2021/04/08

NaomiKlein, On Fire: The Burning Case for a Green New Deal

On Fire: The Burning Case for a Green New Deal eBook: Klein, Naomi: Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store

On Fire: The Burning Case for a Green New Deal Kindle Edition
by Naomi Klein  (Author)  Format: Kindle Edition
4.6 out of 5 stars    399 ratings
 See all formats and editions
Kindle
$14.99
Read with Our Free App
 
Audible Logo Audiobook
1 Credit
 -----------------------

#1 New York Times and internationally bestselling author Naomi Klein makes the case for a Green New Deal in this “keenly argued, well-researched, and impassioned” manifesto (The Washington Post).

An instant bestseller, On Fire shows Klein at her most prophetic and philosophical, investigating the climate crisis not only as a profound political challenge but also as a spiritual and imaginative one. Delving into topics ranging from the clash between ecological time and our culture of “perpetual now,” to the soaring history of humans changing and evolving rapidly in the face of grave threats, to rising white supremacy and fortressed borders as a form of “climate barbarism,” this is a rousing call to action for a planet on the brink.

An expansive, far-ranging exploration that sees the battle for a greener world as indistinguishable from the fight for our lives, On Fire captures the burning urgency of the climate crisis, as well as the fiery energy of a rising political movement demanding a catalytic Green New Deal.

“Naomi Klein’s work has always moved and guided me. She is the great chronicler of our age of climate emergency, an inspirer of generations.” —Greta Thunberg, climate activist

"If I were a rich man, I’d buy 245 million copies of Naomi Klein’s 'On Fire' and hand-deliver them to every eligible voter in America…Klein is a skilled writer." —Jeff Goodell, The New York Times (less)

---
Product description
Book Description

No.1 international and New York Times bestselling author Naomi Klein makes the case for a Green New Deal --This text refers to the paperback edition.

Review

"[In On Fire] Naomi Klein makes a keenly argued, well-researched and impassioned case. . . . [Y]ou need to read this book."
--David Grinspoon, The Washington Post

"If I were a rich man, I'd buy 245 million copies of Naomi Klein's 'On Fire' and hand-deliver them to every eligible voter in America. . . . Klein is a skilled writer."
--Jeff Goodell, The New York Times

"Naomi Klein is the intellectual godmother of the Green New Deal --which just happens to be the most important idea in the world right now"--Bill McKibben

"A critically important thought-leader in these perilous times, a necessary voice as a courageous movement of movements rises from the ashes."--Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow

"For a quarter century, now, Naomi Klein has been an outspoken and fearless voice on that which late-stage hyper-capitalism has wrought upon the world: income inequality, overreaching corporate power, for-profit empire building and, of course, the consequent climate crisis. Honestly, we don't deserve her, and looking back at her seven books one can't help but think of Cassandra, her warnings ever accurate yet unheeded... with her eighth book, On Fire, Klein collects her longform writing on the climate crisis--from the dying Great Barrier Reef to hurricane-ravaged Puerto Rico--and somehow manages to strike a hopeful note as she calls for a radical commitment to the Green New Deal, the kind of collective mobilization that saved us from the brink in WWII, and might be our only hope now."--Lit Hub

"Masterful. . .What separates Klein from many other advocates for a Green New Deal is her balanced combination of idealism and politics-based realism. . .Another important addition to the literature on the most essential issue of our day."--Kirkus Reviews

"Naomi is like a great doctor--she can diagnose problems nobody else sees."--Alfonso Cuarón, Academy Award-winning director of Roma

"Naomi Klein applies her fine, fierce and meticulous mind to the greatest, most urgent questions of our times. . . . I count her among the most inspirational political thinkers in the world today."--Arundhati Roy, Man Booker Prize-winng author of The God of Small Things

"Naomi Klein is a precious gift: every time I read her words, my heart leaps from sadness and anger to action. She takes us deep, down to the roots of what is wrong--and then up, up to a height from which we can see what must be done. Everything we love is at stake now: these writings are our best and brightest hope."--Emma Thompson

"Naomi Klein's work has always moved and guided me. She is the great chronicler of our age of climate emergency, an inspirer of generations."--Greta Thunberg, climate activist --This text refers to the paperback edition.
Read more
Product details
ASIN : B07P32FHMD
Publisher : Allen Lane; 1st edition (17 September 2019)
---
Print length : 310 pages
----
Customer Reviews: 4.6 out of 5 stars    399 ratings
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
The Uninhabitable Earth: A Story of the Future
The Uninhabitable Earth: A Story of the Future
David Wallace-Wells
4.5 out of 5 stars 2,116
---
Top reviews from Australia
Amazon Customer
3.0 out of 5 stars It's not about a Green New Deal
Reviewed in Australia on 31 October 2019
Verified Purchase
I tried to read this, but it doesn't live up to the title. Whilst there is some good work in it about a Green New Deal, it is superficial and I wish the whole book had been dedicated to this much needed topic. It makes random and at times ethically questionable connections to current affairs like the Christchurch massacre, to support what is largely a rhetorical argument of stirring prose but little else. It's a long way from the seminal No Logo written 20 years ago.
--
Christopher Meder
5.0 out of 5 stars Best book of the year!
Reviewed in Australia on 30 December 2019
Best book I've read in years! What a refreshing read, free of cognitive biases, deflections and excuses. Very apt analogies and social commentaries that cuts through layers of misinformation and conservatives posturing. Not just a sobering book but also one offering possible path forward.
--
Top reviews from other countries
satisficer
3.0 out of 5 stars Good read but lacking
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 30 December 2019
Verified Purchase
I enjoy reading Naomi Klein but I know I will be getting into something invariably polemical. It is true that current economic growth paradigm is not sustainable, but I do not believe the current model is best described as ‘neoliberal’, certainly not outside America. nor is there much evidence that the government is the leading light for change. Most of the world is already some kind of mixed economy. And the ‘corporations bad, government good’ line (also 'globalism bad, localism good') doesn’t bare basic scrutiny. Of the top 100 CO2 polluting organisations in the world (responsible for 70% co2 emissions), the majority are state owned. This suggests ownership structures (private vs public) is not the crux of the issue.

Her praise of Germany's energy transition policy shows a blatant disregard for facts. Germany committed to shutting down nuclear following Fukushima (again this fits with her ideological opposition to nuclear), and 'localism' (which she favours) has put meant no onshore wind is currently being built because the NIMBYs do not want it. Germany has contributed nothing to decarbonisation since 2010. She glosses over the slow pace of coal shutdowns in Germany as if it's a minor footnote with only passing relevance to her main point. It is not. Further, the reason coal is being shutdown slowly is to support employment in the coal sectors, and to manage the socio-economic implications of the transition for real people. In her world, this conflict simply does not exist.

Compare Germany with the UK strategy, which barely gets a mention. This is largely private sector and markets based (with highly successful auction based subsidy regime for renewables), and with legally enshrined decarbonisation targets. UK (and other European) offshore wind subsidies have largely paid for development of the technology, now being developed globally. Again, the innovation is being delivered by large, profit-seeking corporations. The government is providing market structure but it is not delivering the investment or the change.

I guess the biggest question for me is what political structure she is actually advocating. What if there is no democratic mandate for the kind of change she thinks is required?
---
17 people found this helpful
---
papapownall
5.0 out of 5 stars The case for a Green New Deal is compelling
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 7 October 2019
Verified Purchase
Astonishingly it is 20 years since Naomi Klein wrote No Logo which focused on the how big brands simultaneously control the lives of consumers in the developed world and exploit workforces in the poorer countries who manufacture their products. This shook many people into action and affected the public profile of at least some of the global companies who adjusted their ways as a result.

Naomi Klein is now focused on wider issues associated with the climate change emergency and, in this book, she echoes the voice of Greta Thunberg (who was not even born when No Logo came out), to appeal for us all to act as if this was an emergency. Klien calls for a Green New Deal similar to FD Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930's that turned the United States from the depths of economic depression to a global superpower in less than a generation. The book consists of a series of essays that Klein has written between 2016 and 2019 in response to the current issues and, in particular, the obvious candidates who are the non believers who continue to plough on with destructive fossil fuels.

The case for a Green New Deal is compelling and this book is as relevant as anything written on the subject of the climate emergency. If this book is as successful as No Logo in changing both public perception and that of those in power then there might just be a chance. We live in hope.
---
10 people found this helpful
Report abuse
strangefruit
5.0 out of 5 stars An important book about climate Crisis
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 1 October 2019
Verified Purchase
Why is Climate Crisis happening, what can we do, what are the options? Why the systems of the western world have to change for the sake of our very existence on the planet. Why the Crisis is as much a crisis of capitalism as of Climate, the two intertwined. Klein's clear and un-fussy language gives you the information up to the date the book was published.
4 people found this helpful
Report abuse
Amazon Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant book
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 8 October 2019
Verified Purchase
This seems to be a collection of transcriptions of talks Naomi Klein has given over the past few years. She addresses the many causes for our current climate crisis and outlines some solid ways we can pull ourselves back from the brink. If only everyone would read this book maybe we could all pull together because that's what's needed.
6 people found this helpful
---
Kindle Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars A layman's argument for A Green New Deal
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 28 October 2020
Verified Purchase
If the climate action, the climate emergency and the idea of a green new deal are still subjects on which you feel shaky, then this book isn't a bad place to start, in looking at the politics of climate change. There are other books which go deeper into the scientific basis for various scenarios or which go into the technological options for mitigation and for a more sustainable future. This book, does what it says on the cover: it makes the case for a green new deal - in essence, pointing the way to the politics and economics of the future, in a way which will leave you excited and curious to learn more - rather than in a way that gives all the answers in great detail. It's an effective argument, not a manual.
Report abuse
See all reviews
Report an issue
--
On Fire: The Case for the Green New Deal
 Want to Read
Rate this book
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
On Fire: The Case for the Green New Deal
by Naomi Klein
 4.22  ·   Rating details ·  3,720 ratings  ·  505 reviews
#1 New York Times and internationally bestselling author Naomi Klein makes the case for a Green New Deal in this “keenly argued, well-researched, and impassioned” manifesto (The Washington Post).

An instant bestseller, On Fire shows Klein at her most prophetic and philosophical, investigating the climate crisis not only as a profound political challenge but also as a spiritual and imaginative one. Delving into topics ranging from the clash between ecological time and our culture of “perpetual now,” to the soaring history of humans changing and evolving rapidly in the face of grave threats, to rising white supremacy and fortressed borders as a form of “climate barbarism,” this is a rousing call to action for a planet on the brink.

An expansive, far-ranging exploration that sees the battle for a greener world as indistinguishable from the fight for our lives, On Fire captures the burning urgency of the climate crisis, as well as the fiery energy of a rising political movement demanding a catalytic Green New Deal.

“Naomi Klein’s work has always moved and guided me. She is the great chronicler of our age of climate emergency, an inspirer of generations.” —Greta Thunberg, climate activist

"If I were a rich man, I’d buy 245 million copies of Naomi Klein’s 'On Fire' and hand-deliver them to every eligible voter in America…Klein is a skilled writer." —Jeff Goodell, The New York Times (less)

Rating
1 of 5 stars2 of 5 stars3 of 5 stars4 of 5 stars5 of 5 stars
Shelves to-read edit
( 808th )
Format Audiobook edit
Status
April 7, 2021 – Shelved as: to-read
April 7, 2021 – Shelved
Review Write a review
 
comment
FRIEND REVIEWS
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
READER Q&A
Ask the Goodreads community a question about On Fire
54355902. uy100 cr1,0,100,100 
Ask anything about the book
Be the first to ask a question about On Fire

LISTS WITH THIS BOOK
The Constitution of the United States of America by Founding FathersThe Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm XLiberty and Tyranny by Mark R. LevinThe Prince by Niccolò MachiavelliShortest Way Home by Pete Buttigieg
Best Popular Nonfiction Politics Books on Goodreads
676 books — 38 voters
The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth KolbertThis Changes Everything by Naomi KleinCollapse by Jared DiamondThe Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-WellsMerchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes
Best Popular Climate Books on Goodreads
116 books — 9 voters

---
COMMUNITY REVIEWS
Showing 1-30
 Average rating4.22  ·  Rating details ·  3,720 ratings  ·  505 reviews
---
Mario the lone bookwolf
Sep 30, 2019Mario the lone bookwolf rated it it was amazing
Shelves: klein-naomi, 0-social-criticism
We can create heaven or hell on earth, change the system or drive it against the wall, go towards a real utopia or a dystopia. With the climate as a cruel tyrant, wiping many of us from the planet.

Klein presents a collection of essays and concrete ideas towards an ecosocial change. As living examples, the Scandinavian states with their Nordic model can be seen as proof of functioning of a fairer society. Because critics like to say that humans aren´t philanthropic and altruistic and won´t work together and that there is only one working, economic system. Interestingly Sweden, Norway, Finnland, Iceland and Denmark are highest rated in the Human Development Index. The Swiss and The Netherlands, are, to a certain extent, similar too.

It seems as if the state is highly regulated and the humans live in prosperity, security and peace, they are friendly to each other.
And if the state is unregulated and the full carnivore potential for cruelty is unleashed, they shoot and extort each other. I mean, just look at the prisons and the educational system of the US and those countries. Mass incarceration with people becoming real criminals in prison or real resocialization and amnesty. Stupid frontal education with a lot of dropouts or an education based on the child-friendly standards of Montessori and Waldorf. And so on.
But what do I know, I am no economist.

In astronomy, one can take a look in the future. On planets that went different ways of runaway greenhouse effects. Venus, Mars, etc. Certainly, the whole progresses are still not nearly understood, but the facts are on the table. And even the melting of all ice on the planet won´t be such a big deal in contrast to possible catastrophes. Superstorms, the size of continents, that won´t ever stop, milling the surface and making life impossible in many regions. Probably a skip to global cooling, so that Snowball earth is there again and all freezes to death. We don´t understand the sun, so if it´s activity level suddenly drops, that could get nasty. A supervolcano that strengthens the effects. Combine astronomy with geology and meteorology and one gets many possible outcomes. Not in decades or centuries, but in millenniums, much can happen, started by our today's actions. And we see proofs of it everywhere in the night's sky.

A completely subjective standpoint: Got me, I am biased. I believe in wisdom and education that lead to a technological singularity. Or, in shorter terms, I am a friendly technocrat. Technology will certainly save us and enable space colonization, the solving of many problems, yada yada yada. The critical factor is time and I don´t believe that we will have sufficient possibilities to manipulate weather and climate in adequate quantities if we mess up everything with such a speed. Just imagine the number of machines needed to change global weather systems. If we don´t stop right enough in front of the abyss, the green planet probably won´t change its colour, cause global greening is just one of the possibilities.

But it will have lost its unique habitability and up to 99 percent of all species on it. Just extremophiles, cockroaches and us in underground bunkers, dealing with the problem of avoiding or at least minimizing incest because so few of us survived or were privileged enough to enter the underground facilities. Could also be that even that isn´t the worst problem, but avoiding epidemics and turning towards cannibalism to survive.

A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this overrated real-life outside books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_D...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planeta... (less)
flag107 likes · Like  · see review
Michael
Oct 04, 2019Michael rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: 2019, recs
Propulsive and inspirational, On Fire: The Burning Case for a Green New Deal lays out a lucid roadmap for building a carbon-free, just society. Across several succinct speeches, think pieces, and long-form articles, Klein makes clear how a swift transition to clean energy has the potential to create a fair economy, right historical injustice, and repair the worn fabric of civil society. The standout intro and epilogue highlight how youth-led organizations like the Sunrise Movement, progressive politicians of color, and Indigenous communities are leading the fight for a sustainable future, while visionary pieces such as “The Leap Years” and “The Stakes of Our Historical Moment” stress that anything short of radical action on climate change now will result in unfathomable devastation in mere decades. Klein smartly ties climate catastrophe to both the resurgence of white supremacy across the West as well as the rebirth of democratic socialism; she convincingly argues that only robust social movements, leftist electoral victories, and a collective embrace of empathy will save the world from imminent ruin and climate barbarism. (less)
flag55 likes · Like  · comment · see review
Lyn Elliott
Jan 04, 2020Lyn Elliott rated it liked it
Shelves: environment, apocalypse-now
Naomi Klein’s book of essays roils with indignation at the consequences of stretching the limits of the environment, as in deep sea oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and of ignoring the actuality, let alone the implications, of climate change.

If you’re not familiar with these issues, this is a lively place to acquaint yourself. If you are, it’s useful to be reminded of the need for all of us to play as active a role as we can to influence governments and corporations to change their decision making models. And, of course, to do our own tiny bits to think global, act local.

As GR friend Jan-Maat pointed out, the title is horrifyingly accurate as Australia burns in this apocalyptic summer, still with a long way to go. The consequences of these fires are unimaginable. Estimates several days ago were that 4 million hectares (nearly 10 million acres) of forest and farmland had been burned in the state of New South Wales alone. New areas have since gone up in flames, nearly half of the pristine environment of Kangaroo Island is burned. Over 500 million native animals are estimated to have died, and that doesn’t include insects.
With the continued lowering of rainfall, the plant species that have burned can’t necessarily be replaced. What should we plant instead? Goodness knows.

And then there are the thousands of people who have lost their homes and their animals. Communities razed to the ground, holiday makers rescued by the navy from coastal areas where the skies are red and black from fire.
Our capital, Canberra, has the worst air quality amongst world cities at the moment as it is enveloped with smoke from fires on three sides, 60 km and more away,

We live in a beautiful part of the Adelaide Hills that so far has escaped, but we know that we are living in a precarious space.

Our incompetent and slippery government still denies climate change, recently negotiated the carry over of carbon credits so it wouldn’t have to do anything to reduce emissions, let alone impede the extraction and burning of coal.
And we have nothing approaching a water policy.
As inland towns run out of water and rivers run dry, we have huge irrigation franchises for foreign-owned companies to grow cotton in the desert (Cubbie Station is the worst).
A Chinese company has been given approval to mine underground water in Queensland:
https://www.theguardian.com/environme...

A Norwegian oil company is planning to drill for deep sea oil, not in its own waters, but in the remarkable marine environment of the Great Australian Bight.

I could go on, but you get the picture. My own head of indignation is running very high! (less)
flag20 likes · Like  · 17 comments · see review
Kevin
Feb 16, 2020Kevin rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: 1-how-the-world-works, econ-environment
Beyond “No!” protests: building a future.

The Good:
--Accessibility: unlike academic social science hieroglyphs, I take the time to read Klein’s works to experience how she engages with the wider public.
--This book is a collection of her articles/lectures on one of the great ideas in the age of runaway capitalist climate destruction. Highlights:

1) Beyond denial: the greater threats of hopelessness and climate barbarism.
--US fossil fuel companies have been planning for climate change for over 40 years now. For the past decade, the US military has been (openly) planning too. Those in power only use denialism as a tool, as they fortify their own properties and build contingency plans.
-Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
-Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence
--While I won’t miss those convoluted "debates" with denialists who live in an alternate universe with inverse power structures (as they try to apply common notions of “follow the money”, “propaganda”, “science”, etc.), we must focus on the greater threats of:
a) Hopelessness: as Klein emphasizes, climate change became an issue at a catastrophic time, during the peak of Neoliberalism where governments gave way to the divine right of capital (and austerity for the rest), and social imagination for collective action dissipated into there-is-no-alternative individualism.
b) Climate barbarism: societies gutted of solidarity and empathy breed monsters during crises. Thus, the rise of the Far Right (including Eco-fascism) as a backlash to rampant austerity, triggered and diverted by more visible perceived threats like refugees (in part climate refugees). Vijay Prashad on the rise of the Right: https://youtu.be/z11ohWnuwa0
-Too Many People?: Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis

2) The Necessity of the Green New Deal:
--Hopelessness (with the #1 concern of “jobs”) is directly tackled by the Green New Deal, which is at its core a jobs program. The “New Deal” part revives and builds on the social imagination of previous New Deals government programs to combat the Great Depression, as well as the Marshall Plan to reconstruct Western Europe after WWII.
--Climate barbarism is directly tackled by providing relief as we ready for more climate disasters. Centrist plans to narrowly focus on climate change fail especially during economic trouble; this was made most vivid by the Yellow vests protests against Macron. Economic justice slays monsters before they can fester.

3) Deeper maladies: capitalism’s colonialism:
--Klein considers how national narratives influence social values when analyzing why countries like the US, Canada, and Australia are behind Europe in climate action. Settler colonialism was built on narratives of the endlessness of the "New World", as Europe had ran into exhaustion.
-The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America
-Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming

The Missing:
--While this book is a compelling intro for the general public and a useful refresher for activists, numerous sub-topics demand further explorations:
1) Capitalism’s logic of cancerous growth and profit, as well as the current situation of a mountain of idle savings despite the urgent need for green investments.
2) Global implications of the Green New Deal, and the Global South origins of environmental/economic justice.
3) The political economy of divestment as a strategy.
4) More details on the ideas within various Green New Deals/ the Leap Manifesto, particularly tying them with:
a) economic democracy, public banking:
-Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism
-The Public Bank Solution: From Austerity to Prosperity
b) revaluing care-work:
-The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values
-Bullshit Jobs: A Theory
(less)
flag19 likes · Like  · 4 comments · see review
---
Quirkyreader
Sep 17, 2019Quirkyreader rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
First off, I got this book from the publisher sponsored by LitHub.com.

I have read other books by Klein that were though provoking and moving. I expected no less from this book.

This book is a collection of essays that Klein has written over the years about the Earth heating up and what individuals and groups are doing to “turn down the thermostat”. It also focuses on groups that don’t want to hear about it and want to keep on as business as usual.

I will admit I came to this book with a bit of a bias, I am a long time recycler and I try to find ways to encourage everyone to do it in a way that works best for them.

With this book it shows that little things are not in vain. It’s the small things that can inspire a movement.

I am using this book as a tool to inspire me even more with my work and I hope it inspires everyone who reads it to do better for the planet. (less)
flag15 likes · Like  · comment · see review
----
Candie
Dec 15, 2019Candie rated it it was amazing
I really enjoy Naomi Klein's books and I would not say that this one is any different. It is a very interesting book on some very important topics of today; such as climate change and it's disastrous effects, systemic racism, capitalism, economic inequality within countries and between countries and the dismal outlook on our future if immediate and drastic changes are not made.

I genuinely think that this is a book for everybody and that at the very least, even if you do not agree with all of the things that she says, the topics, news and ideas alone would make for a very interesting read and good topics of conversation. (less)
flag17 likes · Like  · 2 comments · see review
---
Malcolm
Sep 24, 2019Malcolm rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: activism
One of the many things that has intrigued me about the long run emergence of the climate emergency we now live in has been the shifting language we use to describe it. Leave aside the outright deniers, although in recent years many of them have shifted from denial of global warming to denial of it human causes; the rest of us have gone from talking of a build-up of greenhouse gasses (this is after the hydrofluorocarbon focus of the 1970s, and the hole in the ozone layer) to global warming to climate change. We’ve shifted from a technical description (complete with potent, comprehensible, metaphor) to (scary) literal description to (less scary) vaguely generic label, almost as if we’ve sought to downplay the extent of the crisis. Yet the message I seem to have taken from this ever shifting language is one of deferral, that we’ve called it something less scary and although the collective efforts of a global environmental movement have brought about less change than necessary the issue seems to have been left in the we’ll get to it soon basket.

Reading this collection of Naomi Klein’s essays from over the last decade reminds me how dangerous that deferral has been but also how language and practice have changed in important ways and that we’ve come a lot further than it might seem, amid the incremental tweaks and failures of state policy. Of the 18 essays, 15 are previously published – some presented here in a largely unchanged form with notes or an epilogue to adjust and update key points – while some of the more recent pieces, from the last two years, have been reworked and in some aspects extended or deepened. There is a long scene-setting introduction, and a shorter final essay making the case for a Green New Deal.

The overall sense is clear; we are in a state of climate emergency. If the advice from scientists is right (and increasingly it looks as if they might have been conservative, at least in respect of melting ice caps and high mountain areas) then we’re edging towards the last decade where meaningful action is possible. We know that tipping points can be abrupt, that we might incrementally move towards a moment of change, and when that moment arrives change is rapid, intense and profound – that’s why it is called a tipping point, but that’s also what makes the Green New Deal inspiring: the state of emergency Klein outlines can only be addressed by comprehensive, coordinated action tailored to local/national/regional policy, social, economic and cultural situations. It is a compelling case. She looks at wild fires and rising sea temperatures, at the Deepwater Horizon disaster and Hurricane Maria’s devastation of Puerto Rico made worse by the economic evisceration of the territory; she explores emerging social movements and unexpected institutional changes to remind us that amid the crisis there is not only a long-standing network of activists an organisations, but that there are also unexpected allies and the dangers of hanging on to the gradualism that has infected policy responses in the last 25 or more years. Throughout it all, there is powerful case for a global response based in the principles of justice, and a reminder that around 250 years of economic development and practice has been based on the extraction of value – of land and labour – from colonised and otherwise occupied parts of the world, many of which are bearing the brunt of climate change….. there I go, euphemising again – global warming!

It is, however, a collection of essays so while there is an overarching argument in support of the Green New Deal the book lacks the coherence of This Changes Everything , as it should – such is the nature of the essay; so this could be considered an appendix to the earlier book, even as it overlaps both in time and issues traversed. As an appendix, it raises the stakes, from the analysis of extractivism to the need for comprehensive action; in that it is a vital extension and intensification of the earlier book, but also stands independently – such is the virtue of the essay form.

There is a lot of hoo-ha about the Green New Deal – those who see it as a plot and those who see it as the solution to all. Both are wrong: it is however, it seems to me, on the basis of Klein’s demystification of much of it here and other readings, a valuable frame to work within – and as I hear the deniers (who we now call sceptics, which gives then undeserved credibility) deny, I am reminded of that cartoon that used to do the rounds suggesting that even if the science is wrong, we’ve finished up making the world a better place – but then I’ve been convinced since the late 1970s that the science is right, so I would say that….

On Fire is engaging, accessible and a compelling foray into the basic question of our times and timely reminder of the state we’re in. What’s more, despite the sense of crisis, it’s an inspiring read. (less)
flag10 likes ·

----
Erik
Sep 29, 2019Erik rated it liked it
If you haven't read much else by Klein, this is a good intro to her take on the climate movement. But since I had just read her earlier book on the movement, "This Changes Everything," I found the new book less interesting. "On Fire" reprints two chapters from the earlier book, perhaps with some minor changes, though if so, not immediately apparent ones. Other essays are speeches given in various countries including Britain and Australia with less appeal outside of those particular nations.

What I did like was her take on the Green New Deal at the very end. She makes a good case for why a serious effort to fight climate change is needed and why it needs to include everyone in society, from the government on down. However, I'm still not convinced that we require "democratic" socialism to fight climate change and that conservatives need to be excluded from solutions. No major policy changes will be long lasting if the left just shoves them down the throat of everyone else. It's too easy for the opposing party to reverse them in the future.

Finally, it's helpful that she refers back to the history of FDR's original New Deal. But she doesn't seem to see much role for national feeling or patriotism, which was a huge selling point of Roosevelt's approach. Instead, Klein seems to imagine a series of GNDs that happen in various countries but are driven by cosmopolitan elites and the "woke" masses, much like an international socialist revolution. This is idealistic but I'm not sure how realistic it is, given that successful movements in the past combined an international outlook with one that was also national.

I'd love to see Klein find a place in the climate movement for people who love their country as much as they care about the world and also for people who are inspired by the past accomplishments and philosophies of our own Western countries as much as they are by the traditions of the indigenous peoples that Klein so admires.

But this book is worth reading alone for Klein's skillful critique of the doomerism of Nathaniel Rich's book "Losing Earth." Rich wrongly asserts that the late 1980s were the best time to fight climate change, ignoring the ascendance of extreme capitalism and a culture of greed-is-good driven by globalization and deregulation whose beau ideal was Ayn Rand. Rich claims that "we" (meaning you and me, not Exxon and the US govt) missed this once-in-a-lifetime chance to save the climate in 1988-89 because we were too selfish or shortsighted to make major changes in our consumer lives. He's wrong and Klein places the blame where it belongs, with oil companies and the governments they control, and offers hope that ordinary people can and will mobilize for an economy that's both clean and fair. (less)
flag9 likes ·
---
Randall Wallace
Sep 14, 2019Randall Wallace rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
As both parties happily drift to the right, we should not be surprised that the number of Americans who believe climate change is real has plummeted from 71% in 2007 to 51% in 2009, and 44% in 2011. If the trend continues, the Simpson’s character Cletus will become the fount of all wisdom while Americans report to work in Snuggies. Republicans are opposed to recognizing the climate crisis simply because they know its solution would mean wealth distribution, resource sharing and reparations. As Naomi says, “climate change detonates the ideological scaffolding on which contemporary conservatism rests.” It’s hard to keep vilifying collective action when it’s the only workable solution.

As Greta Thunberg said, “We have to stop competing with each other. We need to start cooperating and sharing the remaining resources of this planet in a fair way.” One of the advantages of autism, Greta Thunberg says, is that you are less apt to repeat the social behaviors of your peers which helps to forge a unique path. This allows you to focus with great intensity, removes the need for deception and lying, while seeing things more in black and white. As a result, Greta’s public comments are often, “short, unadorned and scathing”. Naomi shows how FDR’s New Deal showed us how the Green New Deal could easily help the people, infrastructure, economy, common spaces, air and water. The IPCC report shows that every half degree of warming involves the death of hundreds of millions of people. The Union of Concerned Scientists has shown us that, “the U.S. Military is the largest institutional consumer of oil in the world.” The current immigration logic is to treat immigrants with such “callousness and cruelty” that no one would want to enter the country unless they looked like Melania. The Great Depression only caused a 10% reduction in CO2 for a few years. A recent discovery is that the genocide of indigenous Americans factored into the Little Ice Age of the 1500 to 1600’s which was caused by so much land being removed from production (which led to more sequestering of carbon). The great Auks were killed off to keep the pillows and mattresses in Europe stuffed.

In the United States, we are taught to hate “the other” – we hate migrants (comically forgetting most of us are technically migrants – Jared Diamond said the American people move, on average, once every five years), we hate Muslims (because they gave us the concept of bathing and washing), hate Blacks (because for centuries we’ve owed them reparations) and hate women (to better pretend we rank higher or we’re the Lord of the trailer). In the end Naomi sees the solution is Kimberle Crenshaw’s Intersectionality, where all paths converge with low-carbon policies. Changing our lifestyle and maybe our neighborhood must go hand in hand with demanding structural changes in insure a future. And mass uprisings of the people are the way to create the necessary “friction” to slow the capitalist machine. What we need is “an intersectional approach to social and political change.” For Naomi, Socialism has made many mistakes with the environment which is why the answer is Eco-Socialism. (less)
flag8 likes ·
----
David Jordan
Sep 13, 2019David Jordan rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
It's exciting to have the opportunity to read a book that feels so important. Our rapidly advancing climate crisis has advanced beyond the worrisome stage and we are faced with the possibility of catastrophic disaster if we continue on the destructive path that has brought us to this place. Naomi Klein shares her considerable expertise and formidable knowledge concerning climate change, environmental disaster, and the intersectionality of economic inequality, systemic racism, the dangerous excesses of unregulated capitalism, the immigration crisis, declining health outcomes, and more. That might make it sound like an enormously depressing read, but the good news here is that Ms. Klein has created a compelling case for a comprehensive Green New Deal that would create the potential for improving and even alleviating most or all of these problems. She exhaustively documents the need for such a program and convincingly lays out her case for adopting a Green New Deal now.
This very moment.
I was tempted to despair as I read her account of the many climate disasters our world is currently subject to, some of which I did not even know about. Thankfully though, I found reason for hope in the pages of this book. "On Fire" is certainly one of the most important and inspiring books that I have read in a very long time, and I am enthusiastically recommending it to everyone who lives on this planet, and wants to keep doing so.

Thank you to Simon & Schuster and LitHub.com for the complimentary advance review copy. (less)
flag8 likes · Like  · comment · see review

Minjung Kim 나오미 클라인과 그레타 툰베리의 대담!

Facebook



Minjung Kim
r12t SSeuplpontnfucsgegmcomberS ur20oe1o9ordi ·





그레타 툰베리와 함께

r12t SSeuplpontnfucsgegmcomberS ur20oe1o9ordi ·

그레타 툰베리 한국 팬 페이지에서 기후 활동가들을 위해 준비한 추석 선물입니다.
나오미 클라인과 그레타 툰베리의 대담!
9월 9일 뉴욕에서 열린 <The Right to a Future, With Naomi Klein and Greta Thunberg> 행사중 30여분에 걸친 두 사람의 대화를 몽땅 우리말로 옮겼습니다.


이런 만남을 기다렸습니다. 나오미 클라인 말고 또 누가 그레타와 이런 대화를 할 수 있을까요! 언젠가 나오미 클라인은 그레타가 자신의 책에서 큰 영향을 받았다는 것을 알고 있지만, 그레타 스스로 뛰어난 직관을 갖고 있기 때문에 본인이 나아가야 할 바를 잘 알고 있다고도 했는데요, 9일의 행사에서 그레타를 소개하는 나오미 클라인의 말 중 일부를 소개하며 이 포스팅을 시작합니다.
“다보스 포럼에 참석한 부자들과 권력자들이 그레타가 희망을 준다고 찬사를 보내자, 그레타는 이렇게 대답했죠.
‘저는 여러분의 희망은 필요치 않습니다. 저는 여러분들이 패닉에 빠지길 바랍니다. 제가 매일 매일 느끼는 공포를 함께 느끼길 바랍니다. 진짜로 위기상황에 있는 것처럼 행동하길 바랍니다. 집에 불이난 것처럼 행동하길 바랍니다. 왜냐하면 진짜로 불이 났으니까요.’
그레타는 말했습니다. 기후위기를 초래한 것은 우리 모두의 탓이 아니라구요. 우리는 정말 자주 ‘우리 모두의 잘못’이라는 말을 듣는데 말이죠. 그레타는 그렇지 않다고 했어요. 대신 부자들과 권력자들의 눈을 바라보면서 말했죠. 비난 받아야 할 사람들은 바로 당신들이라구요. 당신들 책임이라구요. 그런 용감한 말을 할 수 있었던 그레타를 우리는 언제나 사랑할겁니다.”
나오미 클라인 : 그레타, 지금 어두워서 청중들이 잘 보이지 않지만, 모두 일어서서 환호하고 있는다는 거 알겠죠? 저에게는 정말로 영광스러운 일이에요. 지금 여기에서 그레타와 함께 하고 있다는 것이요. 우리가 만난 건 처음이지만 서로 알고 지낸 사이처럼 느껴져요. 먼저, 여기까지 온 길에 대한 이야기를 듣고 싶은데요, 우리 모두는 그레타가 매우 작은 보트를 타고 왔다는 걸 알고 있어요. 순전히 바람으로만 가는 배를 타구요.
그레타 : 우리 배에 타고 있는 사람들 중 한명이 아내와 위성 전화로 통화를 하다가 아마존에 큰 불이 났다는 이야기를 듣게 되었어요. 통화가 끝난 후에 그는 배에 타고 있는 사람들을 불러서 말했어요. ‘아마존이 불타고 있대.’ 매우 심각하고 충격적인 소식이었어요. 실감하기 어려웠어요. 바다 위에 있으면 할 수 있는 게 별로 없거든요. 어떻게든 영향을 미칠 수 있는 행동을 할 수도 없고, 그냥 앉아 있을 수밖에 없어요. 그래서 아무것도 할 수 없는데 (아마존에 불이 났다는 걸) 알게 되었다는 건, 끔찍했어요. 육지에 도착하고 나서야 처음으로 아마존이 불타는 사진을 보게 되었고, 좀 더 자세히 알게 되었어요. 그게 제가 도착하고 나서 제일 처음 했던 일중에 하나였던 걸로 기억해요.
나오미 클라인 : 지금 이곳에 온지 일주일 좀 넘었는데요, 미국에 온 게 처음인가요?
그레타 : 아니요. 예전에 온 적이 있어요. 그러나 기억은 나지 않아요. 세 살 때 쯤이었거든요. 사진은 있는데, 기억에는 없어요.
나오미 클라인 : 미국에 도착한 이후에 발견한 차이 같은 것들이 있나요?
그레타 툰베리 : 기후 논의에 관한 것 말인가요, 아니면?
나오미 클라인 : 일반적인 것도 포함해서요. 뉴욕 지하철에 대해서 있는 그대로 솔직하게 말해도 돼요. 하고 싶다면요.
그레타 툰베리 : 여기는 에어콘을 너무 많이 틀어요.
(청중 웃음, 박수)
나오미 클라인 : 하하 오늘은 아닙니다.
그레타 툰베리 : 여기 말구요. 무대 뒤에는 추워요. (청중 웃음) 그리고, 정말 인상적인게 많았어요. 왜냐하면 아무것도 없는 보트를 2주나 타고 온 후였으니까요. 기억나는 건, 도착하고 나서 첫날 아침 일어났을 때 어떤 냄새가 나는데.. 뭔가가 오염된 냄새 같았어요. (청중 웃음) 보트에서의 2주라는 어떤 한 극단적인 삶에서 뉴욕이라는 대도시로 온 건, 완전히 극과극의 체험이었어요. 그래서 적응하는데 며칠이 걸렸어요. 특히 한밤중에 일어나서 화장실에 갈 때 넘어질 뻔하기도 했어요. 여전히 바닥이 흔들리는 것 같았거든요. 그리고 항해가 끝나고 처음 샤워를 했을 때 진짜 좋았어요. (청중 웃음) 정말 다른 점이 많은데, 기후 위기를 이야기할 때, 여기서는 기후위기를 믿느냐 마느냐의 문제로 여기는 것 같아요. 스웨덴에서는 사실로 받아들이는데. (청중 박수)
나오미 클라인 : 사실에 대해서 이야기해보자면, 그레타가 일관적으로 이야기해온 것 중 하나는, 정치인들에게 무엇을 해야하는지에 대해 말하는 것이 아니라, 과학자들이 하는 말을 들어야 한다는 거였어요. 기후변화에 대해 연구하고 글을 쓰는 제가 보기에, 언제나 놀라운 것은, 그레타의 연설은 아주 신중하고, 최고의 과학적 보고서들이 알아보기 쉽게 인용되어 있다는 거예요. 궁금한 건, 어떻게 과학자들이랑 협업하고 있는지에요.
그레타 툰베리 : 많은 기후 과학자들과 매우 가까이 지내고 있어요. 그럴 필요가 있다고 생각해요. 정말 많은 사람들이 제가 하는 말을 듣게 될 때는요. 특히 대중들 앞에서 연설을 할때는 전달하는 사실에 대해서 정말 잘 알고 있어야 해요. 그냥 추측하는 걸 말하면 안 되거든요. 모든 것에 대해 사실을 알고 있어야 하죠. 말하는 것의 출처가 어디인지도요. 그래서 연설문을 거의 다 쓰고 나면 과학자들에게 보내요. 한명한테 보낼 때도 있고, 어떨 때는 5~6명한테 보내기도 해요. 그 분들이 보시고 틀린 사실이 없는지 확인을 받아요. 오해의 소지도 없도록 하구요. 때로는 과학자들에게 개인적으로 궁금한 것이 있으면 물어보기도 해요. ‘이게 무슨 뜻인가요’, ‘왜 저것에 대해서 이야기하고 있죠?’ 이렇게. 그러면 그 분들이 제게 설명을 해 주세요. 정말 큰 도움이 되어요.
나오미 클라인 : 놀라운게, 그레타가 학교를 가지 않기로 한 결정이 저에게는 정말 낯설게 느껴졌거든요, 그런데 지금 엄청나게 높은 레벨의 공부를 스스로 하고 있는 거네요.
그레타는 매우 단기간에 기후 행동에 있어서 가장 중요한 인물이 되었는데요, 그건 정말 무거운 책임감을 동반하는 일이거든요. 그레타는 정말 신중해요. 그레타가 지고 있는 다른 책임감에 대해서 물어보고 싶은데요, 활동 초기부터 자신이 자폐 스펙트럼에 있다는 것을 대중에 공개했어요. 트위터 프로필에 ‘아스퍼거 증후군이 있는 기후 활동가’라고 썼거든요. 그건 정말 다른 차원의 책임감이 부여되는 일이에요. 아마도 그레타는 스스로를 자폐 스펙트럼에 있다고 정체화하는 사람들 중에서 이 세상에서 가장 유명한 사람일 거에요. (청중 환호) 그건 자신이 자폐 스펙트럼에 있다고 정의하는 사람들에게 정말 중요한 일이에요.
제가 개인적으로 이렇게 말할 수 있는게, 제게는 특별한 도움이 필요한 7살 아들이 있는데, 우리 아들에게 그레타는 영웅이에요. 우리가 좀전에 행사에 앞서 함께 본 영상에서 알렉산드리아 오카시오 코테즈가 말한대로, 볼 수 없다면 될 수도 없거든요. 그레타는 아주 훌륭한 롤모델로 거기 있는 거예요. 저에게 그레타는 ‘차이는 힘이다’라는 슬로건을 몸으로 보여주는 사람이에요. 그레타는 아스퍼거 증후군이 있는 사람들의 마음이 어떻게 작동하는지 정말 아름다운 방식으로 이야기해 줘요. 어떤것에는 온전히 집중하게 되고, 또 어떤 면에서는 다른 사람들이 관심을 갖는 것에는 크게 신경을 쓰지 않기도 하구요. 그게 인스타그램에서 스타를 따라하는 것이든 뭐든 간에요. 그레타는 중요한 것이 무엇인지 알아요. 어떻게 아스퍼거 증후군이 있다는 사실을 대중에게 알릴 결정을 하게 되었나요? 그게 정말 끔찍한 공격에 자신을 노출시키는 일이기도 한데요. 어떻게 이런 결정을 내렸나요?
그레타 툰베리 : 저는 대중에게 공개하는 것에 대해 그다지 특별하게 생각하지 않았어요. 그게 그냥 제 소셜미디어 프로필에 있었고, 저는 별 생각이 없었는데, 공개하지 않아야 할 이유도 없고, 그게 왜 숨겨야하는 것인가 싶었는데, 좀 지나니 큰 일이라는 걸 알게 되었어요. 많은 사람들이 자기들이 받은 진단에 대해서 공개적이지 않더라구요. 그런데 저는 그게 중요하다고 생각했어요. 여전히 많은 사람들이 신경적으로 다원화된(neurodiverse) 진단을 받는 것을 부정적으로 생각하고 있더라구요. 그걸 필요가 없는데도요. 물론 많은면에서 그건 사람들에게 한계로 작용해요. 저에게도 많은 한계를 주지요. 그렇지만 그 한계를 어떤 좋은 것, 긍정적인 것으로 바꾸어낼 수 있거든요. 그게 제가 해낸 것이고, 더 많은 사람들이 그럴 수 있도록 용기를 불어넣어 줘야한다고 생각해요. 왜냐하면 저는 다른 모든 사람들과 다르고, 그건 저의 아스퍼거 증후군 덕분이에요. 아스퍼거 증후군이 아니었다면 저는 기후위기를 인식할 수 없었을 거예요.
제 기억에 우리 모두는 같은 사진과 영화를 보았는데, 파괴되고 있는 자연과 지금 일어나고 있는 기후위기를 다룬 같은 영화를 보았는데, 제 인생은 뒤집어 졌는데 다른 사람들의 인생은 그렇지 않았어요. 저는 그게 이해가 되지 않았어요. 기후를 위해 함께 행동하고 있는 사람들 중에는 자폐 스펙트럼에 있는 사람이 정말 많아요. 그건 당연히 우연이 아닐 거예요. 그건 우리가 말로만 하지않고 꼭 행동으로 옮기고 마는 특성이 있는 것과 상관이 있다고 생각해요. 우리에겐 아는 것과 말하는 것, 행동하는 것의 사이가 멀지 않아요. 알고 말한 것은 행동으로 옮기죠. 하지만 보통 사람들은 그렇지 않아요. 인지부조화가 있죠. 그래서 예를들면 저는 이해가 되지 않는게, ‘그래, 기후변화는 정말 중요한 문제야’하고 말해놓고 아무것도 하지 않는 사람들 말이에요. 기후위기가 얼마나 중요한 문제인지 안다면, 당신 역시도 무언가를 해야하거든요. 그래야할 책임이 있어요. (청중 박수) 그리고 만약 아스퍼거 증후군이 아니었으면, 저는 이렇게 괴짜(nerd)가 되지도 않았을 거예요. 그 지루한 사실들을 들여다볼 시간과 에너지를 내지도 못했을 거예요. (청중 웃음) 그러면서 여전히 재미있어하면서요. (청중 박수)
나오미 클라인 : 제 생각에 정말 파워풀한 것을 이야기해보자면요, 수많은 일반적인(neurotypical) 사람들이 이 견딜 수 없을 정도의 인지부조화를 어느 정도는 허용하면서 사는데요, 우리는 서로 사회적 신호를 주고 받거든요. 우리는 수백만종의 생물이 멸종 위기에 있다는 사실을 알게 되면 무척 놀라서 겁에 질려요. 그것이 우리의 처음 반응이에요. 그런데 주위를 둘러보니 사람들은 아무일도 일어나지 않은 것처럼 하던 일을 계속하는 거죠. 넷플릭스에서 재난에 관한 드라마를 보구요. 그러면 음, 그렇게 나쁜 상황은 아니군, 하고 추측하게 되고, 그 첫 번째 감각을 억눌러요. 그런데 그레타는 그 첫 번째 감각을 억누를 수 없었어요. 그래서 ‘아니야, 우리집에 불이 났어.’라고 말한 거죠. 흥미로운 점은, 처음에 그레타처럼 느꼈지만 억눌렀던 사람들이, 그레타를 보고 이제 자신들의 그 첫 번째 감각을 믿게 된거에요. 그 점에서 그레타는 사람들을 도와주고 있어요. 정말 아름다운 일이죠. (청중 환호)
이제 제가 하고 싶은 이야기는요, 그레타에 대해 정말 안좋은 이야기를 인터넷에 퍼뜨리는 나쁜 사람들과 관련된 것인데요, 어떻게하면 우리가 그레타를 도울 수 있을까요? 저는 캐나다 사람인데, 캐나다에는 그레타에 대해서 정말 끔찍한 말을 한 정치인이 있어요. 우익 정당의 리더에요. 무시할 수 있는 하찮은 인물이 아니에요. 그레타는 어떤 느낌이 드나요? 이런 사람들을 무시해야 할까요? 고발을 해야할까요? 이 사람들을 어찌해야 한다고 생각해요?
그레타 툰베리 : 제가 할 수 있는 일이 없다는 게 명백하구요. 솔직히 웃기다고 생각해요. (청중 박수) 얼마나 많은 공격을 받았는지 몰라요. 어떨 때는 가장 말도 안되는 음모론은 뭐가 있나 찾아보기도 해요. 때로는 힘들어요. 그 사람들은 제 성격을 가지고 뭐라 그러거든요. 제가 어떤지, 어떻게 생겼는지, 어떻게 행동하는지. 사실 그건 제가 이기고 있는 신호라고 생각해요. 왜냐하면 다른 건 흠 잡을 게 없기 때문에 외모나 행동을 갖고 그러는 거 거든요. (청중 박수) 왜냐하면 저는 적이 아니에요. 최소한 아니기를 바래요. (청중 웃음) 그런데 많은 사람들은 제가 적이라고 생각하는 것 같아요. 그 사람들은 제가 하는 말에 대해서는 반박할 게 없어요. 왜냐하면 저는 과학자들이 하는 말만 하거든요. 물리학에 대해서 반박할 수 없잖아요. 그래서 그 과학적 사실을 전하려고 하는 저와 다른 활동가들한테 그러는 거거든요. 만약 저기에 불이나서, 제가 불을 보고, ‘불을 꺼야해요.’ 라고 말했는데, 그러면 가장 이성적인 반응은 불을 쳐다보고 끄는 거잖아요. 그런데 그 사람들은 불을 한번 보고, 저를 보고는, 저한테 이러는 거죠. ‘너 입고 있는 옷이 뭐 그러니?’ (청중 환호)
나오미 클라인 : 이제 무척 중요한 이야기를 해보죠. 9월 20일 행동이요. 어떤 것을 희망하나요. 9월 20일에 어떤 일이 생기기를 바라고 있어요?
그레타 툰베리 : 저는 9월 20일이 사회적 티핑 포인트가 되기를 바라요. 사람들이 이 위기의 긴급성을 깨닫고, 더 이상 외면할 수 없다는 걸 알고, 모든 세대와 사회 곳곳의 모든 사람들이 함께 같은 목적을 위해 싸우기를 바라요. 그건 무척 파워풀한 일이 될 거예요. 그리고 큰 파급력이 있을 거구요. 특히 23일부터 유엔 정상회담이 있으니까요. 9월 20일의 행동이 정상회담에 변화를 가져다주기를 바라요. 우리가 이렇게 많다는 것을 보여주고, 세계정상들에게 과학이 하는 말을 들으라고 요구하고, 책임을 지고 해야할 일을 다하라고 하는 거예요. 그래서 9월 20일이 확실히 어떤 전환점이 되기를 바라요. 많은 사람들이 이 문제에 대해 눈을 뜨게 되고, 정상회담에서 세계 정상들이 많은 사람들의 눈이 그들을 바라보고 있다는 것을 확실히 알게 되기를 바라요. 이렇게 많은 사람들이 바라보고 있으니, 스스로 창피하면 안되겠구나, 하는 느낌을 세계 정상들이 갖길 바라요. 제가 바라는 건 그거에요. (청중 박수)
나오미 클라인 : 학교로 돌아가지 않고 대서양 이쪽에 좀 더 있기로 결정했는데요, 그 계획에 대해서 이야기해 줄래요? 9월 기후파업 이후에는 무엇을 할 건지, 칠레에 가는 계획이 있는 걸로 아는데, 왜 그게 중요한지 이야기해 줄래요?
그레타 툰베리 : 9월 기후파업과 유엔 정상회담 주간 이후에 무얼할지 100% 확실하진 않은데, 미국 서부로 갈 생각이구요, 그리고 북 아메리카 대륙을 여행하려고 해요, 그 이후에는 남아메리카로 갈 거에요. 칠레 산티아고에서 열리는 COP25(제25차 기후변화당사국총회)에 참여하러요. 왜냐하면 대서양 이쪽에 있는 동안에 거기 가는게 낫거든요.(청중 웃음) 그것보다 더 좋은 계획이 없어서요. (청중 웃음) 많은 사람들이 이번 COP(기후변화 당사국 총회)은 중요한 COP들 중간에 끼어 있어서 그다지 안 중요하다고 하는데, 중요하지 않은 COP은 없다고 생각해요. 지금은 아주 중요한 시기에요. 우리는 최대한 빠른 시간 안에 변화를 만들어내야 해요. 지금은 말로 표현할 수 없이 결정적인 순간이에요. 우리는 지금 시작해야 해요. 내년 COP까지 기다릴 수 없어요. 다음 유엔정상회담을 기다릴 수 없어요. 지금 해야만 해요. 저는 우리가 실패하지 않기를 바라요. 세계정상들이 실패하지 않기를 바라요. 우리는 최악의 상황을 준비해야 하구요, 결과가 아무것도 안 나오더라도, 계속해야만 해요. 계속하지 않을 아무런 이유가 없어요. 어떤 상황에서도 우리는 앞으로 나아가고 행동해야만 합니다. (청중 박수)
나오미 클라인 : 고맙습니다. 제 생각에 사람들이 기후변화에 집중하지 못하는 이유 중 일부는, 우리는 수많은 위기가 한꺼번에 겹치는 상황을 살고 있기 때문이 아닌가 싶어요. 그리고 기후변화에 가장 취약한 사람들은 매일 매일의 배고픔과 강제이주, 경찰의 폭력 등에 긴급하게 대응해야 하는 삶을 살고 있어요. 그레타와 함께 하고 있는 청년 기후 활동가들은, 우리가 경제 시스템을 전환하는데 있어서, 인종차별과 경제적 불평등, 사회적 배제를 타파하기위한 싸움의 중요성을 강조했습니다.
우리가 선명하게 알 수 있는 것 중 하나는, 세상에 불을 놓고 있는 사람들, 브라질의 볼소나로 대통령과 트럼프가 가장 큰 혐오를 퍼트리는 사람들이라는 겁니다. 지구상에서 자기 종족이 가장 우월하다고 믿는 범죄자들을 부치기고 있다는 겁니다. 올해 일어난 가장 끔찍한 일중의 하나는 뉴질랜드에서 일어난 테러인데, 그레타와 동료들이 아름다운 기후행동을 한 바로 그 3월 15일이, 뉴질랜드 크라이스트처치에서 살인자가 모스크로 들어간 날과 같은 날이에요. 50명을 죽였고, 그는 스스로를 에코 파시스트라고 불렀죠. 그레타의 생각에는 어떻게 이런 움직임을 함께 풀어나갈 수 있다고 생각하나요? 어떻게 우리는 이 많은 위기를 해결해낼 수 있을까요? 이 모든 것을 그레타가 해결해야하는 것은 아니지만, 제가 관심있는건, 이런 현상들이 연결되어 있는 걸 그레타가 어떻게 보고 있는지에요. 기후행동의 불길과 혐오의 불길, 스칸디나비아를 포함해서 유럽에서도 아주 강하게 표출되고 있는데요.
그레타 : 네, 우리는 여러 가지 면에서 매우 어두운 시대를 살고 있어요. 우리의 상태는 점점 나빠지고, 사회적 상황도 나빠지는 것처럼 느껴져요. 동시에 지구도 점점 나빠지구요. 모든 것들이 옳지 않은 방향으로 움직이고 있어요. 다른 모든 이슈를 해결하지 않으면, 기후위기도 해결 할 수 없어요. 결합되어야만 합니다. 환경적 인종차별주의는 모든 곳에서 일어나고 있어요. 우리는 그것을 직시해야 합니다. 기후위기의 중심에는, 기후, 생태, 환경 정의가 있어야 해요. 물론 제가 어떻게 풀어나가야 할지는 몰라요. 그러나 우리는 함께 힘을 합해야 해요. 결국 우리는 모두 한 배를 타고 있으니까요.
나오미 클라인 : 우리가 지금 알아야할 것 중 하나는 바하마에서 허리케인으로 황폐해진 섬에서 대피해 미국으로 오려했던 사람들이 다시 돌려보내졌다는 거예요. 우리는 지금 이런 일들이 실시간으로 벌어지고 있는 것을 보고 있습니다. 이건 결코 추상적인 질문이 아니에요. 이제 끝내야 할 때가 되어가는데요, 한 두 질문 정도를 더 하려고 해요. 미국에서는 지금 선거캠페인이 진행중이에요. 그레타는 트럼프 대통령을 만날 의사가 없다고 했는데요, 제 생각에 아주 현명한 선택이구요. (청중 박수) 그레타는 지금껏 정치인들과 거리를 유지해오고 있어요. 정치적으로 이용되지 않기 위해 신중하게 행동하고 있다는 것을 알고 있어요. 그 역시 아주 현명한 거라고 생각해요.
그런데 민주당 내에서 이런 논의가 계속되고 있어요. 트럼프에 대항에서 누가 출마할 것인지를 결정하는데 있어서, 매우 대담하고 돈이 많이 드는 기후변화에 대한 대응(그린 뉴딜을 말하는 듯함_옮긴이)을 할 것인가 말 것인가, 반대하는 의견은 그러한 대응이 너무 지나치고, 너무 거대하고, 너무 비싸다는 거예요. 이 논의에 덧붙이고 싶은 말이 있나요? 특히 기후변화 대응 비용이 너무 비싸다는 생각에요.
그레타 툰베리 : 은행을 구하기 위한 돈이 있다면, 그렇다면 우리는 그 돈으로 세계를 구할 수도 있잖아요. (청중 박수) 우리에게 부족한 건 돈이 아니에요. 물론 돈이 없는 사람들도 많아요. 하지만 정부와 힘있는 위치에 있는 사람들은 돈이 없지 않아요. 그리고 오염시킨 사람들이 돈을 내야해요. 그 사람들이 초래한 피해에 대해. (청중 박수) 돈이 많이 든다는 논쟁에 대해서는, 저는 대응조차하지 않을 거예요. 왜냐하면 진짜 많이 말했거든요. 돈은 있고, 우리에게 부족한 것은 정치적인 의지와 사회적인 의지라구요. 그래서 저는 대답하지 않을거예요. (청중 박수)
나오미 클라인 : 미국에서 일어나고 있는 움직임, 특히 청년들의 행동 Intervening과 Sun Rise movement같은 운동들은, 의심의 여지없이 이 나라의 정치적 논쟁의 지형을 완전히 새롭게 쓰고 있습니다. 그리고 여러 어려움을 넘어서는 정말 많은 대담한 정책을 만들도록 힘을 불어넣고 있습니다. 우리는 아직 투표권이 없는 많은 사람들이 사실상 정치적 지도를 바꿀 수 있는 힘이 있다는 것을 보고 있습니다. 바로 지금 이 순간에도 보고 있지요. 이 대화를 마치며 제가 묻고 싶은 것은, 9월 20일 기후파업을 조직하기 위해 힘쓰고 있는 젊은 운동가들, 정말 열심히 일하고 있는데, 스트레스도 많이 받지요. 숙제도 해야하고 다른 할 일도 많아요. 운동을 만들어나가는 건 정말 쉬운 일이 아닌데, 그들에게 전해줄 말이 있다면요? 아직 만나지 못한 친구들에게요. 기후파업까지 일주일 남았는데, 어떻게 힘을 계속 유지할 수 있을지.
그레타 툰베리 : 정말 어려운 일이에요. 해야할 일이 진짜 많은데, 쉬어야 할 때 시간을 내서 해내고 있거든요. 아무런 대가도 받지 않구요. 정말 존경스러운 사람들입니다. 저는 이 친구들이 알았으면 좋겠어요. 이 세상의 모든 지지를 다 받고 있다는 걸. 바로 우리가 뒤에 서 있다는 걸. (청중 박수) 어려울 거예요. 많은 순간, ‘이제 더 못하겠어’ 라고 느끼는 때가 올거예요. 왜냐하면 아무것도 변하지 않거든요. 아무도, 아무것도 하지 않거든요. 언제나 항상 ‘내가 지금 충분히 열심히 하고 있지 않구나’라고 느껴질 거예요. 그건 매우 위험한 감정이에요. 특히 실제로는 할 수 있는 모든 것을 하고 있을때는요. 그래서 알고 있어야 해요. 사람들로부터 도움을 받아야 함을. 그리고 자신이 사람임을 허락해야 해요. 쉴 수 있어야 해요. 왜냐하면 우리는 불가능한 일을 해내려 하고 있는 거거든요. 그래서 저는 이분들에게 영원히 감사합니다. 그리고 저는 미래세대를 대표해서 말하고도 있다고 생각하는데, 우리는 여러분들에게 말로 표현할 수 없을만큼의 감사를 느낍니다. 결코 그 사실을 잊지 않으셨으면 해요. 무엇도 우리를 나누거나 분열시키게 내버려두지 않아야해요. 왜냐하면 우리는 결국 같은 동기로 일을 하고 있으니까요. 우리는 기억하고 있어야해요, 우리가 대항하는 사람들이 누구이고, 우리편에 있는 사람들은 누구인지. (청중 박수)
나오미 클라인 : 고마워요, 그레타. 그레타도 그러기를요. 쉬고, 스스로를 돌보고, 함께하는 서로를 돌보기를요. (청중 박수) 우리는 갈길이 멀어요. 우리는 서로를 정말 잘 돌보아야 합니다. 그레타, 여기에 있어줘서 정말 고맙습니다. 우리가 함께하는 것이 얼마나 큰 영광인지요. (청중 박수)

The Climate Movement Needs to Get Radical, but What Does that Mean?: A Delayed Review of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate by Naomi Klein – Nonsite.org

The Climate Movement Needs to Get Radical, but What Does that Mean?: A Delayed Review of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate by Naomi Klein – Nonsite.org

The Climate Movement Needs to Get Radical, but What Does that Mean?: A Delayed Review of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate by Naomi Klein
ARTICLES
BY PETER DORMAN
MAY 16, 2016


It’s been over a year since Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate was published to generally favorable, and sometimes ecstatic, reviews. Why write about it at this late date? If the purpose of a book review is to advise readers whether they should add a new line to their to-read list, there’s not much point. But I think Klein’s book and its reception have important implications, most of them unpleasant, for the state of the left in the United States and deserves a close reading for that reason.

Klein takes many stands in this book (several on some pages), and it’s impossible to summarize all of them. As we’ll see, it’s even difficult to sum up her central argument, since she contradicts it liberally. In my view, the central thread of this book is not analytical (hypotheses about the causes and cures of the climate crisis) but associative and evangelical. By the first, I mean that she interprets the politics of climate change as a battle between two forces, one good and the other evil, and much of the book is devoted to sorting people into these two categories. (There is virtually no ambiguity or overlap between them.) By the second, I have in mind the notion that what divides the villains from the heroes is their respective consciousnesses. If the battle is still in doubt, it’s because true ideas have not yet triumphed over faulty and wicked ones, so politics is fundamentally a matter of conversion. To be blunt, readers who pick up Klein’s book hoping to learn something about the impact of capitalism on the climate crisis will be disappointed, since by “capitalism” Klein means capitalist thinking.

Specifically, the villains are first of all the fossil fuel corporations who peddle dirty energy and reap rapacious profits. Next in line are the political supporters of neoliberal capitalism, who deny or belittle the risk of climate change because of their attachments to free markets and a minimal public sphere. The rich and powerful everywhere are also enemies of saving the planet because they oppress the rest of us through their admiration for colonialism and capitalism, and all forms of oppression are ultimately connected. At the root of it all are two ideological enemies. One is the attachment to economic growth and the notion that increased consumption should be the goal of individuals and society. The other she calls “extractivism”, whose hazy definition I will discuss later, but appears to refer to attitudes that are disrespectful to nature.

The heroes she admires are those who have fought governments and fossil fuel companies on the front lines of Blockadia, a name she gives to the string of protests against mines, wells, pipelines, rail lines and the rest of the hydrocarbon infrastructure. At the forefront are indigenous people whose struggle for self-determination meshes with the fight against carbon energy. And on the idea front, there is a virtuous philosophy counterposed to the evils of growth, one that emphasizes localization, community, and caring for one another. Everything in the book follows from these fundamental ethical commitments.

No doubt the centrality of moral judgment goes a long way toward explaining the popularity of This Changes Everything. Movements need an ethical compass, and this book is never shy about who to blame for our problems and who to turn to for solutions. It captures the zeitgeist superbly, striking all the right political notes: anti-oppression, decentralization, spiritual attunement, equality. Readers are likely to love this book if they already share the values it’s built on. Whether moral positioning is a sufficient basis for a successful social movement is less clear, however.

War of Ideas

So if the problem is not capitalism but capitalist thinking, what exactly are those insidious thoughts? I counted four: adherence to the Washington Consensus (free markets, deregulation, privatization), “extractivism”, the pursuit of economic growth, and globalization. This is an inexact science, of course, and your list may be a little longer or shorter than mine, but these cover most of her particulars:

1. Washington Consensus. This is essentially the same as neoliberalism, the doctrine that dominated elite policy-making in Washington in the 1980s and 90s and was disseminated, often coercively, around the world. It’s a familiar target for Klein, since it was the subject of her previous book, The Shock Doctrine. She is right that its timing coincided with the emergence of climate change as a central economic and political issue, and also that climate denialism has been strongest in the Anglophone countries and among the political circles most associated with the free market faith. Two correctives are in order, however. First, significant action against carbon emissions is not at loggerheads with neoliberalism, since both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs are compatible with a free-market outlook; see for example Greg Mankiw’s writings on the need for a “Pigou Club”. Indeed, one of the central contradictions of Klein’s book is that she inveighs against markets at every opportunity, yet she heartily endorses a carbon tax, whose effect relies entirely on price changes. (But a carbon tax for Klein appears to be essentially a moral proposition, a way to express society’s condemnation of fossil fuel companies, not a practical instrument for altering economic incentives.) Second, it should be noted that, at a global level, the sway of the Washington Consensus ended, depending on how you periodize these things, either in the late 1990s in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis or in the late 00s after the 2008 crash. It is true that Europe, due to the outsized influence of Germany, has been a laggard in this respect, but most mainstream economists, including those who work for the IMF, have been open in their opposition to the eurozone’s paleo-orthodoxy.

2. Extractivism. This term, used as an epithet throughout the second half of the book, seems to be derived from the notion of extractive-based economies centered on logging and mining. The US west, for instance, is generally seen as slowly transitioning from a base in extraction to one in services and related activities similar to what is seen in other high income regions. So what’s the difference between extraction and extractivism? It’s difficult to say. Klein sometimes seems to be aware that most human activities have an element of extraction connected to them, so that zero removal of resources, even temporarily, is hardly a viable program. The closest she comes to a definition is on p. 169:

Extractivism is a nonreciprocal, dominance-based relationship with the earth, one purely of taking. It is the opposite of stewardship, which involves taking but also taking care that regeneration and future life continue….It is also the reduction of human beings either into labor to be brutally extracted, pushed beyond limits, or, alternatively, into social burden, problems to be locked out at borders and locked away in prisons or reservations.

In a sense, extractivism is another name for the sum of all sins, the despoliation of nature and the oppression of people in all their forms. The language is moral and speaks to ill intent: dominance-based, purely of taking, brutally extracted, pushed, locked out, locked away. Thus specific practices are either included or excluded from extractivism based on a moral calculus; injustice is not a consequence of extractivism but its central constituent. Of course, by constructing her category this way, Klein is engaged in defining, not explaining. The folding of all crimes against nature and fellow humans into one all-encompassing notion also produces the problem of how to think about situations in which some depredations are taking place but not others. Were the Khmer Rouge extractivist? They certainly treated people purely as objects to be exploited, but their modus operandi were fashionably low-tech. On the other hand, what about Norway? Their wealth is based on the extraction of North Sea petroleum, but they are a paragon of liberalism and tolerance, maintaining a generous welfare state and leading the world in per capita funding of international aid. Norway also adheres to the Hartwick rule by squirreling away its oil royalties into a fund to remunerate future generations. Is Norway extractivist? Whatever your answer, the oil they pump does no less damage to future prospects of averting catastrophic climate change than the oil of, say, Saudi Arabia.

Economic growth. Klein strongly endorses the view that the climate crisis is a reflection of a conceptual error at the heart of modern economic thinking, that “unlimited” economic growth can take place on a finite planet. We must wean ourselves from this attachment to growth, she says, in order to do what really must be done. In saying this, she is expressing a widely-held position among radical environmentalists.

It would not be an exaggeration to label this position the New Malthusianism. The old variety, which held “unlimited” population growth to be the enemy, is now fortunately out of bounds, thanks mainly to the critique coming from feminism which rightly understood it to view women essentially as reproductive machines that needed to be turned off. The same logic, such as it is, now appears as an assault on GDP, not demographic, growth. At its heart is the same vision of human beings as organisms like any other, subject to the same rules regarding exponential growth and carrying capacity. It is obviously a compelling vision to many people, so powerful that it pushes aside rather obvious counterarguments.

First, it ought to be clear that economic measurements incorporate quality—value—and not just quantity. In fact, the standard assumption of economists and historians is that growth in value comes to dominate growth in “stuff” as economies develop over time. If anything, transgressing environmental constraints should convince us to speed up this transition, substituting design and skill for raw materials and shifting more consumption to life-enhancing services. (As a teacher, I am predisposed to think that the service I offer is one of these.)

Second, the arithmetic of solving the carbon problem by “degrowthing” our economy doesn’t work. As a rule of thumb, the US, to do its share of carbon reduction, should begin immediately to reduce its emissions by at least 8% per year, year after year. The economic contraction following the financial collapse of 2008 cost the economy about 5% of its GDP. So how many such “great recessions” will it take to get our carbon house in order?

Third, how are we supposed to engineer degrowth? Do we pass a law against starting or expanding businesses? Against borrowing or lending money? The only politically-directed form of degrowth we have experienced is austerity, which has certainly done the job in southern Europe, but probably not in the way Klein would want to emulate.

Actually, I think hostility to economic growth is a moral position that expresses values, not a proposition that is intended to lead to laws or policies. This came to me in a flash when, after many pages of anti-growth rhetoric, Klein rhapsodized over how many new jobs would be created in the transition to a green economy. GDP would go down because growth is bad (and you can’t have it in a finite world), but jobs would go up because we care for our communities and want everyone to have a decent livelihood. On rational grounds it’s gibberish, but the moral logic is clear enough. Similarly, Klein takes a strong stand against immoral overconsumption: we should reduce the size of the economy by eliminating all the greedy and self-indulgent consumption that stands in the way of social justice and climate sanity. No doubt there is an element of truth in this, and many of us would benefit by taking a close look at what we spend our money on. But how do we know where to draw the line? When I drive my car to a trailhead in order to go on a hike and indulge my appreciation for the natural world, am I overconsuming? And if I stay at home and just stare at pictures of nature on the internet, will it help minimize climate change? The reality is that none of us is in a position to answer this question; it is too complex and interconnected with the billions of choices that everyone else is making. This is why you can’t save the world one consumer at a time. Moreover, if a large swath of the population really does undergo a conversion and suddenly reduces its spending, we would lose a corresponding number of jobs, since one person’s spending is another’s income. The only conclusion I can draw is that Klein’s critique of consumption, like her hostility to large GDP numbers, is a form of moral affiliation, identifying what she approves and disapproves, and not a basis for actually figuring out what to do.

(Note: it is quite true, in my opinion, that serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions will also impinge on economic growth. This is the case not because economic growth is bad—far from it—but because its trajectory for the past two centuries has been based on the widespread use of fossil fuels. Transition will be difficult and costly. This is not something to be celebrated but minimized and, to the extent possible, counteracted with other economic measures.)

Globalization. Count Klein among the supporters for all things local. She likes small business but opposes multinational corporations. She’s against global trade and for local self-sufficiency. She looks to local communities to provide the wisdom and energy to defeat extractivism, not national or international bureaucracies. Truly understanding climate change, she says, means being immersed in your immediate world so you know when a flower blooms or a migrant bird arrives a few days earlier in spring. Meanwhile, the proponents of globalization, like the WTO and the drafters of the various trade promotion agreements, have created rules that make key pieces of the energy transition illegal.

Here as in the other conceptual areas there are contradictions. Klein is against globalization but in favor of much freer migration, although surely this has the potential to disrupt local communities on both the fleeing and host ends more than any other single measure. (I share her position on this issue.) She also favors international solidarity between movements, but as her own personal case illustrates, this is greatly enhanced by international travel and communication. Nor I’m sure would she be in favor of the energy-intensive production methods of yesterday, like massive greenhouse operations in northern countries to supply winter produce, in place of more efficient global production systems. The burning of fossil fuels in conjunction with international shipping contributes about 2.5% of global carbon emissions. No doubt this can and should be reduced, but under any conceivable scenario reduced shipping will have a minuscule impact on whether the world meets or surpasses its carbon targets.

It’s worse than this, however. In many policy arenas localization obstructs action on climate change, and the serious measures we need are logically in opposition to it. To take one example, the bottleneck holding up Germany’s energy transition is the local control exercised by small communities between the North Sea, where big wind farms are planned, and the large population centers to the south. These communities don’t want massive power lines crossing their land, and the legal structure of the German Federal Republic gives them lots of leverage. Meanwhile, within the EU the biggest impediment to reducing the use of coal comes from countries like Poland that defend their mining sectors, just as legislators from Kentucky and Wyoming are obstacles to action on carbon emissions in the US.

The deeper point, however, is that stringent carbon policy unavoidably requires a strengthening of central power against local communities. Whether through carbon taxes or cap-and-trade, such policies, if they are serious, will greatly increase the price of fossil fuels; that’s their purpose, after all. This means, however, there will be large economic benefits to anyone who can bypass such controls, whether by local resistance, stealth or obtaining legislative carve-outs. The only way to make these policies effective is by refusing to allow for local exceptions and then enforcing them rigorously with monitoring and penalties. That’s what it will take to keep the fossil fuels in the ground. If this isn’t immediately obvious, think about the much less stringent taxes currently applied to tobacco products. Contraband tobacco is an immense, multibillion dollar enterprise, an entire underground sector of the global economy. It is allowed to flourish because of corruption and, frankly, because the benefits of a draconian crackdown may not exceed the costs. But no such laxity can be permitted with fossil fuels, and so top-down enforcement is essential. In this sense, localization and adhering to global carbon budgets are antithetical.

As before, I think Klein is staking out a moral stance on localization, which is why the logical difficulties don’t trouble her. She favors a spiritual and aesthetic connection to nature, one which is intrinsically place-based. She is also attached to small-group, face-to-face democracy as a political ideal. I can certainly understand this, although I think there is something to be said for making a distinction between what you like and what works for the goals you are trying to achieve. Nevertheless, I am also disturbed by localism as a purely aspirational ideal. Perhaps this can be conveyed by pausing for a moment to take note of Klein’s denunciation of “rootlessness”. I will be honest and admit I felt a jolt when I saw this word, which forms the first part of the Nazi epithet for Jews, “rootless cosmopolitans”. To her credit, Klein has no use for the blood part of blood and soil, but what about the soil? It is important to recall that Nazi ideology drew on German nature philosophy, which played a role in the emergence of ecology as a scientific discipline and inspired movements for organic agriculture, healthy workplaces and similar measures. The community of the soil was seen to be connected culturally and ecologically, and one should not allow such unity to be disrupted by outsiders who lacked the rootedness of the locals. Of course, I am not accusing today’s localizers of being proto-fascists, but it is important to think carefully about the ethical implications of idealizing the unity of small groups sharing a common history with the land. There are virtues to being rooted and virtues to wandering freely and crossing cultures and borders. This wider view has a long history on the left, particularly in circles skeptical of the cross-class demands of nationalism; more recently it was reflected in the movement that labeled itself alter- rather than anti-globalization. By casting it in this context, I am suggesting that the unreflected attachment to all things local on the part of the movement Klein represents is consequential and one-sided.

Of course, while This Changes Everything rails against the evils of capitalist thinking, it also waves the flag for what it sees as the righteous alternative. This antithesis is to be found in Blockadia, and the final third of the book, in fact, is largely given over to a narrative of protest tourism as Klein races from one hotspot to the next. Much of this reportage is enlightening; we learn a lot about the protest leaders Klein befriends, their motives and beliefs. For Klein, Blockadia is everything that neoliberal capitalism isn’t: It is locally based, enlisting the participation of entire communities brought together by the impending destruction of their shared environment. It spurns excessive consumption and materialism, drawing sustenance instead from the beauty of the natural world and the cooperation of neighbors. It rejects extractivism and envisions a future of small-scale agriculture and crafts, living lightly on the earth. Of course, it is opposed to free market philosophy through its embrace of the public sphere and its willingness to put limits on what distant multinational corporations are allowed to do. Klein is blunt: investing in standard politics and placing your faith in national, top-down policies is at best a distraction from the real work of fomenting these new points of protest. This wave of resistance is all that can save us: it will grow and intensify until fossil fuels become a thing of the past, overcome by a new, cooperative, sustainable way of life.

And here as well one does not have to dig very deep to uncover gaps and moments of sheer hand-waving. Yes, these are vivid examples of resistance, but how much fossil fuel extraction around the world is not being resisted? Do some of these movements split their communities rather than unite them—and do they sometimes lose due to lack of support? And what are the limits of protest as a strategy for economic, social and political transformation? Klein describes the visions of her Blockadistas, but creating a new world is generally a lot more difficult than saying no to the one in front of you. As you would expect by now, I understand her long paean to Blockadia as an expression of moral affiliation: good is invested in these people as evil is invested in the corporations and corrupt politicians, and the future of the planet hangs on whether good can triumph over evil. Indeed, by questioning the political effectiveness of the Blockade Brigade, I may be exposing my own moral shortcomings.

I probably need to make my position clear at this point: I am not in any way disparaging local struggles against fossil fuel development or other ecologically harmful projects. Most if not all of these battles are important to wage, and I think direct action has a crucial role to play in building a movement strong enough to get the job done. I don’t doubt that many of the activists have shown immense courage and idealism in the heat of battle. What I do doubt are two propositions, that protest alone will be sufficient and that “our” side is more virtuous in an encompassing sense than theirs.

First, protest, however necessary, is intrinsically limited—always. It resists going backward but is of limited use in moving forward. Its practical exigencies, the adjustments and compromises that have to be made for protest to succeed in its specific context, can complicate wider solidarities just as readily as they can inspire them. Protesters often need to personalize their struggles (as Saul Alinsky advised), but getting a hated boss or politician canned is not the same thing as delegitimating a policy or an institution. Protest is inherently reactive, but long-lasting transformations are proactive. Protest must often compromise on some fronts in order to build unity on others. This does not devalue protest, but it indicates that protest alone is incomplete. In addition, obstructing individual fossil fuel projects is a particularly limited form of protest, since the logic of the marketplace ensures that other fuel deposits will be mined to replace the ones shut down by protesters. There is more than enough coal, oil and gas in deposits beyond the reach of Blockadia to meet the demand.

Second, there is a world of difference between being on the side of a more virtuous, humane or ethical policy and being a more virtuous human being. The case that reducing fossil fuel use is morally superior to not reducing it is overwhelming, but people are people with all their wonders and faults. I see no reason to assume that activists for Blockadia or any other cause are, on average, morally superior to those who oppose them as complete, head-to-toe human beings. Unless evidence is presented to the contrary, it is safe to assume that they are about the same in the way they treat those closest to them, their susceptibility to the corruptions of wealth and power, or their moral reasoning on issues unrelated to their protests. It’s difficult to understate the importance of this point. Failure to recognize it has been devastating to left movements from their earliest origins in the Middle Ages to last week. It means that rule by “us” is not a solution to the problem of democracy, and that powerful structural constraints are needed on “our” freedom as well as theirs. I understand the sentimental logic that causes us to elevate fighters for noble causes to the status of exemplary, morally superior people, but it’s a mistake. It is especially ugly when the comparison comes down to just ourself, on the side of the angels, versus someone we encounter who is not (yet) on our side, as in the Prius driver who thinks the person behind the wheel of a big SUV is a climate criminal. On every level, from the politically pragmatic to the karmic, this is a terrible posture to adopt. Am I mistaken in sensing it in Klein’s encomiums to the heroes of Blockadia?

Standards of Evidence

I don’t expect the same standards for argumentation in a popular political manifesto as an academic tome (where I am also frequently disappointed), but even so, This Changes Everything is startling in its casual relationship to logic and evidence. It is also startling that this point has not been made by other reviewers, a matter of some importance I will take up later.

The starting point has to be the astronomical claim-to-evidence ratio in this book. Almost every page bristles with claims about what is true and why—not just one or two but in many instances one or two per sentence. The majority of such claims are not backed up at all; they are simply asserted. No doubt Klein thinks they are common knowledge, but I’m more on her side than not, and I found few to be indisputable, especially when stated as broad generalities. When Klein does present evidence, more often than not it consists of a quotation from or reference to a particular expert source. In the areas I’m familiar with, which overlaps large parts of the material, it is obvious that sources were cherrypicked, drawn selectively from a much larger and more diverse pool. Sometimes I agreed with the source she cited, sometimes not, but it always rankled that she regarded a single, selected citation as constituting sufficient evidence for her views.

But there is also a problem with the way she quotes her sources. In general, her method is to present the expert’s conclusion but not the reason for it. In this way she asks the reader to accept the expert’s authority, which is not exactly an invitation to critical thinking. Such appeals to authority are even less justified when they are selected on the basis of agreement, especially when their credentials are limited. (Many of the sources Klein cites have no training in the areas they opine on and work for advocacy groups. This doesn’t mean they are wrong—of course not—but it suggests that bowing before authority is even less warranted in such cases.)

Along with selected authorities we encounter selected cases; in fact, the evidentiary structure of the book, such as it is, rests entirely on a string of examples from which generalizations are drawn with no other basis. If an early philosopher of science (Francis Bacon) makes sexist remarks about controlling nature, it shows that science is based on patriarchy and domination. If an indigenous group opposes fossil fuel development in one location it means that all indigenous people are enemies of extractivism everywhere, and there is never a tension between indigenous rights and climate protection. If she documents that the World Bank promoted a project that violated human rights and increased carbon emissions in some country, it demonstrates that everything the Bank does is an affront to human decency. Shell Oil’s profits declined sharply one quarter, so it means that fossil fuel companies have underestimated the power of Blockadia and are vulnerable to defeat. And so on. I don’t expect to see a comprehensive mass of research, but there isn’t a single table in the entire book that demonstrates that a generality actually holds in the light of the evidence pro and con. The entire argument, beginning to end, is to be taken on faith.

I was also struck by the degree of innumeracy I encountered in the book, and even more by the absence of any notice of it on the part of the many reviewers I looked at prior to writing this. I get the impression that care in using quantitative information is not regarded as holding much importance by the politically engaged community. Here I want to make it clear I am not demanding that Klein assemble mountains of statistical data or use sophisticated techniques in crunching them. What’s at stake is much more basic: knowing what numbers mean and how to interpret them in practical contexts. Specifically: (1) Klein uses “big” numbers, measured in the millions and billions, without denominators that relate them to comparisons that can make sense of them. We hear how how many millions of dollars are spent on something, but not what proportion of total spending it is or whether it is more or less than what is spent on something else. We don’t get orders of magnitude or rankings of factors. Numbers just come out of nowhere and return to the void. (2) She gives us lots of percentage increases without any sense of the base from which the increase arose and making it impossible to add up contributions from multiple sources. (3) There is a general absence of quantitative reasonableness in making claims. Here is one example: in the course of discussing the need for large investments in renewable energy to replace fossil fuels, Klein writes “….the resources for this just transition must ultimately come from the state, collected from the profits of the fossil fuel companies….” (p. 401) Again, as an ethical proposition, I understand what she is saying: investing in green energy is good and should be financed, while profiting from fossil fuels is bad and should be taxed. Since the goodness of the first is on the same order as the badness of the second, arrange the financing accordingly. Surely, however, size matters. The investment budget is measured in the trillions of dollars, while fossil fuel profits (as she showed in her two quarters of Shell data) are a tiny fraction of this. The first goal of quantitative thinking is to acquire a sense of how big various things are in relation to one another.

There is similar disinterest in economic understanding. Perhaps the most egregious example is an argument Klein apparently drew from Herman Daly and Josh Farley. She notes the national income identity

Y = C + I + G + NX

where Y is national income, C is total consumption, I total private investment, G government purchases of goods and services and NX net exports. (The equal sign should actually be an identity since the relationship is definitional, but this slip is common even among high-level economists, so I will let it pass.) It arises in the course of a discussion on the desirability of reducing the size of the economy, denoted by Y. Not wanting to dent I or G, Klein suggests that consumers cut back to reduce C, and then she adds that NX can be diminished by having less international trade. Alas, this is wrong, since net exports is simply the difference between exports and imports, and its size can go up even as the volume of trade, measured by either exports, imports or (as is commonly done) their sum, goes down. Of greater importance is the observation that the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere is a global problem, and if you think that this requires global GDP to fall, trade, as reflected in the national income identity, is irrelevant, since the global sum of each nation’s trade surplus or deficit has to equal zero. An error of this sort is diagnostic: it demonstrates that an understanding of basic economic concepts is not regarded as relevant to the intellectual task of the book.

A similar error, this time having to do with the understanding of what international trade rules mean in practice, occurs in Chapter 3, where Klein trains her guns on globalization. She begins with the story of Italian solar panel firm that had to shut down its Ontario plant because the WTO ruled against a regulation instituted by the province that required businesses benefitting from public energy incentives to purchase only locally produced equipment. Klein then interprets this as an interference with feed-in tariffs, as if there is some reason why such incentives depend on panels not being imported. She then switches to Denmark to (rightly) praise its system of locally owned renewable energy coops which she claims are at risk because of WTO interference. Of course, the Danish coops don’t produce their own hardware, which is typically imported. The entire discussion is incoherent unless, as seems to be the case, Klein is confused between the local generation of electric power and the local sourcing of power generating equipment. It seems too basic to be misunderstood, but so was the confusion between the level of trade and the level of trade surpluses or deficits.

There are many smaller factual errors, but it would be piling on to bring them up. What matters is the nature of these errors and what they say about the value Klein and her research team attach to getting the economics right. I did not see corresponding errors in the natural science of climate change; presumably they think accuracy on that front is worth the effort.

A final mention should be made of the book’s rhetorical strategy. Quite obviously, it’s very rhetorical! Emotive language is everywhere, turning arguments that ought to be assessed factually into tests of righteousness. For instance, a general assault is launched on the industrial revolution, tying it to environmental destruction, colonialism and the misery endured by labor. These are complex claims, to all of which historians would give mixed verdicts. Industrialization did cause immense pollution and other problems in England, but urban environments slowly improved over the course of the nineteenth century due to public health reforms driven by expanding scientific knowledge. Colonialism predates the industrial revolution by about two centuries; industrialization provided Europeans with tools to intensify colonial exploitation but also enabled opponents of colonialism to resist and eventually overthrow it. As for the conditions experienced by workers, the historical verdict is largely in: the well-being of the English working class remained roughly constant during the first century of the industrial revolution and then steadily improved. It didn’t fall, interestingly, not because mill owners weren’t ruthless in pursuing profits—they were—but because the pre-industrial rural conditions from which workers migrated were so appalling. But these empirical subtleties are pushed aside with language that denounces industrialization for its sins against nature and humanity, implying that doubt equals apologetics.

Implications

This is enough criticism. What matters is not how strong a book This Changes Everything is; it has inspired some readers and annoyed others, and nothing I write will alter the proportions. The issues I have raised pose broader questions for the recent evolution of left wing movements, however, and this is what matters. I will argue that three lessons can be learned from this book and its reception.

1. Large parts of the left reject the notion of progress. The claim that science and its application to production have provided large benefits to much of the human race is now seen as a defense of exploitation and privilege. This is a central theme that runs through Klein’s book as she takes on Francis Bacon and James Watt, the desirability of economic growth and the process of globalization. It explains why she thinks indigenous people, with cultures unsullied by the drive to control nature, are the born leaders of the movement against extractivism. It also explains her attachment to all things small and local, even defending artisanal mining as superior to the industrial variety (p. 447), an otherwise absurd proposition. (Klein should visit some artisanal mines in low income parts of the world.)

It should not be controversial to say that science and economic development have come at great cost. They arose at a time when empire and autocracy were the norm and largely adapted to it, as they have largely adapted to postcolonial and semi-democratic conditions. Deforestation on a large scale accompanied the intensification of agriculture, and we now also know that the fossil fuel basis on which development occurred was a dead-end path. But surely the human gains were extraordinary. Life expectancy, perhaps the single best measure of living standards, has more than doubled almost everywhere. A much higher percentage of the human race lives comfortably than ever before. The technological and intellectual resources that make Klein’s book and my critique of it possible are beyond valuation. The crime against indigenous people is not that they were robbed of a static future in which they would live forever in the conditions of 1491 (or whenever), but that they were prevented from freely finding their own paths, drawing on their heritage, to progress and a better life.

It is bizarre that a large portion of the left would now regard pre-scientific and pre-industrial modes of life as superior. Worse, it is political suicide. Whatever the denizens of Blockadia may think (and I suspect they harbor a range of views about the nature of progress), the vast majority of every country on earth wants economic prosperity and the benefits promised by science. They may well underestimate the risks and drawbacks, but a movement with any hope of political success has to respect these goals. I will grant that large portions of This Changes Everything adopts the position I’m advocating, but large portions don’t.

2. The cultural turn has gone too far. Of course, the deciphering of discourses has much to recommend it; all social action takes place in a context of meanings—shared, contested or both. It’s remarkable, however, that a high profile book that claims to be about radical social change, and which has won widespread approval across the leftward half of the political spectrum, could sidestep any sustained consideration of wealth and power altogether.

Why have governments failed to act to counter the threat of catastrophic climate change? Is it solely because of faulty thinking, or could it be that there exists a gross imbalance of power in every modern capitalist country, such that business interests are firmly in control? What institutions wield this power and what methods do they use? Crucially, how can those who struggle for democratic collective action contest this power? What types of organizations can be effective? What structural changes should be prioritized to rebalance power and enable rational solutions to overriding problems like climate change? I wouldn’t fault Klein for failing to provide answers—who has? What is astonishing, however, is that the questions are never posed, not even in passing. What does it mean to espouse radical politics and never take up the issue of power?

But a second absence is even more telling. At various points Klein refers to the need for a price to be placed on carbon; it clearly is not her main interest, since she devotes no space at all to the political struggle required to achieve this, but she recognizes it is an important part of the story. What’s missing, however, is any serious consideration of how much money this will be, out of whose pockets it will be extracted and to whose pockets it will be transferred. I cannot emphasize how extraordinary it is for a book to be ostensibly about capitalism but pay so little attention to money.

The reality is that carbon revenues will be immense. If even approximately sufficient global action is undertaken, the sums will be in the trillions of dollars. And despite Klein’s moral calculus, the actual, real-life operation of carbon pricing will guarantee that it is the public at large—everyone who purchases a good or service with a carbon energy component—that will pay it. This is visible in gasoline taxes today, which consumers pay at the pump; a carbon price, whether it is engineered by a tax or a cap on permits, will be the same sort of tax writ very, very large. Such a tax will be regressive, and lower income people will effectively be taxed at a higher rate.

This is potentially catastrophic on multiple levels. It is intolerable from a social justice perspective in an age of rampaging inequality. It would also be impossible to disguise from voters, making it difficult to impossible to get majority support for a stiff carbon price. Klein blithely recommends using this new source of revenue to finance green investments, but she doesn’t inquire whose money is being spent, nor does she consider that, in practice, governments will simply shift a lot of the investments they would have made anyway over to this new revenue spigot, freeing up more money for their other pet projects. The one word that sums up Klein’s attitude toward this trillion-dollar question is uninterested.

Of course, there are ways to turn around the economics of carbon pricing. The money can be returned to the public on an equal per capita basis, which would have the effect of turning an otherwise regressive transfer system into a progressive, inequality-reducing one. Given the amount of money at stake, this will require a massive political mobilization, but it is worth fighting for. To repeat, however, the purpose of bringing up this issue is not to proselytize for a different system of carbon pricing, but simply to point out the glaring incongruity of an ostensibly radical, anti-capitalist book (a rather long one at that) which ignores the single most important principle for how things work in a capitalist society: follow the money!

3. The left has adapted to powerlessness. This Changes Everything practically exudes triumphalism, especially in the final hundred pages or so. Vibrant, righteous movements are springing up everywhere, we are told, and through their proliferation they will change the world.

Except, of course, they won’t. They do not have the means to change the world to something different, only to obstruct the bits of the existing world they can get their bodies in front of. That is important to do, and it can play a crucial role in a larger movement to contest power—if that movement can come into existence. If no larger movement arises, the local fires will be put out one by one. A radical political vision cannot abjure politics, and it is politics which is missing from Klein.

Here it is necessary to step back and consider the historical context. In the English-speaking world, and to a lesser extent in other wealthy, capitalist countries, the past several decades have seen profound defeat and demobilization on the left. In no country is there a mass political party with a program to transform the existing political economic order into something else. Unions, where they have any clout at all, have been fighting a rearguard struggle to retain as many of the gains of former times as they can. Of course, there have also been substantial victories for racial, gender and other social equalities and a general drift toward less authoritarian cultural norms. But the core institutions of wealth and power are more firmly entrenched now than they have been in generations, and the left as a political force is hardly noticeable.

How have those who still identify with the left coped with this epoch of powerlessness? There are many answers, but all of them express some form of disengagement. For instance, redefining politics as the performance of moral virtue rather than the contest for power can provide consolation when political avenues appear to be blocked. Activities of this sort are evaluated according to how expressive they are—how good they make us feel—rather than any objective criterion of effectiveness in achieving concrete goals or altering the balance of political forces. This is how I would interpret Blockadia, for instance, in the absence of a broader movement that includes both direct action and political contestation: Klein can devote page after page to how righteous these activists are without any attention to whether they have had or have any prospect of having an impact on carbon emissions. Their very activism constitutes its own victory, which is convenient if the more conventional sort of victory is believed to be out of reach. (It is bad form to even bring this up: why, some will ask, am I dwelling on the negative with so much positive energy to celebrate?)

Another response is to collapse social change into personal choices over lifestyle and philosophy. If you believe that the threat of climate change can be defeated by a shift to more modest consumption habits and rejection of the false intellectual gods of globalization and economic growth, one individual at a time, then each moment of conversion constitutes its own little victory. The reader of Klein’s book, feeling a sense of unity with that consciousness and its program to downshift consumption, can experience this victory first hand. This is very gratifying, and it reinforces the message that powerlessness in conventional terms is irrelevant, since the change we are part of is at a deeper level than governments and their laws or corporations and their assets. After all, what can be more subversive than thinking new thoughts?

One of Klein’s favorite adaptations is the conflation of wishes and operative political programs. Again and again she holds up statements of intent—protect Mother Earth, treat all people equally, respect all cultures, live simple, natural, local lives—as if they were proposals whose implementation would have these outcomes. It’s all ends and no means. This is a double convenience: first it eliminates the need to be factual and analytical about programs, since announcing the goal is sufficient unto itself, and second, it evades the disconcerting problem of how to deal with the daunting political challenge of getting such programs (if they even exist) enacted and enforced. I believe the treatment of goals as if they were programs is the underlying reason for the sloppiness of this book on matters of economics and law. Klein can say we should finance a large green investment program by taxing fossil fuel profits, or we should simultaneously shrink the economy and increase the number of jobs, because in the end it doesn’t matter whether these or other recommendations could actually prove functional in the real world. The truth lies in the rightness of the demand, not the means of fulfilling it. But this too is an adaptation to powerlessness.

To close, I wish to emphasize that this critique is ultimately not directed at a single individual. On the contrary, even if we consider only this one book, it is clear that its writing was a team effort; the long acknowledgments section identifies both paid assistants and an army of internal reviewers. But what I find diagnostic is the warm reception it received from virtually every media outlet on the English-speaking left. This suggests that Klein is moving with the political tide and not against it, and that the problems that seemed obvious to me were either invisible to her reviewers or regarded as too insignificant to bring up. The view that capitalism is a style of thinking, progress is a myth, and political contestation is irrelevant to “true” social change belongs not just to this one book but to all the commentators who found nothing to criticize. That’s the real problem.

CAPITALISMCLIMATE CHANGENAOMI KLEINNEOLIBERALISMPOLITICS
Peter Dorman
Peter Dorman is a faculty member in political economy at the Evergreen State College. He has published on a variety of topics in labor, public health, international development, international political economy and the intersection of economics and social theory. He is the author of Markets and Mortality: Economics, Dangerous Work and the Value of Human Life and a pair of introductory textbooks, Microeconomics: A Fresh Start and Macroeconomics: A Fresh Start. A book on climate change will be published next year. Dorman is also a regular contributor to the EconoSpeak blog.