Planet on Fire: A Manifesto for the Age of Environmental Breakdown

by Mathew Lawrence, Laurie Laybourn-Langton

A radical manifesto for how to deal with environmental breakdownIn the age of environmental breakdown, breakdown, the political status quo has no answer to the devastating and inequitably distributed consequences of the climate emergency. We urgently need an alternative to bring about the rapid transformation of our social and economic systems. As we rebuild our lives in the wake of Covid-19 and face the challenges of ecological disaster, how can the left win a world fit for life? Planet on Fire is an urgent manifesto for a fundamental reimagining of the global economy. It offers a clear and practical road map for a future that is democratic and sustainable by design. Laurie Laybourn-Langton and Mathew Lawrence argue that it is not enough merely to spend our way out of the crisis; we must also rapidly reshape the economy to create a new way of life that can foster a healthy and flourishing environment for all. Planet on Fire offers a detailed and achievable manifesto for a new politics capable of tackling environmental breakdown.

Genres: Environment, Nonfiction, Politics, Climate Change, Science, Economics

289 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 20, 2021

Reviews

[Brendon.goodmurphy · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was drawn to this book because I wanted to read about solutions to the climate crisis that go beyond the technical details of decarbonizing the economy. And there are some engaging ideas and interpretations of the twin climate crisis and economic crisis we are in now, looking at how we can solve the climate crisis and renew our relationship to work and care (for example). But overall I was disappointed with this book. I guess it's a manifesto, so I should have had better expectations. But I found it too high-level and vague, lacking in specifics, examples, data, anything to help back up but also ground the ideas. Also, it's way too soon to talk about how the COVID pandemic is changing things - that felt vague, and thrown in just to make it more "relevant" or to sell better, but it really added nothing to the core ideas.

[Martin Empson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This ambitious work tries to pose a positive alternative to the capitalist driven ecological breakdown that we are experiencing. Its great strength is that it locates the problem not as an outlier to capitalism, but as a consequence of a system driven by profit. As such, ecological crisis isn't separated from wider social, gender and racial injustices. The authors recognise the legacy of colonialism and ongoing imperialism as part of the problem. The problem with the book is two fold. Firstly there is no real break from capitalism - essentially the authors want a world where companies aren't run for profit, where the finance system is greened and equitable and where production is organised in the interests of people and planet. But they want this without explaining how this break with capitalist practice might occur. Which brings us to the second problem - there's no agency. People are seen as part of the solution, but not the mechanism for this transformation. So the book is a worthy read, full of interesting ideas, but feels like the Utopian socialists all over again.

[Morten Greve · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book concludes with a ten-point manifesto for our planet on fire, addressing the need for sustainable social purpose, wholesale finance reform, new forms of democratic governance and organization of the workplace, reform of ownership (e.g. intellectual property etc.) and so on.

I sympathize wholeheartedly with the authors' values and general proposals. Human civilization is currently drinking in Last Chance Saloon and need to do drastic things now, no doubt about it.

Unfortunately, the book shies away from addressing many of the really thorny issues head-on. For instance, it points out that "entrenched elites" will resist the proposed program of change but insists that "their power will be challenged, isolated and dismantled." (p. 229). I thought, "excellent, but what are you proposing that we do about e.g. Google, Facebook, Microsoft und so weiter?" Answer: "the power of the platform monopolies to calculate and direct must be challenged through a digital socialism that reclaims technological infrastructure for shared abundance." (pp. 203-204). Yeah, I get that, but how, goddammit!? Talk about a question-begging reply...!

Another example: In all likelihood, an equitable transition to a sustainable global economy will require substantial sacrifices in terms of material living standards for this book's well-meaning developed-world readers. It generally tends to tip-toe around this obstacle.

A third problematic aspect: In most of the book, the authors seem to edge towards an anti- or postcapitalist stance - but then, suddenly, they state that "We need to sever the link between fossil fuel energy and capitalism." (p. 244). It isn't really made clear where they stand on this issue, and this is a significant weakness. It is as if they lack the courage to take a clear position and just hedge their bets.

In sum, I liked the book but got quite frustrated by its ambiguities and lack of operational concreteness.

[Rory Stewart · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not quite what I was looking for but a clear and direct manifesto.

I have to say a lot of this book was confirming things I already knew, and I perhaps found the title slightly disingenuous. Large chunks of this book are devoted to explaining at great length how disastrous Western capitalism and colonialism have been for the world, and towards the end of the book this seems to become its main focus, with enviromental breakdown merely being a consequence of it.

True as that may be, true solutions to "enviromental breakdown" aren't painted quite as clearly as I was hoping for in this book. The bulk of this is covered in chapter 7 and is breezed by fairly quickly: aviation gets 2 sentences, plant-based diets get about 2 pages, land re-wilding gets 1 page. I appreciated the first 2 chapters detailing the scope of the crisis and how colonialism has lead to it, but after another 3 chapters on financial restructure I found myself thinking "ok, all well and good, but how is this going to reduce carbon emissions?"

This book purports to be a manifesto on eco-socialism but towards the end, especially chapters 8 and 9 it really just felt like a manifesto on socialism. I agree with everything in this book: its causes are just and its reasons are valid but purely in terms of enviromental solutions I was left thinking there wasn't quite enough "meat" (no pun intended)

A good read if you're looking for a visionary socialism manifesto but not as focused on enviromental solutions as I'd have liked.

[Jurgita · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNFed it. The language is drier than the Atacama Desert.

[Becca Stuttard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting ideas about greening the capitalist financial system but found it quite high-level, difficult to understand how to implement this manifesto, lacked some real-world examples

[John Mihelic · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a hard book to read Because I probably agree with all the descriptions of the problems they look at in the book. I agree that there is a emergency that we need to deal with on the climate front and that's embedded in an entire social and political structure that is fundamentally broken and will not fix the emergency on its own accord.



The problem is that this book is written like a very well-written undergraduate paper. It talks about the problems and I kept wanting to say “well okay what is the mechanism that we use to fix these problems?”. Because to really address them as you mentioned earlier we have to fundamentally reshape the political and economic structures. So I'm reading it and I see at the very end of the kind of hand-wave towards it but even then I already made my decision about this book and so it didn't really strike me as a good strong mechanism for change.

Which is unfortunate because so many of these books are able to diagnose the problem and we can fall back on that world. That's like the quote we attributed to Jameson where it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. If we don't end capitalism as we know it there's going to be a major dislocation in the political and economic social structures anyway in the later part of the century. It's very scary and depressing and it's something we need to do something about and I think I'm of the same boat as the authors here and not knowing exactly what we can do about it

[Monica Noel Matthews]

Hard to rate this one. There was a lot of nice rhetoric, and some ideas with merit about increasing public resources and making more of the resources that exist in the world public resources, including companies and businesses. Many of the ideas, however, required bending over backwards to accommodate the government’s presence and involvement in all of this. It returned to phrases like “tax havens keep money out of government coffers” (paraphrasing). Who allows those tax havens to exist? Governments, and international law. And who is to say those governments would use those resources for public programs?

There was almost no mention of the military or military spending, or the havoc that the trillions of dollars invested in the U.S. military alone wreaks on mostly Black and Black nations and communities, and their green spaces and natural resources, around the world, including those in the U.S.

The fact that he was so close, that this is heralded as a progressive text, and that he still left out huge swaths of institutions that are marching us closer to environmental disaster, that he missed it by that much…was a little disorienting. And that is just one major element that he missed out. Open to further discussion. Please share your thoughts.

[Peter Tucker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lawrence and Laybourn-Langton’s inspiring, energizing manifesto is a well researched and wide ranging alternative to mainstream, market based, techno-optimist proposals for climate change . However, as a manifesto, their vision is a target, not a how-to or roadmap.
My reservations with the book start with this quote:
“Growth will remain the goal, but growth of a different kind.”
They go further to criticize any mention of “de-growth”.
For all their careful historical references to colonialism, the evils of capitalism, etc., there is no mention of the famous IPAT formula devised in 1970 by Commoner, Ehrlich and Holden. The elephant in the room here is population and its limits any mention of which is bound to be flagged as inherently racist.
One can argue endlessly over the relative weight of Technology vs. Affluence in the formula, but we’re talking about billions of them. It doesn’t matter who owns the means of production when “production” at our current scale is the problem.
The book I want to see will be focused on cooperative efforts that result in consolidation and – yes – de-growth.

[Nina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such an important book for everyone to read. I feel like most people are getting on board when it comes to humans causing climate change but it keeps shocking me that so many people seem to think that we can somehow solve this within a market-based system. I don't understand how their math adds up. Infinite growth x finite world=... What makes this calculation work?

I think (or hope at least) that most people who think that way just haven't really thought about it yet. If that is the case, this book will be really helpful to make you think about these things and to see how there can be better alternatives (Please remember that authoritarian communism is not the only alternative to capitalism!). And if you already think that improving lives and healing injustices for people and nature would be better things to base our decision on than profit, this book will give you some concrete ideas about how to make this happen.

Can't recommend it highly enough!

[Nathan Shuherk · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very helpful and hopeful book for those looking at organizing, but at the same time hopeless because the issue seems too daunting. The book argues, accurately, the only way to combat climate change is through collective anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist movements, but it leaves the reader immediately with the thoughts of “the problem is too big.” It’s not a problem of the book, but the subject and manifesto style may be inspiring- but could just as easily make the problem seem impossible to approach.

[Frankee · Rating 2 out of 5]

I expected a lot more from this book. It's really more of a broad overview of climate change issues, and the authors' suggestions for policy and social change are unimaginative and tired. It does successfully distill a lot of the major crises we are facing regarding climate change, so I would recommend it as an entry-level reading.

[Julia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The authors are clearly extremely knowledgable. Strong ideas supported by evidence. Unapologetic tone - fit for a manifesto.

I wondered whether I thought it felt utopian. Perhaps all radical changes seem unachievable at first. Perhaps this is a step in the right direction.

[Owen Groves · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not bad - a little utopian I suppose, and I would like more technical detail on how digital commons could work or come about, similarly could do with a few definitions etc. Sometimes seems to gloss over things. Having said this, it’s a manifesto and thus perhaps doesn’t require such a thing

[Freddie Tuson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really interesting parts to this, it mostly made me feel sad and angry that all the great stuff that it wants to happen just feels like it never will. Gets a bit diffuse at points, but I feel like I learnt stuff for sure.

[Angela]

This was a lot. Very dense, very academic at parts but also just very defeatist? The problems are presented in such a way that they feel almost too big to contemplate completely, much less solve so the reader is left feeling adrift.

I’ve read better climate books.

[Alberta · Rating 4 out of 5]

recommended by Jason

[Scerfman (Saoirse) · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first section and the last section I found very engaging and understandable but I have to say there’s a good bit in the middle which could be made more accessible. Some great ideas though.

[Brian Merritt · Rating 4 out of 5]

A timely and truly compelling analysis of the relationship between structural inequality and the environmental crisis. An absolutely essential read for our era of environmental breakdown that even offers a feasible path forward.

[Simon Chester · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simultaneously inspiring and depressing, this book lays out how many of humanity's fundamental systems of operation need a near complete re-write if we're to live within the means of our environment.
Drawing upon ideas from a good number of leftist thinkers, it provides some methods by which these systems - from labour relations, to corporate structures, to digital infrastructure, to government, and beyond - can be restructured to not just reduce carbon output, but also address the broader issue of environmental sustainability (climate change is NOT the only environmental crisis we're facing), equality, liberty, and social justice.
An important read that provides a lot of ideas - however difficult they will be to implement. This will not be an easy change, but it's one we need to fight - especially as the entrenched power structures will do their best to prevent any such changes.
A better future is possible - if we fight for it.

[Hayden Berg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this book because it brought to mind a lot of climate change solutions that I haven't heard explained so clearly before. It also gives a lot of finance-minded solutions, which I find very helpful and dives deeper on what it might actually look like to 'democratize' finance.

On the other hand, I think the book often feels a bit disorganized, which makes reading it and tracking the lines of thought a bit more difficult. I don't know if this is a problem on the part of the author or if this is just a necessary evil of writing about a topic like climate change that is near impossible to really think about in a clear, straightforward way. There are so many issues that are so deeply interconnected (science, justice, finance, politics, etc.) that I think it might always be difficult to talk about climate change in detail without running into this problem.

The last chapter is especially salient!