The Climate Coup

by Mark Alizart

Inaction by governments in the face of climate change is often attributed to a lack of political will or a denial of the seriousness of the situation, but as Mark Alizart argues in this provocative book, we shouldn’t exclude the possibility that part of the reluctance might be motivated by cynicism and even sheer for some people, there are real financial and political benefits to be gained from the chaos that will ensue from environmental disaster. The climate crisis creates its winners – individuals who orchestrate environmental chaos and bet on the collapse of the world as they bet on declining share values.

In the face of this veritable ‘carbofascist’ coup targeting humanity, modifying our behaviour as individuals won’t suffice. We must train our critical attention on those financial and political actors who speculate on catastrophe and, in the light of this, we must rethink the strategy of ecological activism. This is a war to win, not a crisis to overcome.

Genres: Environment, Politics

73 pages, Kindle Edition

Published May 20, 2021

Reviews

[Jean-Sylvain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Il est clair que le monde qui vient — si nous parvenons à le sauver — ne pourra pas être le même que celui d'hier. Quand la moitié de l'humanité en est arrivée à penser que son bien-être passe par la destruction de tout ce qui vit sur cette planète, c'est ce que le modèle économique et politique qui l'a acculé à ce niveau de désespoir doit être aboli. Mais il n'est pas possible de renverser le capitalisme sans s'attaquer d'abord à la crise écologique elle-même, qui en est le front avancé. Nous avons besoin aujourd'hui d'écologistes qui comprennent que le capitalisme ne peut être vaincu qu'à la condition de vaincre sa métastase carbofasciste. Et cela veut dire que nous avons besoin d'écologistes qui comprennent que nous sommes en guerre, et non en crise, faute de quoi nous répéterons la seconde erreur de la gauche allemande des années 1930, celle de croire que le nazisme resterait minoritaire au Parlement. (p.44)

[David Jennings · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Everyone will find much to disagree with in Alizart's short new book," writes Rupert Read on the back cover. So I was hoping to be able to dismiss the suggestions in the book that there are some actors out there who are not so much sceptical of climate breakdown but actively looking to accelerate it. Unfortunately Alizart's account is unnervingly plausible on this point.

The carbofascists, as he calls them, are reconciled to the idea that the breakdown could take billions of lives this century. This is the field on which they aim to play, and win. For those billions will not be evenly distributed across the globe. Hopefully, from the carbofascist perspective, they will be concentrated among black and brown people in the global south. And maybe rising sea levels will take out some of those irritatingly liberal metropolises on our coasts: San Francisco, New York, London, Melbourne and so on. That would be convenient.

As Alizart sketches out this approach, other developments that previously looked a little odd suddenly start to fit into place. When Nigel Lawson says that "climate change is not a problem", he doesn't mean that it won't kill people, but just that these deaths are part of the process whereby he and his kind seize the opportunity to consolidate the resources that are "rightfully" theirs, while the billions who might have contested this power grab literally rot. When Craig Mackinlay, chair of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, says that he is “not a climate-change denier” but that renewable energy doesn't work and needs to be wound down, he means that it doesn't work for his political masters and donors. Renewable energy sources lend themselves to cooperative and socialised ownership and control [1]. Mackinlay backs fracking and nuclear energy [2] because these forms of generation lend themselves to highly centralised oligopolies. He's desperate to see off any innovations that genuinely could give power to the people. He knows that only by controlling their access to energy can their subservience be maintained.

The 2021 story of Victor Fedotov's donations to 34 Tory MPs [3] shows this tendency particularly clearly. Fedotov wants his company to secure a £1.24bn project to build an electricity cable linking the UK to France. When questioned about why these donations were necessary, he replied that he "has never had any interest in British politics." Let's not doubt him on that. Politics is a messy business, full of complications and compromise. Fedotov knows that if he can threaten simply to turn the lights off for the UK, he needn't bother with those details. He can extort whatever he wants: not political power so much as a mob protection racket. It is these kinds of interests that the Net Zero Scrutiny Group exists to serve. Craig Mackinlay's aides are known to be backed by the Global Warming Policy Foundation [4], which has also received more than half a million dollars through a fund linked to the billionaire Koch brothers [5] - Fedotov on steroids.

So, what did I find to disagree with? Alizart's recommendations of tactics from Trotsky and from ACT UP movement for stronger action on AIDS don't sit entirely comfortably with me, or with each other. The four-page chapter on ACT UP just doesn't add up to much. The recommendations for a 'Green Army' that immediately follow it are also vague. Alizart writes of the need for mean greens. Does he want us to arm ourselves and abandon nonviolence? He hints at this, but hedges. For sure we need resilience and agility in the face of unscrupulous attacks. It's going to be very tough indeed.

For me the most telling part of Alizart's critique of existing movements is that we have to move beyond the prescriptions of a joyless abstinence - less travel, more boring parties, hummus-with-everything - that have characterised the green movement for too long. In the trade union movement we talk of a 'just transition' to a decarbonised economy: it needs to be not just just, but fun and inspiring as well:

environmentalists have to remember that communism would never have won its own fight against fascism, and would never have seduced so many people for so long, if it hadn't promised the proletariat 'tomorrows full of song'. It wouldn't have been enough for communism to have claimed that it wanted to save the world; it had to promise full employment, progress and even abundance.

We need to imagine decarbonised futures that Polish miners and gilets jaunes can get excited by.

Read's back-cover review concludes, "The point… is to provoke, and to force one to consider certain disturbing possibilities. In that objective, he undoubtedly succeeds." Yes, he does. And at a length of (I'd guess) less than 10,000 words, it won't take much more of your time than this review.

1. e.g. https://rippleenergy.com/, https://publicpowersolutions.co.uk/
2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-en...
3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-5879...
4. https://www.desmog.com/2022/02/16/rev...
5. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/glob...

[Margret Fullded · Rating 4 out of 5]

J'aurais lu ce livre à sa sortie, j'aurais sûrement été un peu dubitative. En 2025, force est de constater que la thèse de l'auteur tend à se vérifier.
Un petit essai coup de poing bien placé qui fournit tout de même, au-delà du pamphlet, des pistes de réflexion intéressantes pour l'avenir.

[Charles]

Thought provoking book on climate change politics and capitalism. Highlights a number of interesting perspectives that challenge our thinking about the motivations and goals of many actors relative to climate change.