In the context of the current climate crisis and increasingly exacerbated environmental violence, issues of representation are paramount. Visual cultures determine how anthropogenic climate change is felt, understood and acted upon, and cinema in particular has taken up the aesthetic challenge of bearing witness to “slow violence” (Nixon) and “quasi-events” (Povinelli)—to accumulative, often imperceptible conditions that spill into the future, felt pre-emptively in the present. Furthermore, the shortcomings of political representation—across lines of race, ethnicity, class and gender—are made visible in widespread climate colonialism and environmental racism. Key here are the representational quagmires concerning “voice,” agency, narration, sovereignty and translation that postcolonial theory and decoloniality have been grappling with for decades, in this case extended to relations between humans and environments and the capacity for self-representation of each. But equally dangerous as mis-representation or mis-recognition is the risk of over-representation as over-determination, and the capture of difference. What representational strategies are at our disposal for negotiating this? In the context of the global extractive economy, what might be a non-extractive, non-appropriative aesthetics? Turning to various examples, I ask what the role is here of cinematic and filmic practice, experimental and otherwise.