing, and other services that reduce the effects of environmental harm.

These conditions create a cycle of vulnerability. Environmental damage can reduce income, damage property, affect agricultural production, and increase health-related expenses. In turn, economic insecurity can limit a community's capacity to relocate or invest in protective measures.

However, poverty should not be treated as the direct cause of every environmental problem. The relationship between poverty and ecological damage depends on the broader economic and political conditions in which communities live. Large-scale industrial pollution and commercial resource extraction, for example, cannot be adequately explained by examining the behaviour of poor households alone.

A postcolonial perspective encourages attention to the historical and institutional conditions that shape environmental vulnerability. It asks whether affected communities have access to legal protection, political representation, and the resources required to challenge harmful activities.

The concept of climate imperialism is relevant because environmental inequality often extends beyond national borders. International trade and investment can connect consumption in one region with extraction and pollution in another.

Environmental justice consequently requires a focus on both local conditions and global economic relationships.

6.3 Indigenous Communities and Environmental Knowledge

Indigenous communities have diverse relationships with their environments. In many contexts, local ecological knowledge has developed through long-term interaction with forests, rivers, agricultural systems, coastlines, and wildlife. Such knowledge may include seasonal observation, resource management, biodiversity conservation, and practices adapted to particular landscapes.

Colonial expansion and later development projects have sometimes restricted Indigenous access to land and natural resources. Displacement can weaken the cultural and economic relationships through which ecological knowledge is maintained and transmitted.

The loss of land can therefore produce consequences beyond immediate economic hardship. It may affect language, collective identity, traditional practices, and community relationships.

Postcolonial ecocriticism provides a way to examine these connections between environmental change and cultural survival. It challenges the assumption that land can be evaluated solely through commercial productivity or administrative ownership.

Nevertheless, Indigenous communities should not be romanticised as though they are all identical or always hold the same views about development and conservation. Their experiences and priorities differ, and their participation in environmental decision-making should be recognised on their own terms.

A just environmental framework must protect the rights of affected communities while considering scientific evidence, ecological conditions, and the different needs of present and future generations.

6.4 Development and the Right to a Sustainable Future

Countries experiencing poverty and infrastructure shortages face legitimate demands for economic development. Access to electricity, transport, housing, education, healthcare, and employment can improve people's lives. Environmental criticism must therefore avoid presenting development itself as the enemy of ecological protection.

The central issue is the form of development and the distribution of its benefits and costs. A development project may provide jobs and energy while also producing pollution, displacing communities, or damaging important ecosystems. Evaluating such projects requires attention to both immediate benefits and long-term consequences.

Postcolonial environmental criticism questions the assumption that societies must repeat the resource-intensive development paths followed by earlier industrial powers. It also challenges the idea that poorer societies should bear the costs of climate mitigation without adequate financial and technological support.

Climate justice requires a balance between ecological protection, poverty reduction, and the right to improve living conditions. This balance cannot be achieved through a single formula because countries differ in their energy needs, resources, and environmental circumstances.

The important principle is that sustainability should not become another form of inequality. Environmental policies must be designed in ways that recognise development needs while preventing the disproportionate burden of ecological protection from falling on already disadvantaged populations.

7. Literary Case Studies: Ecological Destruction and Colonial Power

7.1 Imbolo Mbue's How Beautiful We Were and Ecological Injustice

Literature can reveal the social and emotional dimensions of environmental destruction. Imbolo Mbue's novel How Beautiful We Were provides a relevant literary context for examining the relationship between economic power, ecological damage, and community resistance.

Nare, Moopi, and Nyambi's article, “Global Coloniality and Ecological Injustice in Imbolo Mbue's How Beautiful We Were (2021),” explicitly connects the novel with global coloniality and environmental injustice (Nare et al.). The article is relevant to this assignment because it places a literary representation of ecological harm within broader discussions of power and inequality.

The concept of global coloniality helps explain why colonial relationships may continue to influence economic and environmental conditions after formal colonial rule has ended. In a literary context, it encourages readers to examine the relationship between powerful external interests and communities whose environments and livelihoods are placed at risk.

An ecocritical reading of a novel such as How Beautiful We Were can investigate how environmental degradation affects a community's relationship with land, health, economic security, and collective identity. It can also explore how narrative representation gives visibility to experiences that might be overlooked in accounts focused exclusively on economic growth.

The significance of this literary approach lies in its attention to lived experience. Environmental destruction is not merely a change in the physical condition of a landscape. It can alter relationships between generations, weaken social structures, and create conflicts about the future of a community.

The work of Nare et al. supports the broader argument that ecological injustice should be understood through the relationship between global power and local environmental consequences.

7.2 Mahmoud Darwish and the Colonial Relationship with Nature

Mahmoud Darwish's poetry provides another important context for postcolonial ecocriticism. His work is frequently associated with questions of Palestinian identity, displacement, memory, and belonging. The relationship between land and identity is particularly significant when considering how colonial domination affects both people and their environments.

Qabaha and Daraghmeh's article, “A Postcolonial Ecocritical Reading of Mahmoud Darwish's ‘The Red Indian's Penultimate Speech to the White Man,’” brings postcolonial and ecological criticism together through the analysis of a literary text .

The title of the poem evokes the relationship between Indigenous dispossession and the authority of colonial power. Its representation of the encounter between the colonised and the coloniser creates a context for considering how domination affects relationships with land and the natural world.

A postcolonial ecocritical approach can examine how the loss of territory involves more than a change in political ownership. It may also involve the disruption of cultural memory, the loss of familiar landscapes, and the weakening of connections between communities and their environments.

The comparison of colonial experiences across different geographical contexts requires care. Indigenous experiences in the Americas and Palestinian experiences cannot simply be treated as identical. However, literary criticism can examine the broader questions of dispossession, power, and the relationship between land and identity that emerge in different historical situations.

The contribution of Qabaha and Daraghmeh is relevant because it demonstrates how a literary text can be read through the connected histories of colonialism and ecological relationships.

7.3 Literature as a Form of Environmental Resistance

Literary works can challenge dominant narratives of progress by representing the experiences of communities affected by ecological destruction. Where official accounts emphasise economic growth, employment, or resource production, literature may draw attention to displacement, grief, cultural loss, and resistance.

This does not mean that literature always presents a single political position or provides a complete record of environmental events. Rather, literary texts offer ways of imagining how environmental change affects human relationships and how communities respond to it.

Postcolonial ecocriticism is especially useful because it examines the connections between narrative and power. It asks which characters or communities are given a voice, whose experiences are marginalised, and how descriptions of landscapes shape readers' understanding of history.

The literary studies of Mbue and Darwish discussed above demonstrate the relevance of this approach. Nare et al. connect a novel with global coloniality and ecological injustice, while Qabaha and Daraghmeh examine Darwish's poetry through postcolonial ecocritical interpretation.

Together, these examples support the view that environmental destruction is also a cultural and political issue. Literature can make the consequences of unequal power more visible and challenge the assumption that the environment exists outside human history.

8. Climate Justice as a Response to the Anthropocene

8.1 The Meaning of Climate Justice

Climate justice refers to approaches to climate change that consider fairness, responsibility, rights, and unequal vulnerability. It recognises that climate change affects different populations in different ways and that the resources required to respond to it are unequally distributed.

Climate justice therefore involves questions about responsibility for emissions, access to adaptation resources, the protection of vulnerable communities, and participation in environmental decision-making. It also recognises that climate policies can themselves produce injustice if they ignore the needs of workers, Indigenous communities, or low-income populations.

Robinson's article, “Climate Justice: Walter Benjamin and the Anthropocene,” connects climate justice with philosophical and critical approaches to the Anthropocene (Robinson). This is useful because the environmental crisis raises questions not only about the future but also about how societies understand history, responsibility, and the consequences of earlier development.

A climate justice perspective challenges the assumption that the same environmental policy will produce equally fair results in every society. Policies must consider local conditions, economic resources, historical circumstances, and the people who will be affected by them.

Climate justice also changes the meaning of environmental responsibility. Responsibility becomes more than a general appeal for everyone to protect nature. It requires consideration of who has the greatest capacity to act, who has benefited from environmentally damaging systems, and who needs support to respond to climate-related harm.

8.2 Responsibility, Capacity, and Historical Contribution

An equitable climate response must consider several related factors. These include historical contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, present levels of emissions, economic capacity, technological resources, and development needs.

Historical contribution matters because climate change has developed over time. Capacity matters because wealthier societies may be better positioned to invest in renewable energy, resilient infrastructure, and climate adaptation. Development needs matter because people who lack basic services should not be denied opportunities to improve their living conditions.

These factors do not always point towards a simple or universally agreed distribution of responsibility. Countries differ in population, economic structure, energy systems, and present circumstances. Nevertheless, ignoring these differences would make it difficult to develop fair climate policies.

Sealey-Huggins's discussion of climate change and justice for the Caribbean demonstrates the importance of considering vulnerable regions within wider histories of imperialism. Kumar's framing of the Anthropocene as a crisis of justice similarly encourages an examination of the unequal consequences of environmental change (Kumar).

A fair response to climate change must therefore combine collective action with differentiated responsibilities. All societies have reasons to reduce environmental harm, but the measures required and the resources available to implement them should reflect their different circumstances.

8.3 Climate Finance and International Cooperation

Climate finance refers to financial resources used to support climate mitigation and adaptation. It can help countries invest in renewable energy, improve infrastructure, prepare for disasters, and respond to climate-related losses.

For vulnerable countries, access to adequate financial support can be essential. Without sufficient resources, even well-designed climate plans may remain difficult to implement. However, the terms under which financial support is provided also matter. Debt burdens, restrictive conditions, and unequal decision-making can limit the effectiveness of international assistance.

From a postcolonial perspective, climate finance should be considered in relation to historical responsibility and global inequality. International cooperation should not merely transfer the costs of climate action to countries that have limited resources. It should recognise the unequal conditions under which different societies confront the same planetary crisis.

The Caribbean context discussed by Sealey-Huggins is relevant because it highlights the relationship between climate vulnerability and international justice. Climate finance can help address such vulnerability, but its effectiveness depends on accessibility, accountability, and the priorities of affected communities.

International cooperation is therefore essential, but it must be based on fairness rather than an assumption that all countries possess equal resources and responsibilities.

8.4 Just Transition and the Protection of Communities

A transition towards a lower-carbon economy can create opportunities for renewable energy, improved public transport, energy efficiency, and new forms of employment. However, the transition can also affect workers and communities that depend on fossil-fuel industries or other environmentally intensive sectors.

A just transition seeks to ensure that the move towards environmental sustainability does not create new forms of social inequality. It recognises that workers need opportunities to retrain, communities need economic alternatives, and low-income households require access to affordable energy.

This principle is relevant to postcolonial environmental criticism because environmental policies may reproduce existing inequalities if they ignore the people most affected by economic restructuring.

For example, renewable-energy projects may provide environmental benefits while raising questions about land ownership, local participation, resource extraction, and the distribution of profits. The environmental value of a project should not remove the need to examine its social consequences.

A just transition therefore requires more than technological innovation. It involves public participation, social protection, fair employment, and respect for local rights.

The larger lesson is that environmental responsibility cannot be separated from social justice. A sustainable future must protect ecosystems while also addressing the inequalities that influence people's capacity to participate in environmental change.

9. Environmental Justice in the Indian Context

9.1 Colonial Legacies and Resource Management in India

India provides a significant context for examining the relationship between colonial history and environmental justice. Colonial administration transformed many aspects of land use, forestry, agriculture, infrastructure, and resource management. Forests and agricultural lands were often evaluated according to commercial and administrative priorities, while local communities could experience restrictions on their customary access to resources.

These histories do not explain every contemporary environmental problem in India. Present-day ecological challenges are also shaped by population growth, industrialisation, urbanisation, infrastructure development, changing consumption patterns, and modern governance. Nevertheless, colonial history remains relevant to understanding how land and resources came to be controlled and how different communities experience environmental decisions.

A postcolonial approach asks whether contemporary development policies recognise the historical relationships between communities and their environments. It also examines whether the benefits of industrial and infrastructural development are shared fairly and whether affected populations can participate meaningfully in decisions.

The question is particularly important when projects involve forests, mining, dams, roads, or large-scale industrial facilities. Such projects may provide electricity, employment, transport, or revenue, but they can also produce displacement, ecological damage, and conflicts over land.

An environmental justice perspective does not automatically reject development projects. Instead, it evaluates their consequences, the distribution of benefits, and the rights of people who may be affected.

9.2 Development, Displacement, and Environmental Rights

Development projects can produce complex relationships between economic benefits and environmental costs. A dam may support electricity generation and irrigation while also changing river ecosystems and displacing settlements. A mining project may provide employment and raw materials while creating pollution and affecting agricultural land or water supplies.

The people who receive the largest economic benefits may not always be those who experience the greatest environmental costs. This uneven distribution creates questions about justice, compensation, consultation, and the long-term sustainability of development.

Postcolonial ecocriticism encourages a historical understanding of such conflicts. It asks whether local communities are treated as active participants in environmental decision-making or as obstacles to projects designed by more powerful institutions.

Environmental rights involve more than the legal ownership of land. They can include access to clean water, safe air, healthy living conditions, and meaningful participation in decisions that affect local environments.

These concerns are particularly important for communities whose livelihoods depend directly on natural resources. Environmental degradation may threaten not only their income but also their social relationships, cultural practices, and ability to remain in their homes.

The challenge is to develop policies that recognise both the need for economic development and the importance of ecological protection. Development cannot be considered fully successful if its benefits depend on imposing disproportionate harm on vulnerable populations.

9.3 Climate Justice and Unequal Vulnerability in India

India experiences a range of climate-related challenges, including heatwaves, floods, droughts, changing rainfall patterns, and risks to agricultural production. These challenges affect regions and communities differently. Exposure to hazards is shaped by geography, but the ability to respond is also influenced by income, housing, employment, infrastructure, and access to public services.

For example, people working outdoors may face greater occupational exposure to extreme heat than those working in climate-controlled environments. Small farmers may be especially vulnerable to changing rainfall patterns when they have limited access to irrigation, insurance, or financial support. Residents of poorly serviced urban areas may experience serious difficulties during heatwaves and floods.

These examples show that climate vulnerability is not determined by weather alone. It is also influenced by social and economic conditions.

Kumar's discussion of the Anthropocene as a crisis of justice provides a useful conceptual framework for examining this relationship. Hartnett's work on climate imperialism also encourages attention to the broader economic structures that shape global climate inequality.

For India, climate justice requires both mitigation and adaptation. Reducing emissions is important, but so are heat-action plans, resilient infrastructure, water management, support for vulnerable workers, and agricultural adaptation. Such measures must be accessible to communities with different levels of resources.

The key principle is that environmental protection should not deepen existing inequalities. Climate policy must consider who is exposed to environmental risks and who possesses the resources to respond to them.

9.4 Towards a More Just Environmental Future

A more just environmental future requires the integration of ecological protection with social and economic rights. Environmental policies should recognise the needs of local communities, protect vulnerable populations, and ensure that the benefits of development do not depend on the disproportionate destruction of ecosystems.

Public participation is particularly important. Communities affected by mining, industrial projects, dams, or conservation policies should have meaningful opportunities to understand proposals, express concerns, and influence decisions.

Environmental education can also contribute by helping people understand the connections between consumption, production, ecological systems, and social inequality. However, environmental responsibility should not be reduced to individual lifestyle choices. Government policy, industrial regulation, public infrastructure, and corporate accountability are equally important parts of the discussion.

Postcolonial ecocriticism contributes to this vision by questioning the historical assumptions behind environmental development. It asks whether the natural world is treated simply as a source of wealth or recognised as a complex system upon which human societies depend.

The Indian context demonstrates that environmental justice is not only an international issue. It also involves local questions of land, labour, public health, resource access, and democratic participation. Addressing these questions is essential to creating a future in which ecological protection and human dignity support one another.

10. Critical Discussion: Who Really Broke the Planet?

10.1 Moving Beyond the Blame of Humanity as a Whole

The central argument of this assignment is that the environmental crisis cannot be adequately explained by blaming humanity as a single, undifferentiated group. Although human activities have contributed to environmental change, different societies have possessed unequal capacities to transform the Earth and have received unequal benefits from resource exploitation.

The concept of the Anthropocene identifies the scale of human influence on planetary systems. However, its broad focus on humanity can obscure the differences between industrial powers, formerly colonised societies, wealthy consumers, and economically vulnerable communities.

Kumar's understanding of the Anthropocene as a crisis of justice is relevant because it encourages a critical examination of how environmental consequences are distributed (Kumar). Similarly, Hartnett's work connects climate change with postcolonialism and climate imperialism, directing attention to the relationship between environmental harm and unequal global power.

The question “Who broke the planet?” should therefore not be answered through a simplistic division between innocent societies and guilty societies. Environmental responsibility is complex, and contemporary states and communities may contribute to environmental damage in different ways. The important point is that these contributions must be evaluated in their historical, economic, and political contexts.

A fair analysis distinguishes between those who control major economic decisions, those who benefit substantially from environmentally damaging activities, those who contribute to such systems under limited choices, and those who suffer from the consequences.

This distinction makes the environmental crisis a question of accountability rather than merely a question of human behaviour.

10.2 The Limits of Individual Environmental Responsibility

Individual actions can contribute to environmental protection. Reducing waste, conserving energy, using resources carefully, and supporting sustainable practices can be valuable. Nevertheless, individual responsibility has limits when people lack access to affordable alternatives or when larger industrial systems determine the available choices.

For example, a person may wish to use public transport but live in an area without reliable services. A household may want to adopt renewable energy but lack the financial resources to install it. A worker may depend on an environmentally harmful industry because alternative employment is unavailable.

These examples demonstrate why environmental responsibility must include institutional and structural dimensions. Governments determine many public policies, corporations influence production and investment, and international economic arrangements shape resource use.

A postcolonial perspective adds the historical dimension to this discussion. It asks how existing economic inequalities developed and whether the responsibilities imposed on different populations reflect their actual circumstances.

Climate justice, as explored by Sealey-Huggins in relation to the Caribbean, encourages consideration of the relationship between environmental vulnerability, imperialism, and unequal resources.

Therefore, individual environmental action should be encouraged without allowing powerful institutions to escape responsibility. Sustainable change requires cooperation among individuals, governments, industries, and international organisations.

10.3 Can Environmental Protection Become Another Form of Inequality?

Environmental protection is necessary, but the policies used to achieve it must also be examined critically. Measures intended to conserve ecosystems or reduce emissions can produce unintended consequences when they ignore social conditions.

For instance, conservation policies may restrict access to land without adequately recognising the rights and livelihoods of local communities. Renewable-energy projects may require minerals and land, creating new environmental pressures in places where those resources are extracted. Climate policies may also increase costs for households that have limited financial resources.

These examples do not demonstrate that conservation or renewable energy is undesirable. Instead, they show that environmental benefits do not automatically guarantee social justice.

Huggan's critique of Green Romanticism is relevant because it encourages a critical examination of environmental approaches that overlook historical and political circumstances. An environmentally attractive policy may still be unjust if its burdens are imposed on vulnerable populations.

A just environmental approach should therefore ask not only whether a policy protects nature but also how it affects communities, who participates in decision-making, and who receives the benefits.

This principle is particularly important in postcolonial contexts, where histories of land control and unequal development may influence present environmental decisions.

10.4 The Importance of Historical Accountability

Historical accountability involves recognising how earlier systems of exploitation have contributed to contemporary inequalities. It does not mean that every current problem can be attributed exclusively to colonialism or that contemporary governments have no responsibility for their own decisions.

Rather, it means that present conditions cannot always be understood without examining the historical processes that shaped them. Colonial extraction, unequal trade relationships, and the concentration of economic power have influenced the development of many societies, although their effects differ across regions.

The relationship between climate change and imperialism explored by Sealey-Huggins illustrates why historical responsibility matters in discussions of vulnerable regions. Hartnett's focus on climate imperialism similarly directs attention to the continuing relevance of global power inequalities.

Historical accountability can inform practical responses. These may include international climate finance, support for adaptation, fair access to technology, environmental restoration, and stronger protection for communities affected by ecological damage.

Such measures should not be understood simply as acts of charity. They can also be considered part of a broader effort to address unequal responsibilities and capacities.

The environmental crisis is global, but the responsibilities for responding to it should reflect the different historical and present circumstances of the societies involved.

11. Major Findings and Implications

11.1 Environmental Destruction Is Both Ecological and Political

The first major finding is that environmental destruction cannot be understood exclusively as a scientific or ecological problem. It also involves questions of land ownership, economic power, social inequality, and political decision-making.

Postcolonial ecocriticism demonstrates that environmental conditions are shaped by historical relationships between societies and their environments. The extraction of resources, the transformation of land, and the displacement of communities can produce ecological damage while also changing social and cultural relationships.

Huggan's work provides a foundation for examining the limitations of environmental approaches that overlook political history. This perspective is important because it reveals that protecting ecosystems also requires understanding the social arrangements that influence their use.

11.2 The Burdens and Benefits of Development Are Unequally Distributed

The second finding is that the benefits of economic development and the consequences of environmental degradation are not always shared equally. Some groups may receive profits, employment, and access to resources, while others experience pollution, displacement, and loss of livelihoods.

This inequality can occur within countries as well as between them. Its effects depend on economic conditions, political representation, legal protection, and access to resources.

Nare et al.'s examination of global coloniality and ecological injustice provides a literary framework for considering these relationships. It demonstrates the relevance of examining ecological damage in relation to wider structures of power.

11.3 Climate Justice Requires Differentiated Responsibility

The third finding is that a just response to climate change must recognise differences in historical contribution, economic capacity, and vulnerability. Collective action is necessary, but equal treatment does not always produce fair outcomes.

The Caribbean context discussed by Sealey-Huggins demonstrates the importance of connecting climate change with imperial histories and the protection of vulnerable communities. Robinson's work on climate justice and the Anthropocene further supports the importance of examining climate change through questions of justice.

These perspectives suggest that climate policies should combine emissions reduction with adaptation, financial support, and protection for vulnerable populations.

11.4 Literature Provides a Critical Space for Environmental Awareness

The fourth finding is that literature can reveal the human experiences behind ecological destruction. Through the representation of land, displacement, community life, and resistance, literary works can challenge dominant accounts of economic progress.

The studies of Imbolo Mbue and Mahmoud Darwish included in this assignment demonstrate the value of postcolonial ecocritical reading. These works provide opportunities to explore the relationship between colonial histories, ecological damage, and the experiences of communities affected by unequal power.

Literature cannot independently resolve environmental problems, but it can encourage critical reflection and make marginalised experiences more visible.

11.5 A Just Future Requires Structural Change

The final finding is that environmental sustainability requires more than changes in individual behaviour. It also requires policies and institutions that address the underlying causes of ecological destruction and environmental inequality.

These changes may include responsible resource management, stronger environmental regulation, inclusive decision-making, support for vulnerable communities, and fair international cooperation.

Crane's discussion of postcolonial ecocriticism is relevant to the broader intellectual framework of this assignment because it situates ecological concerns within postcolonial criticism (Crane). The approach encourages an understanding of environmental responsibility that considers both human relationships and the natural world.

Ultimately, a sustainable future must be ecologically sound as well as socially just. Environmental protection will remain incomplete if it preserves natural resources while ignoring the unequal conditions under which people depend on them.

12. Conclusion

The question “Who Broke the Planet?” invites a reconsideration of the historical and political conditions behind the contemporary environmental crisis. The Anthropocene identifies the significant influence of human activities on the Earth, but it does not automatically explain why responsibility, environmental benefits, and ecological risks are distributed unequally. A critical understanding of the environmental crisis must therefore move beyond the general statement that humanity has damaged the planet and examine the different historical circumstances in which environmental destruction has taken place.

This assignment has argued that colonial histories are essential to understanding many contemporary environmental inequalities. Colonial systems frequently reorganised land, agriculture, forests, minerals, and labour to serve imperial economic interests. These transformations affected ecosystems and communities, while patterns of unequal resource control could continue to influence development after formal colonial rule ended. Although colonialism is not the only cause of environmental destruction, it remains an important part of the historical background against which present inequalities must be examined.

Postcolonial ecocriticism provides an effective framework for exploring these connections. Huggan's critique of Green Romanticism encourages readers to look beyond idealised images of nature and examine the political histories shaping environmental relationships. Crane's work on postcolonial ecocriticism also contributes to the conceptual framework for connecting ecological concerns with colonial histories and cultural criticism . This approach demonstrates that landscapes are not simply physical spaces; they can also represent ownership, labour, memory, dispossession, and resistance.

Works Cited

Crane, Kylie. “Postcolonial Ecocriticism.” Springer eBooks, 2026, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-70886-6_27-1.

Hartnett, Rachel. “Climate Imperialism: Ecocriticism, Postcolonialism, and Global Climate Change.” eTropic: Electronic Journal of Studies in the Tropics, vol. 20, no. 2, Sept. 2021, pp. 138–155. https://doi.org/10.25120/etropic.20.2.2021.3809.

Huggan, Graham. “Postcolonial Ecocriticism and the Limits of Green Romanticism.” Journal of Postcolonial Writing, vol. 45, no. 1, 2009, pp. 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449850802636465.

Kumar, A. “Ruptures of the Anthropocene: A Crisis of Justice.” Dialogues in Human Geography, vol. 13, no. 2, 2023, pp. 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206231155704.

Nare, M., et al. “Global Coloniality and Ecological Injustice in Imbolo Mbue’s How Beautiful We Were (2021).” Journal of Black Studies, vol. 55, no. 4, 2024, pp. 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219347241238445.

Qabaha, Ahmad, and Abdel Karim Daraghmeh. “A Postcolonial Ecocritical Reading of Mahmoud Darwish’s ‘The Red Indian’s Penultimate Speech to the White Man.’” Arab Studies Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 2, 2023, pp. 111–133. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48726304. Accessed 17 Oct. 2026.

Robinson, B. L. “Climate Justice: Walter Benjamin and the Anthropocene.” The Germanic Review: Literature, Culture, Theory, vol. 96, no. 2, 2021, pp. 124–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/00168890.2021.1897502.

Sealey-Huggins, Leon. “‘1.5°C to Stay Alive’: Climate Change, Imperialism and Justice for the Caribbean.” Third World Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 11, 2017, pp. 2444–2463. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1368013.

Saturday, October 17, 2026

Assignment of Paper 203- The Postcolonial Studies

Who Broke the Planet? Colonial Histories, Environmental Injustice, and the Politics of the Anthropocene

Table of content

Academic Details:

Assignment Details: