Andreas Malm
Author of How to Blow Up a Pipeline
About the Author
Andreas Malm is a scholar of Human Ecology and author of among other books, Fossil Capital and The Progress of this Storm. The Zetkin Collective is a group of scholars, activists and students researching the political ecology of the far right.
Image credit: from Verso Books
Works by Andreas Malm
Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming (2016) 274 copies, 4 reviews
Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency: War Communism in the Twenty-First Century (2020) 140 copies, 3 reviews
Fighting in a World on Fire: The Next Generation's Guide to Protecting the Climate and Saving Our Future (2023) 31 copies, 1 review
Det är vår bestämda uppfattning att om ingenting görs nu kommer det att vara för sent (2007) 22 copies, 2 reviews
Associated Works
Property Will Cost Us the Earth: Direct Action and the Future of the Global Climate Movement — Contributor — 6 copies
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1977-11-11
- Gender
- male
- Occupations
- ecologist
Human Ecology professor, Lund University
activist (climate) - Organizations
- Socialistiska partiet
Syndikalistiska Ungdomsförbundet - Nationality
- Sweden
- Birthplace
- Fässberg, Mölndal, Sverige
- Map Location
- Sweden
Members
Reviews
This book is half essential revisionist history, half worthless Marxian economics.
Chapters 2-10 make a fascinating critique of the standard economic history of the adoption of steam power. The orthodoxy says that steam power from burning coal was adopted because wages were high and coal was cheap. Malm blows this theory out of the water by showing, first, that the greatest expansion of steam power happened at a time of low wages and unemployment (but also strikes) during the 1820s and 30s, show more and, second, that water power was cheaper than steam. He shows from contemporary discussions that machines were introduced in cloth factories to replace workers (in both factory and putting-out systems) because they increased the discipline that could be imposed on workers (preventing them from slacking or stealing cotton, but forcing their work along at the rhythm of the machine) and so deskilled them that they were easily replaceable in case of strikes. He then shows that water power was plentiful, cheap and efficient, but lost out after a fight to steam because steam was more adapted to private capital: steam engines could be set up without the need to locate on fall-lines or else to construct complex water works on a cooperative or quasi-public basis (there's a very interesting discussion of Greenock's artificial reservoirs and aqueducts built by Robert Thom), and they allowed for the machines to be placed in the centre of urban pools of cheap workers, rather than along suitable rivers in the country (where water mills were sullenly staffed by thousands of orphan so-called apprentices detained there on secondment from the poorhouses). If steam power ended up more financially efficient than water, this was due not to differences inherent in the technologies, but in their relations to labour: urban steam allowed employers to tap the reserve army of unemployed workers, whereas rural water required the use of either coercion of obstreperous juveniles (eventually restricted) or else the provision of attractive homesteads and amenities which still did not suffice to assure abundant and compliant workers. Steam, but not water, also easily allowed the intensity and speed of work to be ramped up in response to laws limiting the length of the working day. Thus the author's argument is that steam power was not adopted because the technology was more energetically or economically efficient for manufacturing, but for its utility to capitalists in their pursuit of their private business plans and in their battle to gain the upper hand over labor.
This promotion of the social relations of production to the role of prime factor over the technology in the rise of steam-powered manufacturing is convincing and important. Unfortunately, Malm then goes on to analyse the modern fossil fuel-based economy from the debunked Marxist surplus-value perspective. Bizarre! Malm calls the surplus-value theory (i.e. the source of profit is the fact that labour can produce more value than it costs to reproduce it day after day) "the most plausible account a around". But this disregards the possibility of profit arising from entrepreneurialism, marketing, productive innovation, patents and copyrights, barriers to market entry, and so on. Think of Apple or Big Pharma or Saudi Aramco, and I doubt it is exploitation of labour that springs first to mind as the source of their profits, but rather marketing, patents and oligopolistic control of scarce resources, respectively. When a production company makes a profitable movie, not only does the labour involved produce more revenue than the cost of procuring that labour, but so too for the machines and legal arrangements involved. Clearly a movie camera can contribute more revenue than it costs, and copyright enables more engrossing of the revenues of the movie than without. Profit is multifarious. show less
Chapters 2-10 make a fascinating critique of the standard economic history of the adoption of steam power. The orthodoxy says that steam power from burning coal was adopted because wages were high and coal was cheap. Malm blows this theory out of the water by showing, first, that the greatest expansion of steam power happened at a time of low wages and unemployment (but also strikes) during the 1820s and 30s, show more and, second, that water power was cheaper than steam. He shows from contemporary discussions that machines were introduced in cloth factories to replace workers (in both factory and putting-out systems) because they increased the discipline that could be imposed on workers (preventing them from slacking or stealing cotton, but forcing their work along at the rhythm of the machine) and so deskilled them that they were easily replaceable in case of strikes. He then shows that water power was plentiful, cheap and efficient, but lost out after a fight to steam because steam was more adapted to private capital: steam engines could be set up without the need to locate on fall-lines or else to construct complex water works on a cooperative or quasi-public basis (there's a very interesting discussion of Greenock's artificial reservoirs and aqueducts built by Robert Thom), and they allowed for the machines to be placed in the centre of urban pools of cheap workers, rather than along suitable rivers in the country (where water mills were sullenly staffed by thousands of orphan so-called apprentices detained there on secondment from the poorhouses). If steam power ended up more financially efficient than water, this was due not to differences inherent in the technologies, but in their relations to labour: urban steam allowed employers to tap the reserve army of unemployed workers, whereas rural water required the use of either coercion of obstreperous juveniles (eventually restricted) or else the provision of attractive homesteads and amenities which still did not suffice to assure abundant and compliant workers. Steam, but not water, also easily allowed the intensity and speed of work to be ramped up in response to laws limiting the length of the working day. Thus the author's argument is that steam power was not adopted because the technology was more energetically or economically efficient for manufacturing, but for its utility to capitalists in their pursuit of their private business plans and in their battle to gain the upper hand over labor.
This promotion of the social relations of production to the role of prime factor over the technology in the rise of steam-powered manufacturing is convincing and important. Unfortunately, Malm then goes on to analyse the modern fossil fuel-based economy from the debunked Marxist surplus-value perspective. Bizarre! Malm calls the surplus-value theory (i.e. the source of profit is the fact that labour can produce more value than it costs to reproduce it day after day) "the most plausible account a around". But this disregards the possibility of profit arising from entrepreneurialism, marketing, productive innovation, patents and copyrights, barriers to market entry, and so on. Think of Apple or Big Pharma or Saudi Aramco, and I doubt it is exploitation of labour that springs first to mind as the source of their profits, but rather marketing, patents and oligopolistic control of scarce resources, respectively. When a production company makes a profitable movie, not only does the labour involved produce more revenue than the cost of procuring that labour, but so too for the machines and legal arrangements involved. Clearly a movie camera can contribute more revenue than it costs, and copyright enables more engrossing of the revenues of the movie than without. Profit is multifarious. show less
It is seldom that a book can change my perspective. It usually takes at least a couple, plus a discussion with someone whose views I respect, plus several months of rumination...
This tome sets out clearly, and objectively, why the only way that we can come out of the crises enveloping the world, is for a revolution. I know this sounds dramatic, but it is clear that our current governmental system will not relinquish its hold on power. Mr Johnson, our PM, believes that a quick technological show more fix is just around the corner and those doing rather well from Neoliberal Capitalism are only too willing to stroke his ego by telling him how clever he is.
Revolutions do not come easy and it is clear that things will have to get worse before they get better. Sadly, it is apparent to anyone who looks behind the headlines, that things are getting worse at an alarming rate so, buckle u and prepare for revolution! show less
This tome sets out clearly, and objectively, why the only way that we can come out of the crises enveloping the world, is for a revolution. I know this sounds dramatic, but it is clear that our current governmental system will not relinquish its hold on power. Mr Johnson, our PM, believes that a quick technological show more fix is just around the corner and those doing rather well from Neoliberal Capitalism are only too willing to stroke his ego by telling him how clever he is.
Revolutions do not come easy and it is clear that things will have to get worse before they get better. Sadly, it is apparent to anyone who looks behind the headlines, that things are getting worse at an alarming rate so, buckle u and prepare for revolution! show less
This book isn't about how to blow up a pipeline. Obviously, that would lead to [REDACTED], but more about why to blow up a pipeline. Malm poses an interesting question: If we take the climate science seriously, and that we are heading towards a dark Here Be Dragons future of 600+ ppm, mass extinctions, heavy weather, refugee crises, and desperate struggles over the last scraps, why has the environmental movement been so notably ineffective in enforcing policy to keep carbon in the ground? show more Isn't it time to do more? Isn't it time to quit talking, and start [REDACTING]?
Of course, an energy transition is complex and expensive. Cheap fossil energy has its tendrils everywhere. We all benefit from it. As an ecomodernist, I'm all in favor of cheap, clean and accessible energy. And even though we've seen major progress in solar, wind, storage, and electric vehicles, it simply isn't enough. The clean energy future is smaller than the dirty energy present of new pipelines, new coal plants, new SUVs, let alone the dead fossil weight of history.
The climate movement is notably both because of its abstraction and idealism, and how it has been neutered by an ideological and tactical commitment to absolute non-violence. In thrall to Chenoweth's thesis that non-violent movements are more likely to succeed, and terrified an alienating any part of a democratic coalition, protests are symbolic, mostly delaying rather destroying. A complete deconstruction of the non-violence thesis is a project for another book, but her sample is obviously flawed and incomplete, categorizing movements which did involve violence as non-violence, and somehow ignoring major successes, like the violent movement which toppled governments in Russia, China, and Germany in the 20th century. Seeing that Chenowith is affiliated with Harvard Kennedy School makes me deeply suspicious that the non-violence fetish is literally a CIA op to make dissent easier to manage. Successful movements such as the suffragettes included deliberate violence against property at a scale between vandalism and arson. While deliberate violence often fails, the impromptu mass of a crowd deciding that this will not stand has toppled dictators.
As Malm points out, actual sabotage from the level of letting the air out of SUV tires, to burning down gas stations, to striking vulnerable fixed installations, has rarely been tried, and when it does, it provokes a response all out of proportion to the seeming irritation. If not killing people remains a key moral principle, attacks on Middle Eastern oil infrastructure by violent terrorist groups, political rather than ecological strikes, have very low casualties. Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya carried out multiple attacks against the Dakota Access Pipeline, causing millions of dollars in damage and earning multiple years in prison.
If I may indulge in a moment of conspiracy, the media is silent about Malm's thesis because it would work. Actual, capital-P Power, the people the rule the world, know how much of their strength is tied up with masses sated on cheap energy, and they believe they can ride this out in the New Zealand Apocalypse Bunkers. Fossil fuel infrastructure is omnipresent, impossible to secure, and so very very flammable. At this moment, with gasoline hitting $8 a gallon in the US and Europe's painful lesson about Russian natural gas dependency being to switch from pipelines to LNG terminals so that they're still dependent on fossil fuels, but no Russia, it seems like, well, maybe this is a chance for a few brave people to [REDACTED]. show less
Of course, an energy transition is complex and expensive. Cheap fossil energy has its tendrils everywhere. We all benefit from it. As an ecomodernist, I'm all in favor of cheap, clean and accessible energy. And even though we've seen major progress in solar, wind, storage, and electric vehicles, it simply isn't enough. The clean energy future is smaller than the dirty energy present of new pipelines, new coal plants, new SUVs, let alone the dead fossil weight of history.
The climate movement is notably both because of its abstraction and idealism, and how it has been neutered by an ideological and tactical commitment to absolute non-violence. In thrall to Chenoweth's thesis that non-violent movements are more likely to succeed, and terrified an alienating any part of a democratic coalition, protests are symbolic, mostly delaying rather destroying. A complete deconstruction of the non-violence thesis is a project for another book, but her sample is obviously flawed and incomplete, categorizing movements which did involve violence as non-violence, and somehow ignoring major successes, like the violent movement which toppled governments in Russia, China, and Germany in the 20th century. Seeing that Chenowith is affiliated with Harvard Kennedy School makes me deeply suspicious that the non-violence fetish is literally a CIA op to make dissent easier to manage. Successful movements such as the suffragettes included deliberate violence against property at a scale between vandalism and arson. While deliberate violence often fails, the impromptu mass of a crowd deciding that this will not stand has toppled dictators.
As Malm points out, actual sabotage from the level of letting the air out of SUV tires, to burning down gas stations, to striking vulnerable fixed installations, has rarely been tried, and when it does, it provokes a response all out of proportion to the seeming irritation. If not killing people remains a key moral principle, attacks on Middle Eastern oil infrastructure by violent terrorist groups, political rather than ecological strikes, have very low casualties. Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya carried out multiple attacks against the Dakota Access Pipeline, causing millions of dollars in damage and earning multiple years in prison.
If I may indulge in a moment of conspiracy, the media is silent about Malm's thesis because it would work. Actual, capital-P Power, the people the rule the world, know how much of their strength is tied up with masses sated on cheap energy, and they believe they can ride this out in the New Zealand Apocalypse Bunkers. Fossil fuel infrastructure is omnipresent, impossible to secure, and so very very flammable. At this moment, with gasoline hitting $8 a gallon in the US and Europe's painful lesson about Russian natural gas dependency being to switch from pipelines to LNG terminals so that they're still dependent on fossil fuels, but no Russia, it seems like, well, maybe this is a chance for a few brave people to [REDACTED]. show less
My mental health must be improving if I can get through a whole Andreas Malm book. (In late 2020 I gave up 52 pages into [b:Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency: War Communism in the Twenty-First Century|54619224|Corona, Climate, Chronic Emergency War Communism in the Twenty-First Century|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1595822734l/54619224._SY75_.jpg|85217012] as it made me feel ill. That still languishes unread on the bookshelf.) [b:White show more Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555] is an investigation of the linkages between the far right and climate change, covering a great deal of contemporary and historical ground. Part 1 discusses a series of national case studies of 21st century far right politicians in Europe, North America, and South America and their policy positions/public statements on climate change. Part 2 seeks a theory to explain these positions by exploring the entwined histories of fascism, racism, and fossil fuel dependence. Anyone alarmed by resurgent fascism and the climate emergency will find the book both informative and deeply depressing. I got through it by reading about 80 pages at a time, stopping when it gave me an anxiety stomach ache and alternating with light(ish) fiction. It was worth the trouble, although I do sometimes think I'd be happier without a relentless desire to try and understand what's wrong with the world. I do not think that ignorance is bliss, but being deeply afraid of climate collapse certainly isn't much fun.
[b:White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555] demolishes hopeful illusions about climate change, for instance the argument (which I was taught as a undergraduate) that it can be solved by global treaty because that worked for the hole in the ozone layer:
As CFCs are also greenhouse gases, I've read somewhere (probably [b:Kyoto2: How to Manage the Global Greenhouse|3710206|Kyoto2 How to Manage the Global Greenhouse|Oliver Tickell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1315673368l/3710206._SY75_.jpg|3753769]) that the Montreal Protocol did more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than the Kyoto Protocol, which set voluntary targets for greenhouse emissions mitigation that were ignored. To set the scene, there is a brief and uncompromising synopsis of fossil fuel companies discrediting climate change (cf [b:The Discovery of Global Warming|78687|The Discovery of Global Warming (New Histories of Science, Technology, and Medicine)|Spencer R. Weart|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388356090l/78687._SY75_.jpg|75979] and [b:Losing Earth: A Recent History|41940347|Losing Earth A Recent History|Nathaniel Rich|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1555104282l/41940347._SY75_.jpg|65424935]).
The substance of the book is then concerned with how the far right acts as a means by which fossil fuel companies continue to resist action to mitigate climate change. As the climate becomes increasingly unstable, with more and more occurrences of extreme weather, this denial and resistance has doubled down. While I'd already observed this somewhat with Trump, Bolsonaro, and useless Tory governments in the UK, seeing it laid out in great detail here hit hard. I hadn't realised what inroads the far right has made across much of mainland Europe, notably Finland and Denmark. The exhaustive descriptions of islamophobic, racist, and anti-environment policies and pronouncements are intensely depressing reading. The sheer fucking stupidity of these becomes overwhelming at times.
The only interesting variety is provided by occasional elements of eco-fascism, which I did not realise France's Front Nationale had dabbled in. These usually combine harking back to a prelapsarian 'natural' past with blunt force racist 'concern' that non-white people are having too many children. The British example given is [a:Paul Kingsnorth|406864|Paul Kingsnorth|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1507092300p2/406864.jpg]. While I found his essay collection [b:Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist and Other Essays|31450661|Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist and Other Essays|Paul Kingsnorth|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1483077976l/31450661._SX50_.jpg|52153539] highly thought-provoking, many of the thoughts weren't positive. I noted in my review that the essay Rescuing the English made me very angry, as it's anti-immigrant green nationalism couched in pretty language. Every use of 'English people' actually means 'white English people'. [b:White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555] also makes this point and characterises Kingnorth and 'his ilk' as the 'highbrow (or perhaps we should say middlebrow)' face of far right green nationalism.
The second section begins with a few chapters on the historical context of fascism and fossil fuel dependence. These ask what conditions enabled fascism to rise in the 20th century and whether they are happening again:
As a student and for many years after, I believed that incremental government policy could and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid runaway climate change. I lost this comforting belief between 2010 and 2016, which I talked about when reviewing [b:This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook|45308227|This Is Not A Drill An Extinction Rebellion Handbook|Extinction Rebellion|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1559314992l/45308227._SY75_.jpg|70036425]. The fact is that global carbon dioxide emissions keep rising rapidly and the longer this continues for the more severe any mitigation would need to be to avoid civilisation-ending rises in temperatures:
It seems extraordinary now to consider that the UK Climate Change Act 2008, which committed the country to cut emissions by 80% between 1990 level by 2050, was passed with support from all major parties including the Conservatives. Admittedly it's a toothless target with no real enforcement, but these days the Tories hate wind turbines, fuel tax, water quality standards, and any other environmental policies. Back then they were in opposition, led by David Cameron, and the years of austerity, brexit, and new depths of anti-immigrant racism were still to come. So I have definitely observed this intensified antagonism here in GB.
The only moment of anything like levity comes about in the section about right wing fear of 'cultural marxism', a conspiracy theory that sometimes includes the detail of Theodor Adorno writing all of The Beatles' lyrics. Impressive if true! On the other hand, there are many paragraphs in [b:White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555] that are so devastating that it's very difficult to get on with your day after reading them. For example, chapter 9 builds the argument that even when the far right doesn't deny climate change, it doesn't care about it because only non-white people in other countries will be affected by it. Thus the policy priority is to close borders to those suffering the ravages of climate change, while continuing with business as usual:
There isn't much to say about that, other than it makes me glad I don't have children and want to weep for the children of others.
Andreas Malm's excellent earlier book [b:Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming|25614450|Fossil Capital The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1449996772l/25614450._SY75_.jpg|44301257] recounts how steam power became dominant in Britain during the industrial revolution. In that Malm mentions a sequel tentatively titled 'Fossil Empire' that would extend his analysis beyond Britain, to the forcible export of industrial capitalism and steam power across the world. That book hasn't materialised, as the current state of climate change politics understandably proved more urgent, but elements of it are clearly present in [b:White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555]:
I also appreciated an analysis of how car dependence links into fossil fuel dependence and the far right, which took me right back to my PhD thesis. In that, I argued that reducing car ownership is key to reducing carbon emissions from transport, due to pernicious impact both at an individual and social level. Consequently this made me feel a certain amount of vindication:
Of course car dependence requires a vast network of public infrastructure that is built and maintained at huge public expense, but this is simply taken for granted as the motorist's entitlement!
Any involvement with The Beatles notwithstanding, Adorno is treated as a particularly useful philosopher for our current times, because his observations of encroaching fascism have unsettling relevance today:
[b:White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555] was published in 2021 and includes a postscript reflecting on 2020, which begins, 'One of the first political casualties of the Covid-19 pandemic was the climate movement.' This is not a book to read if you want to feel comfortable about current politics and daily life. It relentlessly strips away any illusion that the rise of the far right and the climate crisis are unrelated phenomena that won't worsen together. While this is not an invitation to despair rather than resistance, it is a lot to process. If necessary, I suggest reading or watching something that takes you away from the horrors of reality both during and after. Nonetheless, I do not regret reading it as a means of making some sense of what's preventing action on climate change. Certainly not a lack of scientific evidence or technological solutions; in essence it's a political choice to prioritise current shareholder returns over the survival of the human race. As that choice looks more and more insane, it is defended with greater and greater virulence. Generative AI is bound to worsen the reliability of information online, so it seems the political divide increasingly boils down to whether you are more afraid of reality (e.g. environmental breakdown) or of lies (e.g. Europe being taken over by Muslims). Positive visions of the future are sparse on both sides, but I'd still prefer to face reality in all its grimness than be manipulated by self-serving untrue garbage. Building a positive future requires acknowledgement of the world as it actually is. show less
[b:White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555] demolishes hopeful illusions about climate change, for instance the argument (which I was taught as a undergraduate) that it can be solved by global treaty because that worked for the hole in the ozone layer:
Fossil fuels are the universal substratum for the production of surplus-value - not a material for this or that specific product, as bauxite for aluminium or oranges for juice, but a type of energy utilised across the spectrum of commodity production. It is this special status of fossil fuels in the total metabolism of capital that comes into view in the climate crisis. Conversely, we could say that the problem of ozone depletion was relatively easily managed because there did not exist any primitive accumulation of chlorofluorocarbon capital with which the rest of capital lived in symbiosis, and hence no capitalist class fraction with the capacity to sabotage the Montreal Protocol enacted in 1989.
As CFCs are also greenhouse gases, I've read somewhere (probably [b:Kyoto2: How to Manage the Global Greenhouse|3710206|Kyoto2 How to Manage the Global Greenhouse|Oliver Tickell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1315673368l/3710206._SY75_.jpg|3753769]) that the Montreal Protocol did more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than the Kyoto Protocol, which set voluntary targets for greenhouse emissions mitigation that were ignored. To set the scene, there is a brief and uncompromising synopsis of fossil fuel companies discrediting climate change (cf [b:The Discovery of Global Warming|78687|The Discovery of Global Warming (New Histories of Science, Technology, and Medicine)|Spencer R. Weart|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388356090l/78687._SY75_.jpg|75979] and [b:Losing Earth: A Recent History|41940347|Losing Earth A Recent History|Nathaniel Rich|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1555104282l/41940347._SY75_.jpg|65424935]).
The layman's impression of a debate between researchers who believed in global warming and those who disputed it was completely manufactured by the class faction that knew, before almost anyone else, that there was no reason to have such a debate, any more than one over heliocentrism or the laws of thermodynamics. The debate was a vicious trick, the denial but a tactic. Some of the early reports might have been buried deep in desks and archives, but the knowledge was updated and the duplicity renewed on a regular basis. Exxon, for instance, spoke with a consistently forked tongue over the years, saying one thing in internal documents and something entirely different in advertorials and other PR material.
The substance of the book is then concerned with how the far right acts as a means by which fossil fuel companies continue to resist action to mitigate climate change. As the climate becomes increasingly unstable, with more and more occurrences of extreme weather, this denial and resistance has doubled down. While I'd already observed this somewhat with Trump, Bolsonaro, and useless Tory governments in the UK, seeing it laid out in great detail here hit hard. I hadn't realised what inroads the far right has made across much of mainland Europe, notably Finland and Denmark. The exhaustive descriptions of islamophobic, racist, and anti-environment policies and pronouncements are intensely depressing reading. The sheer fucking stupidity of these becomes overwhelming at times.
The only interesting variety is provided by occasional elements of eco-fascism, which I did not realise France's Front Nationale had dabbled in. These usually combine harking back to a prelapsarian 'natural' past with blunt force racist 'concern' that non-white people are having too many children. The British example given is [a:Paul Kingsnorth|406864|Paul Kingsnorth|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1507092300p2/406864.jpg]. While I found his essay collection [b:Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist and Other Essays|31450661|Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist and Other Essays|Paul Kingsnorth|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1483077976l/31450661._SX50_.jpg|52153539] highly thought-provoking, many of the thoughts weren't positive. I noted in my review that the essay Rescuing the English made me very angry, as it's anti-immigrant green nationalism couched in pretty language. Every use of 'English people' actually means 'white English people'. [b:White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555] also makes this point and characterises Kingnorth and 'his ilk' as the 'highbrow (or perhaps we should say middlebrow)' face of far right green nationalism.
The second section begins with a few chapters on the historical context of fascism and fossil fuel dependence. These ask what conditions enabled fascism to rise in the 20th century and whether they are happening again:
For anyone concerned with the possible reappearance of fascism, it follows that 'the key question becomes: what kind of crisis calls this politics to the agenda?'
But no crisis has ever induced fascism through automatic causation, just as no ingredients bakes themselves into a bread. Someone is always running the bakery. Paxton highlights the fact that both Mussolini and Hitler came into office by order of traditional power-holders. Both men were invited to rule by the legitimate representatives of their respective states - King Victor Emmanuel III in October 1922, President Von Hindenburg in January 1933 - who acted out a shared resolve among their dominant classes to bank on fascist forces as the best way out of the impasse. Both Il Duce and the Fuhrer had taken a previous stab at seizing power on their own - the former in the election campaign of 1919, the latter in the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 - and failed abysmally. Their route to government passed through an alliance with the existing establishment. [...]
Such analysis should not be mistaken for a facile view of fascism as the string doll of big capital, designed by it and moving as it did. Keen observers from Zetkin onwards recognised fascism as a mass movement in its own right, with an authentic following - even among some proletarian strata - and a winning nationalist zeal irreducible to the needs of any dominant class fraction. It was never the first choice of a king or president. Rather it served as a last resort, to which official powerbrokers and bourgeois layers turned in an hour of desperate need. [...]
The second condition of the existence of fascism was the willingness of sections of the dominant class to call upon the fascists to relieve the crisis. Fascism, then, was not for ordinary times.
As a student and for many years after, I believed that incremental government policy could and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid runaway climate change. I lost this comforting belief between 2010 and 2016, which I talked about when reviewing [b:This Is Not A Drill: An Extinction Rebellion Handbook|45308227|This Is Not A Drill An Extinction Rebellion Handbook|Extinction Rebellion|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1559314992l/45308227._SY75_.jpg|70036425]. The fact is that global carbon dioxide emissions keep rising rapidly and the longer this continues for the more severe any mitigation would need to be to avoid civilisation-ending rises in temperatures:
Anderson laid it down: every postponement of the 'day of reckoning' has intensified the contradiction between capital accumulation and the life-support systems of the earth. Every additional gigatonne of carbon sent into the atmosphere makes half measures less viable. Every moment of stalling mitigation has ensured that if it ever commences, it will have to exercise the highest degree of control over the material conditions of life - first of all, over the privileged minority wasting the resources on which all others depend, notably the carbon sink of the atmosphere. [...]
The development of climate politics seems to obey a law of polarisation: the higher the temperatures, the more acute the antagonism between a left that alone stands ready to pick up the instruments for alleviating the crisis and a right that, for that very reason, refuses to contemplate it. A recursive cycle has been rolling for some time. Every year of inaction necessitates more revolutionary action the next; every threat of such action - if only of a hypothetical, tautological character - strengthens the conviction that this is a plot by the left.
It seems extraordinary now to consider that the UK Climate Change Act 2008, which committed the country to cut emissions by 80% between 1990 level by 2050, was passed with support from all major parties including the Conservatives. Admittedly it's a toothless target with no real enforcement, but these days the Tories hate wind turbines, fuel tax, water quality standards, and any other environmental policies. Back then they were in opposition, led by David Cameron, and the years of austerity, brexit, and new depths of anti-immigrant racism were still to come. So I have definitely observed this intensified antagonism here in GB.
The only moment of anything like levity comes about in the section about right wing fear of 'cultural marxism', a conspiracy theory that sometimes includes the detail of Theodor Adorno writing all of The Beatles' lyrics. Impressive if true! On the other hand, there are many paragraphs in [b:White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555] that are so devastating that it's very difficult to get on with your day after reading them. For example, chapter 9 builds the argument that even when the far right doesn't deny climate change, it doesn't care about it because only non-white people in other countries will be affected by it. Thus the policy priority is to close borders to those suffering the ravages of climate change, while continuing with business as usual:
The logic appears robust. In a world where black and brown lives matter little, and where global warming first destroys such lives, then it will not be a matter of great concern. But if there is indeed a real effect of this kind - it's a problem for non-white trash, so let's keep burning - we would expect it to be most powerful in the early stages of warming, up to, say, 2°C, whereas at very late stages, at 6°C and 8°C and beyond, it would presumably wane with the differentials in vulnerability. At 10°C, the blondest Swedes will be reduced to cinders too. In other words, the effect would be most politically efficacious precisely in the window of time when mitigation could make the largest difference. Everyone will be in the same furnace and see their shared destiny only when it's far too late to do anything about it.
There isn't much to say about that, other than it makes me glad I don't have children and want to weep for the children of others.
Andreas Malm's excellent earlier book [b:Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming|25614450|Fossil Capital The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1449996772l/25614450._SY75_.jpg|44301257] recounts how steam power became dominant in Britain during the industrial revolution. In that Malm mentions a sequel tentatively titled 'Fossil Empire' that would extend his analysis beyond Britain, to the forcible export of industrial capitalism and steam power across the world. That book hasn't materialised, as the current state of climate change politics understandably proved more urgent, but elements of it are clearly present in [b:White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555]:
But it could also be hypothesised that the articulation of energy and race that developed over the nineteenth century, in the most primary levels of modern capitalism, sedimented an association between whiteness and fossil fuels that wells up like magma in a time of climate breakdown. Certain defenders of such fuels might feel, on some level, questioned not only as burners but more specifically as white people, who for so long have had their tap-root of riches in the bowels of the planet. One can hear some of this association echoing in one of the boilerplates of white supremacy, in the US in particular: whites should be proud for having invented the modern world.
I also appreciated an analysis of how car dependence links into fossil fuel dependence and the far right, which took me right back to my PhD thesis. In that, I argued that reducing car ownership is key to reducing carbon emissions from transport, due to pernicious impact both at an individual and social level. Consequently this made me feel a certain amount of vindication:
The motorist wants to be left alone, preferably have the road to himself as he speeds forth. 'We are now, truly,' Mitchell writes, continuing the SUV-owners anthem, 'the liberal, autonomous subject. We own ourselves and no one can intrude upon us without our permission.' The car, in other words, exudes the ideology most detrimental to any efforts to cut emissions - an ideology of form as much as content, abiding no rationing or accommodation of foreign others.
Of course car dependence requires a vast network of public infrastructure that is built and maintained at huge public expense, but this is simply taken for granted as the motorist's entitlement!
Any involvement with The Beatles notwithstanding, Adorno is treated as a particularly useful philosopher for our current times, because his observations of encroaching fascism have unsettling relevance today:
Among the messages in a bottle that Adorno sent out like an armada, this one is not the least disconcerting: the break with reality is caused by reality itself and then reacts back upon it. Under the conditions of a fossil economy, the rational thing to do is to turn on the coal stove, take the car to work, fly to Thailand for a holiday, buy some shares in an oil company. The totality is irrational. It cannot adjust to the reality it produces and so breaks off from it, one way or another, in a flight that inevitably sweeps up individuals too. 'People are inevitably as irrational as the world in which they live.' [...] We can particularise this diagnosis and say that after the onset of the climate crisis, the reproduction of fossil capital as such secretes ideologies of denial and other irrational pathologies.
[b:White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|56708410|White Skin, Black Fuel On the Danger of Fossil Fascism|Andreas Malm|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1623412638l/56708410._SY75_.jpg|88659555] was published in 2021 and includes a postscript reflecting on 2020, which begins, 'One of the first political casualties of the Covid-19 pandemic was the climate movement.' This is not a book to read if you want to feel comfortable about current politics and daily life. It relentlessly strips away any illusion that the rise of the far right and the climate crisis are unrelated phenomena that won't worsen together. While this is not an invitation to despair rather than resistance, it is a lot to process. If necessary, I suggest reading or watching something that takes you away from the horrors of reality both during and after. Nonetheless, I do not regret reading it as a means of making some sense of what's preventing action on climate change. Certainly not a lack of scientific evidence or technological solutions; in essence it's a political choice to prioritise current shareholder returns over the survival of the human race. As that choice looks more and more insane, it is defended with greater and greater virulence. Generative AI is bound to worsen the reliability of information online, so it seems the political divide increasingly boils down to whether you are more afraid of reality (e.g. environmental breakdown) or of lies (e.g. Europe being taken over by Muslims). Positive visions of the future are sparse on both sides, but I'd still prefer to face reality in all its grimness than be manipulated by self-serving untrue garbage. Building a positive future requires acknowledgement of the world as it actually is. show less
Lists
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 24
- Also by
- 1
- Members
- 1,562
- Popularity
- #16,507
- Rating
- 3.8
- Reviews
- 27
- ISBNs
- 75
- Languages
- 12
- Favorited
- 2





















