What do you think?
Rate this book
Climate Change and the Nation State: The Case for Nationalism in a Warming World
The climate emergency is intensifying, while international responses continue to falter. In Climate Change and the Nation State, Anatol Lieven outlines a revolutionary approach grounded in realist thinking. This involves redefining climate change as an existential threat to nation states - which it is - and mobilizing both national security elites and mass nationalism. He condemns Western militaries for neglecting climate change and instead prioritizing traditional but less serious threats.
Lieven reminds us that nationalism is the most important force in motivating people to care about the wellbeing of future generations. The support of nationalism is therefore vital to legitimizing the sacrifices necessary to limit climate change and surviving and the effects of it (some of which are now inevitable). This will require greatly strengthened social and national solidarity across lines of class and race. Throughout, Lieven draws on historical examples to show how nationalism has helped enable past movements to implement progressive social reform.
Lieven strongly supports plans for a "Green New Deal" in the USA and Europe. In order to implement and maintain such changes, however, it will be necessary to create dominant national consensuses like those that enabled and sustained the original New Deal and welfare states in Europe. Lieven criticizes sections of the environmentalist left for hindering this by their hostility to national interests, their utopian political naivet�, their advancement of divisive cultural agendas, and their commitment to open borders.
Radical and timely, Climate Change and the Nation State is an essential contribution to the debate on how to deal with a climatic crisis that if unchecked will threaten the survival of Western democracies and every organized human society.
Lieven reminds us that nationalism is the most important force in motivating people to care about the wellbeing of future generations. The support of nationalism is therefore vital to legitimizing the sacrifices necessary to limit climate change and surviving and the effects of it (some of which are now inevitable). This will require greatly strengthened social and national solidarity across lines of class and race. Throughout, Lieven draws on historical examples to show how nationalism has helped enable past movements to implement progressive social reform.
Lieven strongly supports plans for a "Green New Deal" in the USA and Europe. In order to implement and maintain such changes, however, it will be necessary to create dominant national consensuses like those that enabled and sustained the original New Deal and welfare states in Europe. Lieven criticizes sections of the environmentalist left for hindering this by their hostility to national interests, their utopian political naivet�, their advancement of divisive cultural agendas, and their commitment to open borders.
Radical and timely, Climate Change and the Nation State is an essential contribution to the debate on how to deal with a climatic crisis that if unchecked will threaten the survival of Western democracies and every organized human society.
240 pages, Hardcover
Published April 1, 2020
18 people are currently reading
392 people want to read
About the author
Anatol Lieven
23 books96 followersAnatol Lieven currently reports from Central Europe for the Financial Times. In 1996-97 he was visiting senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C. He is the author of The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence, published by Yale University Press.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
October 9, 2020
Anatol Lieven makes the unfashionable argument that a world of revived nationalisms is today our shortest path away from collective climate apocalypse. Lieven argues correctly that strong states are the only powers on earth today capable of steering us away from the approaching iceberg of environmental collapse. To that end, we need to do everything we can to make these states as strong and as united as possible. If climate change is really the most important issue on earth, and Lieven argues compellingly that it is, other priorities, even dearly held ones, that hold back or even delay action on this issue need to be put to the side. This means re-embracing some type of national pride and mobilization, even if it means postponing or even sacrificing liberal individualist goals.
To their great, credit progressives have led the charge against climate change in Western countries. But they have also done so while wedding the issue to a broader raft of progressive goals that make it unlikely that conservatives will quickly and energetically come on board. As long as politics is trapped in this Mexican standoff, no sweeping change is likely to happen. If progressives had unlimited time they could probably stall their adversaries out. But unfortunately, the staggering problem of CO2 emissions happens to be very time-sensitive. Lieven therefore argues that progressives should go minimalist in their climate strategy and craft it in a way that will appeal to conservatives culturally, including by using messaging that focuses on national pride and employs military figures. Dreams of a unified rainbow global climate movement are indeed nice. But the actually existing world we have is one in which power resides with nation-states built on specific cultures and traditions.
To be clear, Lieven calls for a civic nationalism rather than an ethnic one. He is certainly not an "eco-fascist," like some on the far-right have taken to calling themselves. But he is clearly very exasperated with the trench warfare of progressive identity politics, given that, by progressives own admission, climate change is an existential threat to humanity as a whole. No progressive future is going to be possible anyways in a world of armed conflicts over water, coerced mass migration, endemic drought and the breakdown of food supplies. The dream of abolishing capitalism, held by Marxists regardless of circumstance, is actually an obstacle to immediately fighting climate change since most people are currently against it and past socialist regimes have also contributed hugely to the crisis. Lieven acknowledges that total free-market solutions are dangerous nonsense and forceful state intervention is needed as soon as possible. But he argues that we need to be pragmatic about this and take whatever combination of policies that gets us away from our present existential crisis.
This book was published in the United Kingdom, and I really find it hard to imagine that it would have been published in the United States. The reason is that, despite being a strong supporter of policies like the Green New Deal, Lieven is an obvious ideological critic of liberalism – and not a Marxist one. He blames the liberal ethic for breaking down the links between generations that would normally shame people from dooming today's children to an adulthood of apocalypse. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, he is brutally honest in outlining what he thinks will be necessary to achieve the medium-term nationalist cohesion necessary to stop climate change, including seeking detente on divisive issues like migration and culture. This book is about getting conservatives on board as soon as possible, not eradicating them as a political force which most on the Left assume to be a necessary outcome of any future program.
Lieven's argument was entertaining and compelling on several points, although the book itself felt like a bit of a drive-by. An excellent point he made that’s applicable to many spheres of life is the problem of “residual elites,” who are aged into certain ways of viewing the world and keep applying those frameworks to new situations even when things have changed. But there were also interesting threads on automation and artificial intelligence that Lieven never tied up. I really don't know what will happen with the climate, unfortunately. But any ideas that get nation-states, still the quintessential political unit of modernity, moving on the subject are certainly welcome.
To their great, credit progressives have led the charge against climate change in Western countries. But they have also done so while wedding the issue to a broader raft of progressive goals that make it unlikely that conservatives will quickly and energetically come on board. As long as politics is trapped in this Mexican standoff, no sweeping change is likely to happen. If progressives had unlimited time they could probably stall their adversaries out. But unfortunately, the staggering problem of CO2 emissions happens to be very time-sensitive. Lieven therefore argues that progressives should go minimalist in their climate strategy and craft it in a way that will appeal to conservatives culturally, including by using messaging that focuses on national pride and employs military figures. Dreams of a unified rainbow global climate movement are indeed nice. But the actually existing world we have is one in which power resides with nation-states built on specific cultures and traditions.
To be clear, Lieven calls for a civic nationalism rather than an ethnic one. He is certainly not an "eco-fascist," like some on the far-right have taken to calling themselves. But he is clearly very exasperated with the trench warfare of progressive identity politics, given that, by progressives own admission, climate change is an existential threat to humanity as a whole. No progressive future is going to be possible anyways in a world of armed conflicts over water, coerced mass migration, endemic drought and the breakdown of food supplies. The dream of abolishing capitalism, held by Marxists regardless of circumstance, is actually an obstacle to immediately fighting climate change since most people are currently against it and past socialist regimes have also contributed hugely to the crisis. Lieven acknowledges that total free-market solutions are dangerous nonsense and forceful state intervention is needed as soon as possible. But he argues that we need to be pragmatic about this and take whatever combination of policies that gets us away from our present existential crisis.
This book was published in the United Kingdom, and I really find it hard to imagine that it would have been published in the United States. The reason is that, despite being a strong supporter of policies like the Green New Deal, Lieven is an obvious ideological critic of liberalism – and not a Marxist one. He blames the liberal ethic for breaking down the links between generations that would normally shame people from dooming today's children to an adulthood of apocalypse. Moreover, rightly or wrongly, he is brutally honest in outlining what he thinks will be necessary to achieve the medium-term nationalist cohesion necessary to stop climate change, including seeking detente on divisive issues like migration and culture. This book is about getting conservatives on board as soon as possible, not eradicating them as a political force which most on the Left assume to be a necessary outcome of any future program.
Lieven's argument was entertaining and compelling on several points, although the book itself felt like a bit of a drive-by. An excellent point he made that’s applicable to many spheres of life is the problem of “residual elites,” who are aged into certain ways of viewing the world and keep applying those frameworks to new situations even when things have changed. But there were also interesting threads on automation and artificial intelligence that Lieven never tied up. I really don't know what will happen with the climate, unfortunately. But any ideas that get nation-states, still the quintessential political unit of modernity, moving on the subject are certainly welcome.
March 8, 2020
A mess of political logic: Lieven makes a case for nationalist immigration restriction as a response to climate change, and yet repeatedly describes Trump and Brexit as a disaster: what? He paints an alarming picture of Bangladesh’s dire fate and yet still suggests hard border enforcement in the face of mass climate change induced migration is a sustainable ethical position: what?
He begins from the (IMO correct) premise that addressing climate change requires a strong state. But then he goes on to utterly conflate state, nation, and society — assuming you can only have a strong state in places where there is an integrated, solidaristic national identity rooted in people’s sense of having lived in the same place together for a long time. This is belied by many historical examples. And yet dismisses as “silly” and “fatuous” and “fanciful” and “fantasy” other views — which is (at best) intellectually lazy.
He begins from the (IMO correct) premise that addressing climate change requires a strong state. But then he goes on to utterly conflate state, nation, and society — assuming you can only have a strong state in places where there is an integrated, solidaristic national identity rooted in people’s sense of having lived in the same place together for a long time. This is belied by many historical examples. And yet dismisses as “silly” and “fatuous” and “fanciful” and “fantasy” other views — which is (at best) intellectually lazy.
June 19, 2022
This interesting polemic is a mixed bag. I became aware of it after the author was cited in an article over at Unherd. Some of my favourite authors have contributed to that website (Michel Houellebecq, Paul Kingsnorth, John Gray etc) and the central idea to this book is similarly unorthodox. Lievin unfashionably posits the importance of the nation state in battling the existential threat of climate change.
The reasons for this are manifold; globalist, consumerist individualism doesn't lend itself to a concerted unified effort in the same way as a homogenous national identity, i.e. the World War II home effort. The citizens are dependent on the nation state for their protection and ultimate survival.
Borders and limits are necessary if any kind of standards or examples are to be set for other nations to follow. A protective love for your local land and region, far from being the negative slur that "NIMBYism" frames it as then, is essential to any true form of conservation.
The author gives us a global state of the nations report, highlighting various battles for clean water, drought, wars over resources, ethnic strife etc. Many multicultural nations are already on the verge of civil war and struggling with the growing, distinct Islamic culture in their midst, as per Russia, Myanmar, China, India et al. Can the nations remain strong and reduce their impacts as they also suffer internal, localised competition for finite resources?
Lieven identifies threats coming from the huge, ever growing human population, climate induced migration (He references Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat ethics) and atomised nations within nations as cultural, interest groups clash between their various enclaves.
Huge swathes of people (often the conservative voting majority) are villainised by divisive politics, often labeled as "deplorables" and are made unwelcome in the environmental movement. This schism often results in a left vs right divide on environmental concerns rather than the necessary united, all-hands-on-deck approach.
No region will ever need to tackle its own population problems if other nations continue to absorb the overflow. Think of the Catholic Philippines with its taboos over contraception and abortions; the displaced are treated abominably as they are exploited globally as cheap labour.
Many nations have done a good job in bringing down their Total Fertility Rate below replacement levels and one of those, England is already the most densely populated large country in Europe. Yet the UK, Finland etc are attributing 90% of their population growth to immigration.
In the context of climate change, the migratory routes invariably head towards the nations with the highest rates of consumption and as a double whammy, import culturally higher fertility rates.
All this as it has just been announced that a record one million people were given British visas in the last year. Brexit voters were expecting less population growth, less contribution to the housing crisis and its building on fields and green spaces, less congestion on the roads, less over subscription for NHS treatments etc and Boris Johnson buoyed them on with his 2016 assertion that "To add a city the size of Newcastle to the UK every year . . . let me put it this way, it's too high to do without consent." He has even highlighted overpopulation as the greatest issue in the past.
Japan is praised for resisting immigration as a Ponzi scheme response to lowered fertility rates. Rather it should embrace its necessary degrowth as an overpopulated, high consuming nation. He also highlights the looming issue that is the rise of our dependence on Artificial Intelligence and automation in replacing many industries. This is set to open up issues of Universal Basic Income and increased free time.
There is a warning against the anarchy of revolution (which as per The Arab Spring rarely leads to improved outcomes) and that there are no social justice issues on a dead or dying planet is wisely highlighted. Human rights are of course rarely respected in chaotic zones of conflict. As such he wishes for identity politics to be put to one side. He contends that the rhetoric doesn't gain a single new vote and instead just intensifies divisions at a time when a new wartime effort in cohesion is required.
Similarly he has contempt for the trifling concerns of growth based economists and all the various political issues that currently take priority over climate change. He insists that any rich elites must be made to pay their taxes to maintain the required trust in the nation and its institutions. Doing away with an "Us Vs Them" mentality is echoed at every stage as he advocates that our instinctually tribal species should quickly become unified under civic-nationalism.
That said his focus is a tad myopic as we have a myriad of predicaments beyond climate-change, many of them also ecological. The sixth great extinction, groundwater depletion, ever earlier overshoot of resources, vanishing fertile topsoil etc.
He is also often fixated on techno fixes as the answer. The Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs film Planet Of The Humans alongside other critics show a lot of the limitations to this obsession with greenhouse gases alone. At times Lieven posits the naïve belief that destructive mining and factory made industrial products can be the answer rather than merely a small part of an urgent degrowth trend in human activity and numbers.
There are also some strange tangents to be found. He repeatedly calls Brexit a disaster but never explains why. Surely this book is calling for greater independence and self governance rather than submission to large, sprawling economic trading power?
He also suggests the breeding away of ethnicity as some kind of unifying solution. Not likely to happen anytime soon, nor would it be popular with already embattled and diminished tribes in the Amazon who assert their distinct right to exist. On which topic he does at least recognise that Europeans should be allowed to feel no less bonded to their homelands than any other indigenous culture.
In short I feel comprehensive reviews (such as this one) might be enough for many laymen but I still give Anatol Lieven extra credit for his brave tackling of a neglected and unpopular issue.
The reasons for this are manifold; globalist, consumerist individualism doesn't lend itself to a concerted unified effort in the same way as a homogenous national identity, i.e. the World War II home effort. The citizens are dependent on the nation state for their protection and ultimate survival.
Borders and limits are necessary if any kind of standards or examples are to be set for other nations to follow. A protective love for your local land and region, far from being the negative slur that "NIMBYism" frames it as then, is essential to any true form of conservation.
The author gives us a global state of the nations report, highlighting various battles for clean water, drought, wars over resources, ethnic strife etc. Many multicultural nations are already on the verge of civil war and struggling with the growing, distinct Islamic culture in their midst, as per Russia, Myanmar, China, India et al. Can the nations remain strong and reduce their impacts as they also suffer internal, localised competition for finite resources?
Lieven identifies threats coming from the huge, ever growing human population, climate induced migration (He references Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat ethics) and atomised nations within nations as cultural, interest groups clash between their various enclaves.
Huge swathes of people (often the conservative voting majority) are villainised by divisive politics, often labeled as "deplorables" and are made unwelcome in the environmental movement. This schism often results in a left vs right divide on environmental concerns rather than the necessary united, all-hands-on-deck approach.
No region will ever need to tackle its own population problems if other nations continue to absorb the overflow. Think of the Catholic Philippines with its taboos over contraception and abortions; the displaced are treated abominably as they are exploited globally as cheap labour.
Many nations have done a good job in bringing down their Total Fertility Rate below replacement levels and one of those, England is already the most densely populated large country in Europe. Yet the UK, Finland etc are attributing 90% of their population growth to immigration.
In the context of climate change, the migratory routes invariably head towards the nations with the highest rates of consumption and as a double whammy, import culturally higher fertility rates.
All this as it has just been announced that a record one million people were given British visas in the last year. Brexit voters were expecting less population growth, less contribution to the housing crisis and its building on fields and green spaces, less congestion on the roads, less over subscription for NHS treatments etc and Boris Johnson buoyed them on with his 2016 assertion that "To add a city the size of Newcastle to the UK every year . . . let me put it this way, it's too high to do without consent." He has even highlighted overpopulation as the greatest issue in the past.
Japan is praised for resisting immigration as a Ponzi scheme response to lowered fertility rates. Rather it should embrace its necessary degrowth as an overpopulated, high consuming nation. He also highlights the looming issue that is the rise of our dependence on Artificial Intelligence and automation in replacing many industries. This is set to open up issues of Universal Basic Income and increased free time.
There is a warning against the anarchy of revolution (which as per The Arab Spring rarely leads to improved outcomes) and that there are no social justice issues on a dead or dying planet is wisely highlighted. Human rights are of course rarely respected in chaotic zones of conflict. As such he wishes for identity politics to be put to one side. He contends that the rhetoric doesn't gain a single new vote and instead just intensifies divisions at a time when a new wartime effort in cohesion is required.
Similarly he has contempt for the trifling concerns of growth based economists and all the various political issues that currently take priority over climate change. He insists that any rich elites must be made to pay their taxes to maintain the required trust in the nation and its institutions. Doing away with an "Us Vs Them" mentality is echoed at every stage as he advocates that our instinctually tribal species should quickly become unified under civic-nationalism.
That said his focus is a tad myopic as we have a myriad of predicaments beyond climate-change, many of them also ecological. The sixth great extinction, groundwater depletion, ever earlier overshoot of resources, vanishing fertile topsoil etc.
He is also often fixated on techno fixes as the answer. The Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs film Planet Of The Humans alongside other critics show a lot of the limitations to this obsession with greenhouse gases alone. At times Lieven posits the naïve belief that destructive mining and factory made industrial products can be the answer rather than merely a small part of an urgent degrowth trend in human activity and numbers.
There are also some strange tangents to be found. He repeatedly calls Brexit a disaster but never explains why. Surely this book is calling for greater independence and self governance rather than submission to large, sprawling economic trading power?
He also suggests the breeding away of ethnicity as some kind of unifying solution. Not likely to happen anytime soon, nor would it be popular with already embattled and diminished tribes in the Amazon who assert their distinct right to exist. On which topic he does at least recognise that Europeans should be allowed to feel no less bonded to their homelands than any other indigenous culture.
In short I feel comprehensive reviews (such as this one) might be enough for many laymen but I still give Anatol Lieven extra credit for his brave tackling of a neglected and unpopular issue.
December 22, 2021
An incisive and refreshing analysis of the threat posed by climate change and humanity’s best chance of averting the worst. The author’s core argument that we would be most successful by drawing on existing bonds of nationhood and by utilising shared resources such as the military was original and stands up to analysis.
Although I would be hesitant to embrace nationalism to the extent which is proposed, and don’t agree that the left should move rightwards in order to be electable, I think on the whole this book establishes a new framework for dealing with the threat posed by climate change in a timely manner.
There are also interesting historical comparisons in reference to runaway capitalism and the Green New Deal which offered new perspectives. On the whole I would recommend this book, even for those who may not agree, as a refreshing contribution to this wide-ranging debate.
Although I would be hesitant to embrace nationalism to the extent which is proposed, and don’t agree that the left should move rightwards in order to be electable, I think on the whole this book establishes a new framework for dealing with the threat posed by climate change in a timely manner.
There are also interesting historical comparisons in reference to runaway capitalism and the Green New Deal which offered new perspectives. On the whole I would recommend this book, even for those who may not agree, as a refreshing contribution to this wide-ranging debate.
February 9, 2020
‘Climate Change and the Nation State: The Realist Case’ by Anatol Lieven is different from previous books that I have read on climate change.
Its author is not a scientist but a former journalist turned professor, who teaches and writes on global policies, war studies, and international relations. As a result his approach is looking at social trends including how our predecessors dealt with the Industrial Revolution, major wars, and other upheavals.
Throughout the book he stresses the need not only for individuals to be mobilised but for nations to find ways to address the coming threats. All well and good though his thesis is that the only ideology capable of demanding the required sacrifices from their populations is nationalism. He is also very pro-austerity.
This concept of encouraging nationalist feelings makes me uneasy given historical and present day examples of how this can lead to isolationism and xenophobia. However, he also embraces the American Green New Deal. Are these incompatible stances?
My belief that we need to work together and set aside differences for the sake of the planet he likely would consider naive and idealistic.
He is dismissive of alternative energy and supports the use of nuclear power, which given the lessons of Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi disasters, seems shortsighted to me.
Overall, I found this a difficult and confusing book. I suspect that it’s just not a great fit for me as I have little background in the political theories that underpin his writing. So I think that I will be sticking to reading books on climate change written by scientists as I am more naturally predisposed to their approach.
Its author is not a scientist but a former journalist turned professor, who teaches and writes on global policies, war studies, and international relations. As a result his approach is looking at social trends including how our predecessors dealt with the Industrial Revolution, major wars, and other upheavals.
Throughout the book he stresses the need not only for individuals to be mobilised but for nations to find ways to address the coming threats. All well and good though his thesis is that the only ideology capable of demanding the required sacrifices from their populations is nationalism. He is also very pro-austerity.
This concept of encouraging nationalist feelings makes me uneasy given historical and present day examples of how this can lead to isolationism and xenophobia. However, he also embraces the American Green New Deal. Are these incompatible stances?
My belief that we need to work together and set aside differences for the sake of the planet he likely would consider naive and idealistic.
He is dismissive of alternative energy and supports the use of nuclear power, which given the lessons of Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi disasters, seems shortsighted to me.
Overall, I found this a difficult and confusing book. I suspect that it’s just not a great fit for me as I have little background in the political theories that underpin his writing. So I think that I will be sticking to reading books on climate change written by scientists as I am more naturally predisposed to their approach.
February 26, 2023
What a grueling read. Could barely make it through a single page without eye-rolling at how intellectually lazy this was. Highlights include when Lieven claimed that most ppl in the US didn’t benefit from economic growth in the 70s *due to downward wage pressure from immigration*; regularly insisted that the environmental camp favours the erosion of states; and attributed blame on developing countries for the contemporary growth in emissions. Maybe he should consider conducting a simple literature review of key topics before attempting his next book? Honorable mentions for when he called on environmentalists to capitalize on cultural conservatism and anti-immigrant sentiments, and crudely bashed on concepts of intersectionality (too divisive) and CRT (too nation-hating). Nearly lost my mind when Lieven quoted MLK and Tucker Carlson a couple pages apart to (poorly) back the same argument, not taking into account the broader setting of MLK’s works. Overall, the book relies on (1) the conflation of a strong state with nationalism; and (2) serious cherry-picking of political ideas with no sense of their compatibility in an effort to assert his supposed ~realist level-headedness~ amongst ‘extremist’ views on the left/right. Genuinely frightening to see so many positive reviews on this.
July 11, 2024
This book is proof that one can easily find common ground with someone on a different side of the political spectrum if one is willing to listen. Most arguments are selfish and inconsiderate but if that's going to make certain people start to care about climate change well hey ho. A wee flaw is how much the author talks against foreigners yet seems to have enjoyed being a foreigner himself plenty of times in his life. I guess it's just the British in him. I do agree with him that a nationalistic spirit can help in solving environmental damage, but that is only if the aforementioned is accompanied by a strong love and respect for one's land. Despite the arguments in favor of a patriotic spirit, solutions against global warming can also be achieved through a globalist approach and will probably take into consideration social justice in a better way.
October 25, 2020
Anatol Lieven offers an original take on climate solutions. Against the liberal internationalism of most environmentalists and climate activists such as Naomi Klein, Lieven sees nationalism in a positive light. Obviously, he's not talking about the ethnic/white nationalism of the alt right in the US or far right parties in Europe. Instead, Lieven means the liberal nationalism that allowed the nation state in the last 300 years to replace the loosely governed monarchies and empires of the past. Much was lost in this transition, but much was gained, including commitments to civil rights and a government strong enough to back them up.
Today, the internationalist outlook of the environmental movement may be counter productive. While global cooperation is certainly needed on climate change, it's a fantasy to think that the U.N. or some other form of post-national global order will ever have enough power to implement serious enough climate solutions to make a difference.
In the past, only the nation state had the power to regulate the economy, arrange for the common defense and do other heavy lifting required to make changes in modern societies. Today, only the nation state has enough power to fight climate change. So, progressives need to learn to stop worrying and love their country. Fortunately, this doesn't mean you have to become a white nationalist or pro-war jingoist. It just means you have to start appealing to your fellow citizens' sense of national unity to get them to make the sacrifices that fighting climate change successfully will require.
And make no mistake, sacrifices will be needed. Anybody who says that clean energy can replace fossil fuels with no belt tightening is too optimistic. "Green growth" may be the weakest appeal in the Green New Deal. Lieven supports a GND in the U.S. and elsewhere because he believes that no nation can effectively fight climate change without also offering social equity: everybody from the rich to the poor needs to be convinced that everybody else is also making sacrifices, and that it's fair, or else we won't be able to work together on the massive program needed. It's like wartime rationing, in a time of limited resources, we all need to know that everybody is tightening their belt, and that rich people are paying their fair share along with the rest of us.
Lieven says a couple of other things that will be hard for some green activists to take. First, he likes nuclear power, which I understand -- so does leading climatologist James Hansen -- but don't agree with. Until the industry solves the problem of waste, it's immoral to leave dangerous radioactive garbage that future generations will have to protect for the next 500 or 1000 years. Also, I'm still not convinced that you can operate nuclear plants, even so called "next generation" ones, safely. Finally, nuclear is still so expensive to build. With practical solar and wind backed up by energy storage, we certainly won't need any new nuclear power. At most, to ease the transition, I could see taking a more gradual approach to retiring the nuclear capacity we already have.
The other thing Lieven writes is that the wealthy nations of the world will have to start restricting immigration. It's also an unpopular position for liberals, who seem to want some version of open borders as part of their commitment to human rights and serving the global good. But Lieven is right that no nation in the past has ever offered its citizens a high standard of living with expensive social benefits that would be open to all comers. I agree with Lieven that the U.S. and other wealthy nations will need to get serious about immigration reform, and that it will have to include some restrictions to preserve the integrity of national borders.
Otherwise, there's no way we'll be able to afford the social and job programs of the Green New Deal including universal healthcare and even perhaps a universal guaranteed income. I agree with Lieven that these reforms may be necessary to make the Green New Deal Work, but that we can't afford to implement them unless we have some control over the future growth of our national population.
There will be more refugees in the future as climate change makes droughts, famines, and civil wars worse. We'll see more situations like Syria in the future and more migrants will try to enter the nations of the global north, which will be harmed less by climate impacts, including Europe, the U.S. and Russia.
But the answer is not for northern countries and especially democracies to fling wide our border crossings and plan to welcome massive amounts of refugees, many from societies whose values are antithetical to those of western liberal culture. This would only tax our resources beyond the breaking point while stressing the unity of our societies. That unity will be a necessary asset to pull together to fight climate change in the future. So we need more unity, not less. The better way to deal with refugees is to reduce climate harms as soon as possible, so that more people can stay home and there won't be so many refugees on the move in the future. That will certainly mean cash payments and technology transfer from rich countries to poor ones, and that's the kind of international action that Lieven supports.
Well argued, "Climate Change and the Nation State" applies sensible tools of geopolitical realism to a climate movement that is too often muddied by utopian fantasies and pet peeves from the left. What I did miss in a book about nationalism was some examples of the power of an appeal to national stories and symbols as Lieven describes in more detail. Yes, Lieven refers to such examples of how the environmental movement appealed to history, for example from speeches by Teddy Roosevelt, but Lieven does it in a brainy journalist kind of way. I didn't just want him to tell me about how it has been done in the past and suggest how it might be done in the future, but instead to go deeper than telling, and to do more showing. I wanted Lieven to help the reader actually feel the inspiration and not just learn that inspiration would be needed and must somehow be provided. To offer that kind of inspiration from the past, in particular the civic religion of American patriotism, is why I wrote my own book "The Solar Patriot," applying stories from the American Revolution to the clean energy revolution today. I know Lieven's book is just an analysis and not a manifesto, but still I would have liked to feel a little more emotion since that's a big part of his argument for climate nationalism.
Nonetheless, he makes excellent arguments on why major nations, from the United States to China and Russia to India and Europe, should care about climate change for their own national security. He feels that the military in each country has a key role to play in bringing climate solutions into considerations of national defense, and that in many nations, climate risks are much bigger threats to national sovereignty and civil order than traditional threats from other nations. On that point I wholeheartedly agree.
Today, the internationalist outlook of the environmental movement may be counter productive. While global cooperation is certainly needed on climate change, it's a fantasy to think that the U.N. or some other form of post-national global order will ever have enough power to implement serious enough climate solutions to make a difference.
In the past, only the nation state had the power to regulate the economy, arrange for the common defense and do other heavy lifting required to make changes in modern societies. Today, only the nation state has enough power to fight climate change. So, progressives need to learn to stop worrying and love their country. Fortunately, this doesn't mean you have to become a white nationalist or pro-war jingoist. It just means you have to start appealing to your fellow citizens' sense of national unity to get them to make the sacrifices that fighting climate change successfully will require.
And make no mistake, sacrifices will be needed. Anybody who says that clean energy can replace fossil fuels with no belt tightening is too optimistic. "Green growth" may be the weakest appeal in the Green New Deal. Lieven supports a GND in the U.S. and elsewhere because he believes that no nation can effectively fight climate change without also offering social equity: everybody from the rich to the poor needs to be convinced that everybody else is also making sacrifices, and that it's fair, or else we won't be able to work together on the massive program needed. It's like wartime rationing, in a time of limited resources, we all need to know that everybody is tightening their belt, and that rich people are paying their fair share along with the rest of us.
Lieven says a couple of other things that will be hard for some green activists to take. First, he likes nuclear power, which I understand -- so does leading climatologist James Hansen -- but don't agree with. Until the industry solves the problem of waste, it's immoral to leave dangerous radioactive garbage that future generations will have to protect for the next 500 or 1000 years. Also, I'm still not convinced that you can operate nuclear plants, even so called "next generation" ones, safely. Finally, nuclear is still so expensive to build. With practical solar and wind backed up by energy storage, we certainly won't need any new nuclear power. At most, to ease the transition, I could see taking a more gradual approach to retiring the nuclear capacity we already have.
The other thing Lieven writes is that the wealthy nations of the world will have to start restricting immigration. It's also an unpopular position for liberals, who seem to want some version of open borders as part of their commitment to human rights and serving the global good. But Lieven is right that no nation in the past has ever offered its citizens a high standard of living with expensive social benefits that would be open to all comers. I agree with Lieven that the U.S. and other wealthy nations will need to get serious about immigration reform, and that it will have to include some restrictions to preserve the integrity of national borders.
Otherwise, there's no way we'll be able to afford the social and job programs of the Green New Deal including universal healthcare and even perhaps a universal guaranteed income. I agree with Lieven that these reforms may be necessary to make the Green New Deal Work, but that we can't afford to implement them unless we have some control over the future growth of our national population.
There will be more refugees in the future as climate change makes droughts, famines, and civil wars worse. We'll see more situations like Syria in the future and more migrants will try to enter the nations of the global north, which will be harmed less by climate impacts, including Europe, the U.S. and Russia.
But the answer is not for northern countries and especially democracies to fling wide our border crossings and plan to welcome massive amounts of refugees, many from societies whose values are antithetical to those of western liberal culture. This would only tax our resources beyond the breaking point while stressing the unity of our societies. That unity will be a necessary asset to pull together to fight climate change in the future. So we need more unity, not less. The better way to deal with refugees is to reduce climate harms as soon as possible, so that more people can stay home and there won't be so many refugees on the move in the future. That will certainly mean cash payments and technology transfer from rich countries to poor ones, and that's the kind of international action that Lieven supports.
Well argued, "Climate Change and the Nation State" applies sensible tools of geopolitical realism to a climate movement that is too often muddied by utopian fantasies and pet peeves from the left. What I did miss in a book about nationalism was some examples of the power of an appeal to national stories and symbols as Lieven describes in more detail. Yes, Lieven refers to such examples of how the environmental movement appealed to history, for example from speeches by Teddy Roosevelt, but Lieven does it in a brainy journalist kind of way. I didn't just want him to tell me about how it has been done in the past and suggest how it might be done in the future, but instead to go deeper than telling, and to do more showing. I wanted Lieven to help the reader actually feel the inspiration and not just learn that inspiration would be needed and must somehow be provided. To offer that kind of inspiration from the past, in particular the civic religion of American patriotism, is why I wrote my own book "The Solar Patriot," applying stories from the American Revolution to the clean energy revolution today. I know Lieven's book is just an analysis and not a manifesto, but still I would have liked to feel a little more emotion since that's a big part of his argument for climate nationalism.
Nonetheless, he makes excellent arguments on why major nations, from the United States to China and Russia to India and Europe, should care about climate change for their own national security. He feels that the military in each country has a key role to play in bringing climate solutions into considerations of national defense, and that in many nations, climate risks are much bigger threats to national sovereignty and civil order than traditional threats from other nations. On that point I wholeheartedly agree.
June 19, 2022
This interesting polemic is a mixed bag. I became aware of it after the author was cited in an article over at Unherd. Some of my favourite authors have contributed to that website (Michel Houellebecq, Paul Kingsnorth, John Gray etc) and the central idea to this book is similarly unorthodox. Lievin unfashionably posits the importance of the nation state in battling the existential threat of climate change.
The reasons for this are manifold; globalist, consumerist individualism doesn't lend itself to a concerted unified effort in the same way as a homogenous national identity, i.e. the World War II home effort. The citizens are dependent on the nation state for their protection and ultimate survival.
Borders and limits are necessary if any kind of standards or examples are to be set for other nations to follow. A protective love for your local land and region, far from being the negative slur that "NIMBYism" frames it as then, is essential to any true form of conservation.
The author gives us a global state of the nations report, highlighting various battles for clean water, drought, wars over resources, ethnic strife etc. Many multicultural nations are already on the verge of civil war and struggling with the growing, distinct Islamic culture in their midst, as per Russia, Myanmar, China, India et al. Can the nations remain strong and reduce their impacts as they also suffer internal, localised competition for finite resources?
Lieven identifies threats coming from the huge, ever growing human population, climate induced migration (He references Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat ethics) and atomised nations within nations as cultural, interest groups clash between their various enclaves.
Huge swathes of people (often the conservative voting majority) are villainised by divisive politics, often labeled as "deplorables" and are made unwelcome in the environmental movement. This schism often results in a left vs right divide on environmental concerns rather than the necessary united, all-hands-on-deck approach.
No region will ever need to tackle its own population problems if other nations continue to absorb the overflow. Think of the Catholic Philippines with its taboos over contraception and abortions; the displaced are treated abominably as they are exploited globally as cheap labour.
Many nations have done a good job in bringing down their Total Fertility Rate below replacement levels and one of those, England is already the most densely populated large country in Europe. Yet the UK, Finland etc are attributing 90% of their population growth to immigration.
In the context of climate change, the migratory routes invariably head towards the nations with the highest rates of consumption and as a double whammy, import culturally higher fertility rates.
All this as it has just been announced that a record one million people were given British visas in the last year. Brexit voters were expecting less population growth, less contribution to the housing crisis and its building on fields and green spaces, less congestion on the roads, less over subscription for NHS treatments etc and Boris Johnson buoyed them on with his 2016 assertion that "To add a city the size of Newcastle to the UK every year . . . let me put it this way, it's too high to do without consent." He has even highlighted overpopulation as the greatest issue in the past.
Japan is praised for resisting immigration as a Ponzi scheme response to lowered fertility rates. Rather it should embrace its necessary degrowth as an overpopulated, high consuming nation. He also highlights the looming issue that is the rise of our dependence on Artificial Intelligence and automation in replacing many industries. This is set to open up issues of Universal Basic Income and increased free time.
There is a warning against the anarchy of revolution (which as per The Arab Spring rarely leads to improved outcomes) and that there are no social justice issues on a dead or dying planet is wisely highlighted. Human rights are of course rarely respected in chaotic zones of conflict. As such he wishes for identity politics to be put to one side. He contends that the rhetoric doesn't gain a single new vote and instead just intensifies divisions at a time when a new wartime effort in cohesion is required.
Similarly he has contempt for the trifling concerns of growth based economists and all the various political issues that currently take priority over climate change. He insists that any rich elites must be made to pay their taxes to maintain the required trust in the nation and its institutions. Doing away with an "Us Vs Them" mentality is echoed at every stage as he advocates that our instinctually tribal species should quickly become unified under civic-nationalism.
That said his focus is a tad myopic as we have a myriad of predicaments beyond climate-change, many of them also ecological. The sixth great extinction, groundwater depletion, ever earlier overshoot of resources, vanishing fertile topsoil etc.
He is also often fixated on techno fixes as the answer. The Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs film Planet Of The Humans alongside other critics show a lot of the limitations to this obsession with greenhouse gases alone. At times Lieven posits the naïve belief that destructive mining and factory made industrial products can be the answer rather than merely a small part of an urgent degrowth trend in human activity and numbers.
There are also some strange tangents to be found. He repeatedly calls Brexit a disaster but never explains why. Surely this book is calling for greater independence and self governance rather than submission to large, sprawling economic trading power?
He also suggests the breeding away of ethnicity as some kind of unifying solution. Not likely to happen anytime soon, nor would it be popular with already embattled and diminished tribes in the Amazon who assert their distinct right to exist. On which topic he does at least recognise that Europeans should be allowed to feel no less bonded to their homelands than any other indigenous culture.
In short I feel comprehensive reviews (such as this one) might be enough for many laymen but I still give Anatol Lieven extra credit for his brave tackling of a neglected and unpopular issue.
The reasons for this are manifold; globalist, consumerist individualism doesn't lend itself to a concerted unified effort in the same way as a homogenous national identity, i.e. the World War II home effort. The citizens are dependent on the nation state for their protection and ultimate survival.
Borders and limits are necessary if any kind of standards or examples are to be set for other nations to follow. A protective love for your local land and region, far from being the negative slur that "NIMBYism" frames it as then, is essential to any true form of conservation.
The author gives us a global state of the nations report, highlighting various battles for clean water, drought, wars over resources, ethnic strife etc. Many multicultural nations are already on the verge of civil war and struggling with the growing, distinct Islamic culture in their midst, as per Russia, Myanmar, China, India et al. Can the nations remain strong and reduce their impacts as they also suffer internal, localised competition for finite resources?
Lieven identifies threats coming from the huge, ever growing human population, climate induced migration (He references Garrett Hardin's Lifeboat ethics) and atomised nations within nations as cultural, interest groups clash between their various enclaves.
Huge swathes of people (often the conservative voting majority) are villainised by divisive politics, often labeled as "deplorables" and are made unwelcome in the environmental movement. This schism often results in a left vs right divide on environmental concerns rather than the necessary united, all-hands-on-deck approach.
No region will ever need to tackle its own population problems if other nations continue to absorb the overflow. Think of the Catholic Philippines with its taboos over contraception and abortions; the displaced are treated abominably as they are exploited globally as cheap labour.
Many nations have done a good job in bringing down their Total Fertility Rate below replacement levels and one of those, England is already the most densely populated large country in Europe. Yet the UK, Finland etc are attributing 90% of their population growth to immigration.
In the context of climate change, the migratory routes invariably head towards the nations with the highest rates of consumption and as a double whammy, import culturally higher fertility rates.
All this as it has just been announced that a record one million people were given British visas in the last year. Brexit voters were expecting less population growth, less contribution to the housing crisis and its building on fields and green spaces, less congestion on the roads, less over subscription for NHS treatments etc and Boris Johnson buoyed them on with his 2016 assertion that "To add a city the size of Newcastle to the UK every year . . . let me put it this way, it's too high to do without consent." He has even highlighted overpopulation as the greatest issue in the past.
Japan is praised for resisting immigration as a Ponzi scheme response to lowered fertility rates. Rather it should embrace its necessary degrowth as an overpopulated, high consuming nation. He also highlights the looming issue that is the rise of our dependence on Artificial Intelligence and automation in replacing many industries. This is set to open up issues of Universal Basic Income and increased free time.
There is a warning against the anarchy of revolution (which as per The Arab Spring rarely leads to improved outcomes) and that there are no social justice issues on a dead or dying planet is wisely highlighted. Human rights are of course rarely respected in chaotic zones of conflict. As such he wishes for identity politics to be put to one side. He contends that the rhetoric doesn't gain a single new vote and instead just intensifies divisions at a time when a new wartime effort in cohesion is required.
Similarly he has contempt for the trifling concerns of growth based economists and all the various political issues that currently take priority over climate change. He insists that any rich elites must be made to pay their taxes to maintain the required trust in the nation and its institutions. Doing away with an "Us Vs Them" mentality is echoed at every stage as he advocates that our instinctually tribal species should quickly become unified under civic-nationalism.
That said his focus is a tad myopic as we have a myriad of predicaments beyond climate-change, many of them also ecological. The sixth great extinction, groundwater depletion, ever earlier overshoot of resources, vanishing fertile topsoil etc.
He is also often fixated on techno fixes as the answer. The Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs film Planet Of The Humans alongside other critics show a lot of the limitations to this obsession with greenhouse gases alone. At times Lieven posits the naïve belief that destructive mining and factory made industrial products can be the answer rather than merely a small part of an urgent degrowth trend in human activity and numbers.
There are also some strange tangents to be found. He repeatedly calls Brexit a disaster but never explains why. Surely this book is calling for greater independence and self governance rather than submission to large, sprawling economic trading power?
He also suggests the breeding away of ethnicity as some kind of unifying solution. Not likely to happen anytime soon, nor would it be popular with already embattled and diminished tribes in the Amazon who assert their distinct right to exist. On which topic he does at least recognise that Europeans should be allowed to feel no less bonded to their homelands than any other indigenous culture.
In short I feel comprehensive reviews (such as this one) might be enough for many laymen but I still give Anatol Lieven extra credit for his brave tackling of a neglected and unpopular issue.
May 24, 2020
Provocative but insubstantial and very US-centric. The key arguments could probably have been distilled to an essay or newspaper op-ed without losing much impact. There are only two references to the Paris Agreement across the entire text, which seems bizarre for a book purporting to engage with the international politics of climate change in 2020. Whatever your views on Paris, it’s the best global framework we currently have and offering some critique of it is surely a precondition of seriousness in this field.
January 31, 2025
I have read books by actual fascists that are less racist than this. Debases everyone who gave it a positive review, especially Adam tooze.
Lieven makes the claim that climate change is real and that a strong state is the only viable way to ameliorate its consequences. He then rants and raves about “Muslim Yorkshire” and praises some of the most belligerent and authoritarian, and CLIMATE SCEPTIC parties in Europe.
The cool thing is you can write a book that is basically just great replacement stuff but call yourself a realist liberal and the most illiterate people on earth will nod their heads sagely and call you a dovish IR expert.
Just embarrassing slop
Lieven makes the claim that climate change is real and that a strong state is the only viable way to ameliorate its consequences. He then rants and raves about “Muslim Yorkshire” and praises some of the most belligerent and authoritarian, and CLIMATE SCEPTIC parties in Europe.
The cool thing is you can write a book that is basically just great replacement stuff but call yourself a realist liberal and the most illiterate people on earth will nod their heads sagely and call you a dovish IR expert.
Just embarrassing slop
November 23, 2025
10% Climate Change 90% Nationalism
November 16, 2021
Anatol Lieven is a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and a Fellow of the New American Foundation in Washington DC. This book posits that a civic nationalist approach based on patriotism and common necessity is needed to tackle climate change rather than an internationalist approach but he’s more focused on what Greens and Liberals should give up than on getting US right-wingers on board and the constant criticism of immigration grates.
July 31, 2021
Important and clearly expressed thesis on how humanity should approach its greatest ever battle: Cliante Change. Based on the foundational point that civic nationalism is a powerful framework for directing a country’s energy into fighting for future survival, the author makes the case for a new more positive nationalism.
October 7, 2021
An utterly poor book. Military and nationalism as the solutions to tackle climate change? The author mixes the notion of state and nation-state and any links to climate change are totally far fetched. This is in addition to a very unimpressive writing style.
August 24, 2025
The book puts forward a case for climate change as an existential threat to states. The plausible 'worst case' impacts are sufficient to cause significant political frictions, making climate change a security issue; and to lead to mass migration, making climate change an identity issue and a threat to the internal cohesiveness of nation states.
Lieven's fundamental argument is that we need cross-party consensus on the need to limit climate change. Given that the left/progressive side is already rather concerned about the issue, this amounts to an appeal to the right-wing/conservative side to understand that climate change in fact threatens to upend their goals also. Lieven's appeal to climate change as a threat to national security, and to the prospect of a tidal wave of climate refugees trying to move to wealthier countries, are squarely aimed at the politicians normally opposing climate action.
Lieven is right to draw attention to these issues. Conventional economic analyses of the impacts of climate change often omit potentially huge costs associated with climate change-triggered wars or large-scale migration, largely because we do not have good evidence for how likely and how serious such effects are. Yet we know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Climate change is a wholly unprecedented, global experiment with potentially massive effects, which -- at the severe end -- surely have the potential to destabilise states and the international system. Lieven particularly worries about a vicious circle, in which climate change leads to political instability, which in turn makes it even more difficult to get the climate problem under control.
If Lieven seeks to appeal to the right in terms of the ends, his suggested means are decidedly from the left: he envisions reforming capitalism to put the plutocrats back their place, and to ensure the pain of tackling climate change is shared equitably. Lieven's prescription is all about Green New Deals, social renewal and massive state involvement in the green transition.
Thus, the book proposes a bipartisan, nationalist approach to climate change. In Lieven's bargain, the right accepts the reality of climate change, while the left agree not to couple climate policies with ultra-progressive identity-based policies or with attempts to overthrow capitalism. Further, a renewal of healthy nationalism will help us focus on the long-term benefits of climate -- nations live far longer than their citizens do, after all.
This is a 'nationalist', or a 'bipartisan' case, more than the 'realist' case advertised< in the subtitle. Indeed, the realist notion of states as unitary actors is belied by Lieven's description of our polarised societies. Further, the notion of realism as applied to a domestic political context -- that power is central to the behaviour of politicians -- in fact is a good explanation of why we are in our current bind. Power is held by people with large vested interests in the current, carbon-hungry status quo. They will, and do, resist attempts to limit climate change with all their economic might and the political influence that brings.
Further, Lieven's 'realist' prescription ultimately ignores the problem at the heart of climate change: that it is the biggest, baddest free-rider problem we have ever seen. The book mostly advocates rich nations taking the lead on climate change, based on national interest. But without bringing the major emerging economics on board, they will be unable to halt the increase in carbon concentrations. All the while, in a crude realpolitik sense, any individual state would seek to free-ride on other states' efforts to reduce their carbon emissions. While Lieven is right that wishy-washy internationalism will not help us, it is not clear that a realist perspective is able to offer solutions. Strong international institutions will be required to bring about and to sustain cooperation. It is difficult to see such institutions developed and maintained without a concomitant development in values or principles. Lieven, ultimately, fails to put a forward a very convincing case on purely realist grounds.
There are flaws in the book; as an economist, I felt the occasional gratuitous and completely unsubstantiated attack on economics was bad form and does not add to the credibility of the analysis. The book is a bit meandering and it is not straightforward to extract the main points. And a pet peeve was reading about Lieven's references to "carbon gas" (rather than "carbon dioxide" or "greenhouse gas") -- atmospheres with carbon gas mostly make me think of some extrasolar hot Jupiters or whatnot.
So my take is that it's a bit of a mixed bag. But the book provides food for thought -- and for an overdue public discussion on the urgency of tackling climate change, irrespective of your political leaning.
Lieven's fundamental argument is that we need cross-party consensus on the need to limit climate change. Given that the left/progressive side is already rather concerned about the issue, this amounts to an appeal to the right-wing/conservative side to understand that climate change in fact threatens to upend their goals also. Lieven's appeal to climate change as a threat to national security, and to the prospect of a tidal wave of climate refugees trying to move to wealthier countries, are squarely aimed at the politicians normally opposing climate action.
Lieven is right to draw attention to these issues. Conventional economic analyses of the impacts of climate change often omit potentially huge costs associated with climate change-triggered wars or large-scale migration, largely because we do not have good evidence for how likely and how serious such effects are. Yet we know absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Climate change is a wholly unprecedented, global experiment with potentially massive effects, which -- at the severe end -- surely have the potential to destabilise states and the international system. Lieven particularly worries about a vicious circle, in which climate change leads to political instability, which in turn makes it even more difficult to get the climate problem under control.
If Lieven seeks to appeal to the right in terms of the ends, his suggested means are decidedly from the left: he envisions reforming capitalism to put the plutocrats back their place, and to ensure the pain of tackling climate change is shared equitably. Lieven's prescription is all about Green New Deals, social renewal and massive state involvement in the green transition.
Thus, the book proposes a bipartisan, nationalist approach to climate change. In Lieven's bargain, the right accepts the reality of climate change, while the left agree not to couple climate policies with ultra-progressive identity-based policies or with attempts to overthrow capitalism. Further, a renewal of healthy nationalism will help us focus on the long-term benefits of climate -- nations live far longer than their citizens do, after all.
This is a 'nationalist', or a 'bipartisan' case, more than the 'realist' case advertised< in the subtitle. Indeed, the realist notion of states as unitary actors is belied by Lieven's description of our polarised societies. Further, the notion of realism as applied to a domestic political context -- that power is central to the behaviour of politicians -- in fact is a good explanation of why we are in our current bind. Power is held by people with large vested interests in the current, carbon-hungry status quo. They will, and do, resist attempts to limit climate change with all their economic might and the political influence that brings.
Further, Lieven's 'realist' prescription ultimately ignores the problem at the heart of climate change: that it is the biggest, baddest free-rider problem we have ever seen. The book mostly advocates rich nations taking the lead on climate change, based on national interest. But without bringing the major emerging economics on board, they will be unable to halt the increase in carbon concentrations. All the while, in a crude realpolitik sense, any individual state would seek to free-ride on other states' efforts to reduce their carbon emissions. While Lieven is right that wishy-washy internationalism will not help us, it is not clear that a realist perspective is able to offer solutions. Strong international institutions will be required to bring about and to sustain cooperation. It is difficult to see such institutions developed and maintained without a concomitant development in values or principles. Lieven, ultimately, fails to put a forward a very convincing case on purely realist grounds.
There are flaws in the book; as an economist, I felt the occasional gratuitous and completely unsubstantiated attack on economics was bad form and does not add to the credibility of the analysis. The book is a bit meandering and it is not straightforward to extract the main points. And a pet peeve was reading about Lieven's references to "carbon gas" (rather than "carbon dioxide" or "greenhouse gas") -- atmospheres with carbon gas mostly make me think of some extrasolar hot Jupiters or whatnot.
So my take is that it's a bit of a mixed bag. But the book provides food for thought -- and for an overdue public discussion on the urgency of tackling climate change, irrespective of your political leaning.
November 17, 2022
This is an important book that should be widely read. It takes a broader, and very sobering, look at the threat that we face from climate change. It is well written, lucid and clear, and he manages to make the reader aware of the impending apocalypse we face without hyperbole or histrionics.
It covers a lot of ground in detail and it would not be possible to summarise this in a short review. However, the key idea is that to deal with climate change there is a basic problem. We will need to change our behaviour and way of life. We can wait until climate change forces us through drought, famine or forced migration, or we can wait until we are forced by authoritarian moves to try and cope or we can band together to try and change early and possibly mitigate the coming changes.
But there is a major problem; how do we agree to what we will give up or change? I am quite happy never to fly for recreation again, but are you? I am quite happy to see my energy consumption reduced, but does that fit your future plans? If we are going to make these decisions, we will need a forum to discuss and agree them. That needs to be a real forum where we can feel we are connected and "all in this together", this needs to be the nation state with a strong sense of civic nationalism. In this setting, rather like in times of war, people can discover purpose and duty and work with their fellow citizens the change behaviour and course.
Correctly people have described our setting being that of a climate emergency - in an emergency all other issues take second place as we have not time to give them focus. in an emergency, as in war, all actions are driven and guided by the need to win the war or end the emergency. Oly by working as nations will we gather the cohesion necessary to meet this challenge.
It covers a lot of ground in detail and it would not be possible to summarise this in a short review. However, the key idea is that to deal with climate change there is a basic problem. We will need to change our behaviour and way of life. We can wait until climate change forces us through drought, famine or forced migration, or we can wait until we are forced by authoritarian moves to try and cope or we can band together to try and change early and possibly mitigate the coming changes.
But there is a major problem; how do we agree to what we will give up or change? I am quite happy never to fly for recreation again, but are you? I am quite happy to see my energy consumption reduced, but does that fit your future plans? If we are going to make these decisions, we will need a forum to discuss and agree them. That needs to be a real forum where we can feel we are connected and "all in this together", this needs to be the nation state with a strong sense of civic nationalism. In this setting, rather like in times of war, people can discover purpose and duty and work with their fellow citizens the change behaviour and course.
Correctly people have described our setting being that of a climate emergency - in an emergency all other issues take second place as we have not time to give them focus. in an emergency, as in war, all actions are driven and guided by the need to win the war or end the emergency. Oly by working as nations will we gather the cohesion necessary to meet this challenge.
July 15, 2023
Not an easy read! If anyone is paying attention to my reviews you'll see a lot of serious books lately -- that's because I'm doing a big read-down of the books on my physical to-read shelf, mostly left to right with very little hanky-panky. This one was rough because I thought I knew what the premise would be; just that individual actions make little difference to climate change, and so we need nation states to step up with policy.
That is NOT what it's about. It's about the idea that since climate change threatens each nation on earth significantly more than they threaten each other (one brief call-out here for nuclear weapons), conservative factions including state militaries should be taking climate change seriously as a threat to national stability and speaking out about it much more. Along with this it taught me that there's a faction of the Army that's been in charge of dams in the US for a long time, and in China the government has long been even more deeply involved with river management.
There is a lot of material that's hard to read if you don't have a map of the world emblazoned on the inside of your forehead (where is Syria? Do you know all its borders?) along with a fair amount of world history (the author spent something like 30 years in Pakistan; I did not). However, it was worth reading for its discussion of the future, and history-informed discussion of how climate-driven human migration is likely to unfold. It ends with some ideas for the US that are actionable today (at the level of political parties) -- I think I've seen some of these taken into consideration in the three years since this book was published, in 2020, though by no means all of them.
As we wrap up the hottest week on the planet in history, I sure wish people would stop freaking out about AI and get back to taking policy-based action on this.
That is NOT what it's about. It's about the idea that since climate change threatens each nation on earth significantly more than they threaten each other (one brief call-out here for nuclear weapons), conservative factions including state militaries should be taking climate change seriously as a threat to national stability and speaking out about it much more. Along with this it taught me that there's a faction of the Army that's been in charge of dams in the US for a long time, and in China the government has long been even more deeply involved with river management.
There is a lot of material that's hard to read if you don't have a map of the world emblazoned on the inside of your forehead (where is Syria? Do you know all its borders?) along with a fair amount of world history (the author spent something like 30 years in Pakistan; I did not). However, it was worth reading for its discussion of the future, and history-informed discussion of how climate-driven human migration is likely to unfold. It ends with some ideas for the US that are actionable today (at the level of political parties) -- I think I've seen some of these taken into consideration in the three years since this book was published, in 2020, though by no means all of them.
As we wrap up the hottest week on the planet in history, I sure wish people would stop freaking out about AI and get back to taking policy-based action on this.
February 27, 2021
This is more compelling of an argument than I expected. I'm not as convinced that the left is incapable of building the political will to fight climate change, but it's certainly understandable why someone would think that. Given that, the case for nationalism on a country by country basis is decent and mostly reasonable. The book falters though because it doesn't address competing nationalisms. Even assuming building a pro climate nationalism in every country is possible and happens, every country is obviously going to have self interest in tackling the problem differently and to the least extent they have to, as the author acknowledges it is a cost, so how do these competing nationalisms come together in international cooperation to ensure we actually are effectively fighting climate change? Doesn't seem to be really addressed by the authors and the implicit assumption seems to be that 'fighting climate change' is going to mean the same thing most places and that's obviously untrue. Obviously being more left than the author I'm skeptical that climate nationalism wouldn't just lead to ecofascism since he emphasizes the need to limit migration, but granting some sort of liberal nationalism is possible, maybe, I let that slide to some extent.
March 11, 2024
If you want to really know and prepare for how bad things will likely get, then this book is for you. In sharp and clear declarations, the impending hardships of climate breakdown are set out on the table, accompanied by practical discussions and analysis on the political and social consequences that will likely manifest, if the history of nations and human society is anything to go buy.
Having defined the high stakes involved if unabated emissions are allowed to continue as they have been, the book puts forward a very convincing case for reclaiming nationalist movements and co-opting their inherent incentives to motivate everyone across the political spectrum in the West to take climate action now, before it is too late for democracy and our civilised societies.
An excellent and important book, but one I would avoid reading before bed if you value a peaceful night's sleep.
Having defined the high stakes involved if unabated emissions are allowed to continue as they have been, the book puts forward a very convincing case for reclaiming nationalist movements and co-opting their inherent incentives to motivate everyone across the political spectrum in the West to take climate action now, before it is too late for democracy and our civilised societies.
An excellent and important book, but one I would avoid reading before bed if you value a peaceful night's sleep.
March 15, 2021
Klimaatverandering is een serieus gevaar, dat het vermogen van landen om nog zelfstandig te handelen (op alle gebieden) ernstig zal ondermijnen. Om dit gevaar te cofronteren, moeten we de natiestaat versterken, want dat is de enige echte basis van legitimiteit. De meerderheid van de mensen is niet bereid zijn leven grondig te veranderen voor een abstract idee als de redding van de aarde. Dat doen ze alleen wanneer het voortbestaan van hun kinderen, hun familie, hun streek en hun land op het spel staat. Als we dus echt iets willen doen aan de opwarming van de aarde zullen we natiestaat moeten herwaarderen.
Interessant, en waar. Maar waarom dit pleidooi een heel boek nodig heeft, is me een raadsel. Soms is een artikel gewoon beter.
Interessant, en waar. Maar waarom dit pleidooi een heel boek nodig heeft, is me een raadsel. Soms is een artikel gewoon beter.
March 9, 2024
Very interesting argument. Certainly makes a(n at least on the surface) convincing case for a form of civic nationalism, less convinced by certain other arguments (particularly around immigration). More interesting and convincing as a general thrust rather than anything more specific.
One example: Lieven makes a (vague) case for nuclear power. He's clearly not super knowledgeable about energy and energy policy (quite understandably) and as a result the case is quite thin. However, a nationalist case for nuclear is or has the potential to be a particularly strong one.
One example: Lieven makes a (vague) case for nuclear power. He's clearly not super knowledgeable about energy and energy policy (quite understandably) and as a result the case is quite thin. However, a nationalist case for nuclear is or has the potential to be a particularly strong one.
June 16, 2022
I have worked professionally on the energy transition for 15 years. This book is one of the most important works I’ve read on the consequences of climate change. Mr. Lieven, I suspect, would not share many of my political views. Nevertheless, I recommend those across the political spectrum to read this book.
September 22, 2024
Something about having to resort to the military to achieve green goals (while barring immigrations.... including climate refugees?) is giving me the ick? I feel like I was not the intended audience for this message
April 30, 2022
not a nationalist or a realist but he made some points about the green new deal!!
October 7, 2022
Great book, interesting perspective
Read
November 29, 2022Some quite good geopolitical, and even international political, insights. Unfortunately, he veers off into a host of other issues, and sometimes into fantasy world. It also requires a complete re-write to get his thoughts organized, the book reads like a collection of notes on scrap paper. Worst of all, he never addresses the underlying problem. Still, it would be interesting to have a conversation with the author.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews