What do you think?
Rate this book
Climate Change as Class War: Building Socialism on a Warming Planet
How to build a movement to confront climate changeThe climate crisis is not primarily a problem of ‘believing science’ or individual ‘carbon footprints’ – it is a class problem rooted in who owns, controls and profits from material production. As such, it will take a class struggle to solve. In this ground breaking class analysis, Matthew T. Huber argues that the carbon-intensive capitalist class must be confronted for producing climate change. Yet, the narrow and unpopular roots of climate politics in the professional class is not capable of building a movement up to this challenge. For an alternative strategy, he proposes climate politics that appeals to the vast majority of the working class. Huber evaluates the Green New Deal as a first attempt to channel working class material and ecological interests and advocates building union power in the very energy system we need to dramatically transform. In the end, as in classical socialist movements of the early 20th Century, winning the climate struggle will need to be internationalist based on a form of planetary working class solidarity.
321 pages, Kindle Edition
Published May 10, 2022
118 people are currently reading
3082 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
October 12, 2022
Climate change makes me insane. I think about it and get a sad look on my face. My friends ask me what’s wrong and I tell them. The ice caps are melting. People are fleeing ecological collapse. Soon millions more will be on the move, leaving behind piles of corpses. I say this stuff and no one wants to hang out with me anymore. Great. More time to think about climate change.
Many others share my pessimism. Matthew Huber’s book is an attempt to perk us up. The point is to change the world, someone once said. Huber takes a stab at outlining how.
I’m wearing Cheeto stained sweatpants at the moment, and the trash can under my desk overflows with candy wrappers. Matthew Huber very kindly overlooks my swinish existence. Climate change isn’t really a problem of consumption. The current crisis is one of production.
The book is divided into three sections. Each focuses on the respective relationships that the bourgeoisie, the PMC, and the working class have to the climate crisis. Huber examines the collision of class and climate change to take what, for many, are totally abstract concepts like proletariat and bourgeoisie and ground them in day to day life. It contains one of the clearest descriptions of the PMC that I’ve come across.
Huber’s argument is as follows: capital, bound by the iron laws of competition, seeks new ways to squeeze surplus value out of workers and, in the process, farts increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The PMC, unaware of the hidden abode of production because of deindustrialization, suburbanization, and narcissism, focuses on consumption. Buy a Prius. Fly less. The more radical elements among the PMC - often in the process of proletarianization (raises hand) - are also uninterested in the realm of production. We must empower the most marginalized, they say. This is utopianism, borderline anarchism. The argument is more or less that the PMC as a class are an obstacle and should get out of the way.
Finally, the workers. We’ve come to the fun part. More and more people are talking about the workers every day folks. Marxists especially. It’s probably because workers are the source of all value. As the source of all value, the workers are the universal class, the agents of history. Capitalist production has brought us to the climate crisis. Only the workers can transcend capitalism. Ergo, only the workers can end the climate crisis.
Huber plays the usual hits, stuff that will come as no surprise to his readers. Workers won’t risk their jobs to save the whales or to end climate change; even the Green New Deal, albeit a good framework for long term goals, is too ambitious an ask right now. Fifty years of neoliberalism has not only immiserated the working class. It has also lost any faith in its ability to organize politically to improve their lives and gain any sort of power. It’s only through organizing and winning battles over direct material interests that working people can gain the confidence needed to change the world (an aside: Lawrence Goodwyn’s book on the Populists does a great job explaining how democratic political movements build worker confidence, and why it’s essential if you want to win). To paraphrase Matt Christman: let’s get bathroom breaks before we take down imperialism.
In the 1930s, the CIO focused on unionizing on steel- the commanding heights of the economy - above all other sectors. It was the triumph of the SWOC over Big Steel that cemented labor’s many victories during the New Deal era. Huber makes a convincing case that electricity production is the steel and coal of the 21st century. It should, as a result, be the main focus of union fights. It’s the ultimate chokepoint. If a capitalist can’t keep the lights on, he can’t squeeze the worker. The implications for climate change are obvious. Electricity production doesn’t necessarily depend on fossil fuels. Plus, there’s a history of public ownership -or at least oversight - of electricity production, and parts of the industry are already strongholds of union strength.
Finally, electrification is a mainstay of traditional Marxist thought. Electricity liberates us from dreary work. It protects us from the whims of nature. Despite the hectoring of ultra-liberal PMCs, electricity is good. I’m fat and of Ashkenazi and Irish stock. Without electricity, summers would be hellish. I’d be chafed and sweaty all the time, rather than half of it.
Of course, that doesn’t compare to the brutality of life without any electricity at all. Western NGOs burst with excitement when they provide African villages with wells and something called a solar stove. The women no longer have to walk miles and miles to get water. All they have to do now is wait in line down the street! No more chopping wood, no more deforestation. All you have to do is sit outside your shanty and use the power of the sun to heat a pot. These are improvements, I guess. But what if people could go to the kitchen and uh, turn on a sink, or use an electric stove?
Overall, I think Huber’s analysis is excellent. His plan of action seems realistic, too, although I feel like something of an armchair general when I map out political strategy. I have my doubts, for reasons which are purely speculative and fatalistic. They can all be dismissed with a simple question: got any better ideas? No, I don’t. This one doesn’t seem like a bad place to start.
Many others share my pessimism. Matthew Huber’s book is an attempt to perk us up. The point is to change the world, someone once said. Huber takes a stab at outlining how.
I’m wearing Cheeto stained sweatpants at the moment, and the trash can under my desk overflows with candy wrappers. Matthew Huber very kindly overlooks my swinish existence. Climate change isn’t really a problem of consumption. The current crisis is one of production.
The book is divided into three sections. Each focuses on the respective relationships that the bourgeoisie, the PMC, and the working class have to the climate crisis. Huber examines the collision of class and climate change to take what, for many, are totally abstract concepts like proletariat and bourgeoisie and ground them in day to day life. It contains one of the clearest descriptions of the PMC that I’ve come across.
Huber’s argument is as follows: capital, bound by the iron laws of competition, seeks new ways to squeeze surplus value out of workers and, in the process, farts increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The PMC, unaware of the hidden abode of production because of deindustrialization, suburbanization, and narcissism, focuses on consumption. Buy a Prius. Fly less. The more radical elements among the PMC - often in the process of proletarianization (raises hand) - are also uninterested in the realm of production. We must empower the most marginalized, they say. This is utopianism, borderline anarchism. The argument is more or less that the PMC as a class are an obstacle and should get out of the way.
Finally, the workers. We’ve come to the fun part. More and more people are talking about the workers every day folks. Marxists especially. It’s probably because workers are the source of all value. As the source of all value, the workers are the universal class, the agents of history. Capitalist production has brought us to the climate crisis. Only the workers can transcend capitalism. Ergo, only the workers can end the climate crisis.
Huber plays the usual hits, stuff that will come as no surprise to his readers. Workers won’t risk their jobs to save the whales or to end climate change; even the Green New Deal, albeit a good framework for long term goals, is too ambitious an ask right now. Fifty years of neoliberalism has not only immiserated the working class. It has also lost any faith in its ability to organize politically to improve their lives and gain any sort of power. It’s only through organizing and winning battles over direct material interests that working people can gain the confidence needed to change the world (an aside: Lawrence Goodwyn’s book on the Populists does a great job explaining how democratic political movements build worker confidence, and why it’s essential if you want to win). To paraphrase Matt Christman: let’s get bathroom breaks before we take down imperialism.
In the 1930s, the CIO focused on unionizing on steel- the commanding heights of the economy - above all other sectors. It was the triumph of the SWOC over Big Steel that cemented labor’s many victories during the New Deal era. Huber makes a convincing case that electricity production is the steel and coal of the 21st century. It should, as a result, be the main focus of union fights. It’s the ultimate chokepoint. If a capitalist can’t keep the lights on, he can’t squeeze the worker. The implications for climate change are obvious. Electricity production doesn’t necessarily depend on fossil fuels. Plus, there’s a history of public ownership -or at least oversight - of electricity production, and parts of the industry are already strongholds of union strength.
Finally, electrification is a mainstay of traditional Marxist thought. Electricity liberates us from dreary work. It protects us from the whims of nature. Despite the hectoring of ultra-liberal PMCs, electricity is good. I’m fat and of Ashkenazi and Irish stock. Without electricity, summers would be hellish. I’d be chafed and sweaty all the time, rather than half of it.
Of course, that doesn’t compare to the brutality of life without any electricity at all. Western NGOs burst with excitement when they provide African villages with wells and something called a solar stove. The women no longer have to walk miles and miles to get water. All they have to do now is wait in line down the street! No more chopping wood, no more deforestation. All you have to do is sit outside your shanty and use the power of the sun to heat a pot. These are improvements, I guess. But what if people could go to the kitchen and uh, turn on a sink, or use an electric stove?
Overall, I think Huber’s analysis is excellent. His plan of action seems realistic, too, although I feel like something of an armchair general when I map out political strategy. I have my doubts, for reasons which are purely speculative and fatalistic. They can all be dismissed with a simple question: got any better ideas? No, I don’t. This one doesn’t seem like a bad place to start.
October 12, 2022
Important but frustrating. The core line of argument that the climate movement needs a focus on the role of capitalist power in production in producing the crisis and a strategy focused on building worker power in strategic sectors is important. The chapters that focus on this are the strongest (2, 3, 5, 6, and 7).
But, the excessive marxology strange psychological critique of the professional-managerial class, straw- manning of degrowth, and the false dichotomy between a labour movement strategy and constructive aspects of existing political strategy let the book down.
Unfortunately the book wastes an opportunity for a much more productive critique of parts of degrowth theory and strategy, including questions about how the alternative kinds of abundance degrowthers push for can become part of powerful mass movement strategy.
The book was also far too quick to dismiss the PMC as technically/ politically naive. Huber implies that only his labour movement strategy can win but equivocates on what this really means for those in the PMC. Yes clearly they should join unions and support strikes, but should they all become workers in utilities, fossil fuel production, cement mixing etc? Clearly this is not viable, so what should they do?
Can we seriously suggest that there is no place for the radical constituents of this group within an effective climate politics? Maybe this is just beyond the scope of this book, but in being so quick to dismiss this class in general, and implying that his strategy is an opposing path, rather than a constructive addition to certain parts of the PMC’s radical wing, Huber basically leaves them out of the future story. With his acknowledgement that labour remains weak,, albeit gaining power, and having mixed interest in climate issues, this is unhelpful.
There is clearly room for a much stronger labour movement in the climate movement. But I would hold that are many more productive links to be built between these movements than Huber does. Of course, in practice the best parts of this book are precisely an exercise in trying to create some of these links. Hopefully the rest doesn’t prevent others being forged too….
But, the excessive marxology strange psychological critique of the professional-managerial class, straw- manning of degrowth, and the false dichotomy between a labour movement strategy and constructive aspects of existing political strategy let the book down.
Unfortunately the book wastes an opportunity for a much more productive critique of parts of degrowth theory and strategy, including questions about how the alternative kinds of abundance degrowthers push for can become part of powerful mass movement strategy.
The book was also far too quick to dismiss the PMC as technically/ politically naive. Huber implies that only his labour movement strategy can win but equivocates on what this really means for those in the PMC. Yes clearly they should join unions and support strikes, but should they all become workers in utilities, fossil fuel production, cement mixing etc? Clearly this is not viable, so what should they do?
Can we seriously suggest that there is no place for the radical constituents of this group within an effective climate politics? Maybe this is just beyond the scope of this book, but in being so quick to dismiss this class in general, and implying that his strategy is an opposing path, rather than a constructive addition to certain parts of the PMC’s radical wing, Huber basically leaves them out of the future story. With his acknowledgement that labour remains weak,, albeit gaining power, and having mixed interest in climate issues, this is unhelpful.
There is clearly room for a much stronger labour movement in the climate movement. But I would hold that are many more productive links to be built between these movements than Huber does. Of course, in practice the best parts of this book are precisely an exercise in trying to create some of these links. Hopefully the rest doesn’t prevent others being forged too….
July 18, 2023
A strongly argued, very American, Vivek Chibberite eco-socialist polemic, something like the exact opposite of Half-Earth Socialism - but like it, alternately v admirable and v frustrating. In short, Huber argues that green movements are monopolised by the PMC - hence their focus on 'knowledge' and 'market solutions' - and that any movement to redress the climate crisis has to a) base itself on the working class. and b) on centralised power generation rather than small-is-beautiful local or personal opt-outs, and to base itself struggles at the point of production rather than consumption.
I agree with both of these points, though would quibble at some of the details (eg: I don't think the focus on consumption in much green radicalism is some sort of expression of middle-class priorities so much as a result of neoliberalism putting the commanding heights off limits for discussion or political struggle; and I don't think that Chibberite rational choice Marxism, where workers live in suburbs, drive cars and eat shit solely because they are forced to by the market, can be anything like all of the explanation for why most Americans live like they do). But! It lays out a strategy, a focus and a plan, and unless you've got a better one, it's worth reading for that.
I agree with both of these points, though would quibble at some of the details (eg: I don't think the focus on consumption in much green radicalism is some sort of expression of middle-class priorities so much as a result of neoliberalism putting the commanding heights off limits for discussion or political struggle; and I don't think that Chibberite rational choice Marxism, where workers live in suburbs, drive cars and eat shit solely because they are forced to by the market, can be anything like all of the explanation for why most Americans live like they do). But! It lays out a strategy, a focus and a plan, and unless you've got a better one, it's worth reading for that.
September 1, 2022
Update: I was able to discuss this book with Dr. Chris Keefer on Decouple Reads!
---
Super interesting ideas and challenged many beliefs, but some readability issues made it tough to get through. 3.5 stars and a literal coin-flip decided on the round-up today. Overall: Challenging, through-provoking, interesting. Recommended if you're interested in climate, capitalism (or socialism), and some fresh ideas.
Huber is more socialist than I was prepared for - like, right into Marxism on page 3 and never comes up for air after that. I'm not sure if he used the term "anti-capitalist" but let's just say he wasn't wild on capitalism. For the most part this perspective was OK; I deliberately picked this book to challenge some beliefs.
I'm not sure I can constructively critique any of Huber's ideas. I had some cultural memes in the back of my head like "socialism has never worked" and "capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others". But his arguments and theses were pretty tight. That, and any time I found myself questioning/disagreeing with one of his ideas, I simultaneously recognized myself as behaving like one of the climate-ineffective/capitalist caricatures he'd described elsewhere. So either: tight arguments AND/OR super good rhetoric AND/OR super gaslighty rhetoric.
Huber's thesis, if I can take a crack at summarizing it, is that climate change is unsolvable because most people talking about, thinking about, and actioning climate issues don't do anything whatsoever to appear to the "working class". People whose basic needs are met have time to worry about climate, but everyone else is mostly trying to get by. So, "broad working-class coalitions" are needed to affect change. He proposes starting in the electricity sector.
Some great ideas/quotes:
- p10, debunking "personal carbon footprints". Are consumers really to blame for race-to-the-bottom costs and resulting climate impacts? Apparently the concept of the personal carbon footprint was popularized by BP, so this might be industrial misdirection.
- p27, "the managerial class often takes on the politics of ideologies of capital." Agree. How could they not, when all the incentives align?
- a thorough evisceration of "degrowth" climate politics, all about reducing individual consumption and doing less. While wealthy and upper class people have lots of room to scale back consumption, he makes a powerful case for how damaging degrowth policies are to working-class people, marginalized groups, those living in poverty, etc. Since degrowth is a popular ideology with the left, this was a welcome argument to see coming from a radical leftist.
- p64 (and all Chapter 6) a strong case for beginning fast decarbonization in the electricity sector, because it is typically highly regulated, highly politicized, and highly unionized, in addition to being responsible for a huge chunk of emissions. How socialism actually makes perfect sense in this system: electricity as a public good, vs. private enterprise making a profit. Gretchen Bakke had similar ideas in her book The Grid: Electrical Infrastructure for a New Era.
- p104 pretty sure Huber visited an ammonia plant of the company I used to work for... he describes an unnamed Alberta site (tour was in exchange for confidentiality), a carbon credit program, and a "feeding the world" agenda. Then rips this program apart as greenwashing. Whoops.
- p124, three types of Professional Class climate politics.
1. Science communicator. Political goal: Spreading climate truth/science. Theory of change: Knowledge informs political behaviour/action.
2. Policy technocrat. Political goal: Implementing climate policy. Theory of change: Right-wing policymakers can be won over with smart policy designs challenging market incentives.
3. Anti-system radical. Political goal: System change, not climate change. Theory of change: Small-scale alternatives and anti-consumerism will erode capitalism.
- p147 "the professional class represents a minority of the population, while the majority have experienced the last four decades as increased economic insecurity, stagnating wages, job insecurity, and mounting debt. [The] politics of less makes little sense to a majority of society already forced to live with less." - favourite quip against degrowth mindsets/programs.
- p203 Yellow Vest revolts in France as a "rejection of climate technocracy that does not address entrenched inequality".
Things I struggled with:
- Huber's intended audience has a higher level of literacy with socialism/Marxism that I had, so that made a lot of the content hard to parse. Even phrases like "the capitalist system" - well that IS the current system, more or less, so it's hard to abstract the familiar away into just one possibility. On p31 he identifies "anti-system radicals" making up most of the readership - not a term I even understood well enough to know if I identified with! I read this book to be challenged, but some things could have been made a bit easier.
- A super quote-dense writing style. Huber writes with a lot of brief quotes dropped in mid-paragraph as if they need little further elaboration.
- The intro was the longest chapter at 50 pages!
- Maybe the book was too broad, looking back over my quotes and takeaways they are a pretty narrow picture of a larger argument. Hard to summarize.
- Again maybe just a bit too radical for me. This sentence in the conclusion: "Unfortunately, we are unlikely to abolish class and private property in time to avert climate catastrophe."
---
Super interesting ideas and challenged many beliefs, but some readability issues made it tough to get through. 3.5 stars and a literal coin-flip decided on the round-up today. Overall: Challenging, through-provoking, interesting. Recommended if you're interested in climate, capitalism (or socialism), and some fresh ideas.
Huber is more socialist than I was prepared for - like, right into Marxism on page 3 and never comes up for air after that. I'm not sure if he used the term "anti-capitalist" but let's just say he wasn't wild on capitalism. For the most part this perspective was OK; I deliberately picked this book to challenge some beliefs.
I'm not sure I can constructively critique any of Huber's ideas. I had some cultural memes in the back of my head like "socialism has never worked" and "capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others". But his arguments and theses were pretty tight. That, and any time I found myself questioning/disagreeing with one of his ideas, I simultaneously recognized myself as behaving like one of the climate-ineffective/capitalist caricatures he'd described elsewhere. So either: tight arguments AND/OR super good rhetoric AND/OR super gaslighty rhetoric.
Huber's thesis, if I can take a crack at summarizing it, is that climate change is unsolvable because most people talking about, thinking about, and actioning climate issues don't do anything whatsoever to appear to the "working class". People whose basic needs are met have time to worry about climate, but everyone else is mostly trying to get by. So, "broad working-class coalitions" are needed to affect change. He proposes starting in the electricity sector.
Some great ideas/quotes:
- p10, debunking "personal carbon footprints". Are consumers really to blame for race-to-the-bottom costs and resulting climate impacts? Apparently the concept of the personal carbon footprint was popularized by BP, so this might be industrial misdirection.
- p27, "the managerial class often takes on the politics of ideologies of capital." Agree. How could they not, when all the incentives align?
- a thorough evisceration of "degrowth" climate politics, all about reducing individual consumption and doing less. While wealthy and upper class people have lots of room to scale back consumption, he makes a powerful case for how damaging degrowth policies are to working-class people, marginalized groups, those living in poverty, etc. Since degrowth is a popular ideology with the left, this was a welcome argument to see coming from a radical leftist.
- p64 (and all Chapter 6) a strong case for beginning fast decarbonization in the electricity sector, because it is typically highly regulated, highly politicized, and highly unionized, in addition to being responsible for a huge chunk of emissions. How socialism actually makes perfect sense in this system: electricity as a public good, vs. private enterprise making a profit. Gretchen Bakke had similar ideas in her book The Grid: Electrical Infrastructure for a New Era.
- p104 pretty sure Huber visited an ammonia plant of the company I used to work for... he describes an unnamed Alberta site (tour was in exchange for confidentiality), a carbon credit program, and a "feeding the world" agenda. Then rips this program apart as greenwashing. Whoops.
- p124, three types of Professional Class climate politics.
1. Science communicator. Political goal: Spreading climate truth/science. Theory of change: Knowledge informs political behaviour/action.
2. Policy technocrat. Political goal: Implementing climate policy. Theory of change: Right-wing policymakers can be won over with smart policy designs challenging market incentives.
3. Anti-system radical. Political goal: System change, not climate change. Theory of change: Small-scale alternatives and anti-consumerism will erode capitalism.
- p147 "the professional class represents a minority of the population, while the majority have experienced the last four decades as increased economic insecurity, stagnating wages, job insecurity, and mounting debt. [The] politics of less makes little sense to a majority of society already forced to live with less." - favourite quip against degrowth mindsets/programs.
- p203 Yellow Vest revolts in France as a "rejection of climate technocracy that does not address entrenched inequality".
Things I struggled with:
- Huber's intended audience has a higher level of literacy with socialism/Marxism that I had, so that made a lot of the content hard to parse. Even phrases like "the capitalist system" - well that IS the current system, more or less, so it's hard to abstract the familiar away into just one possibility. On p31 he identifies "anti-system radicals" making up most of the readership - not a term I even understood well enough to know if I identified with! I read this book to be challenged, but some things could have been made a bit easier.
- A super quote-dense writing style. Huber writes with a lot of brief quotes dropped in mid-paragraph as if they need little further elaboration.
- The intro was the longest chapter at 50 pages!
- Maybe the book was too broad, looking back over my quotes and takeaways they are a pretty narrow picture of a larger argument. Hard to summarize.
- Again maybe just a bit too radical for me. This sentence in the conclusion: "Unfortunately, we are unlikely to abolish class and private property in time to avert climate catastrophe."
June 12, 2022
You can read my full review here:
https://www.the-trouble.com/content/2...
https://www.the-trouble.com/content/2...
August 13, 2023
This book was extremely frustrating to read. I was thinking of writing a long review, but I have too much to say, so I'll spare goodreads my essay.
There are moments of insight in this book. Chapters 1, 2, most of 6, and chapter 7 in particular have a lot to offer and deserve critical readings. There is, however, also a lot of time taken up by Huber settling his ideological twitter spats in a longer form format. This book is extremely constrained by its methodological nationalism, reformist political outlook and commitment to some of the most annoying elements of marxist orthodoxy.
This book should be lauded for its attempt to construct an ecological definition of the proletariat, as well as Huber's novel take on ecological destruction and the production of relative surplus value. Huber, however, makes frequent bad historical claims, and repeatedly strawmans his political opponents on the left - especially degrowth advocates, who he spends more time psychoanalysing than he does actually engaging with any of their work.
I found myself getting repeatedly annoyed and frustrated at this text. It deserves critical engagement, especially Huber's takes on developing rank and file union strategy for decarbonisation and with Huber's take on the ecology of production. Just be prepared to slog through the shit parts.
There are moments of insight in this book. Chapters 1, 2, most of 6, and chapter 7 in particular have a lot to offer and deserve critical readings. There is, however, also a lot of time taken up by Huber settling his ideological twitter spats in a longer form format. This book is extremely constrained by its methodological nationalism, reformist political outlook and commitment to some of the most annoying elements of marxist orthodoxy.
This book should be lauded for its attempt to construct an ecological definition of the proletariat, as well as Huber's novel take on ecological destruction and the production of relative surplus value. Huber, however, makes frequent bad historical claims, and repeatedly strawmans his political opponents on the left - especially degrowth advocates, who he spends more time psychoanalysing than he does actually engaging with any of their work.
I found myself getting repeatedly annoyed and frustrated at this text. It deserves critical engagement, especially Huber's takes on developing rank and file union strategy for decarbonisation and with Huber's take on the ecology of production. Just be prepared to slog through the shit parts.
August 8, 2022
In Climate Change as Class War, Huber rightfully places the blame for the climate crisis squarely on the class who profits from it, and that has overtly and covertly resisted decarbonization. That is, the capitalist class.
But then bizarrely, he turns his ire toward the professional class, laying blame for a lack of climate action at their feet. Here, the entire environmental movement is lumped together as belonging to the professional class of scientists, NGOs, activists, etc. Their misguided politics of "less consumption," motivated by a psychological guilt for their out-sized environmental footprint, will no doubt fail to inspire the working class to join in the fight, as it has watched its material standard of living melt away during neoliberalism.
I think the most valuable contribution of the book is that a politics of consumption is not going to solve the climate crisis, and we must instead focus on a politics of production. But rather than looking to build a coalition of interests between the professional class (who care about climate change, but focus on consumption) and the working class (who focus on production, but don't tend to care about climate change), Huber dismisses the professional class altogether.
Our only saving grace is the blameless working class. Nevermind that Huber admits the labour movement has been practically decimated and is at its weakest, he still believes they are the only class with the power to fight climate change. He also overlooks the extent to which labour unions have been, on the whole, dismissive of environmental politics, deeply protective of the fossil fuel industry in the name of saving jobs, and have become generally conservative, bureaucratic organizations.
In this case, Climate Change as Class War can be added to the large pile of Marxist critiques of capitalism. Rather than looking forward to a politics or a vision that suits our current moment and crises, that can unite the 99% behind a common goal of fighting climate change while improving quality of life, we get more nostalgic looking back toward a pure Marxism that surely this time will save the day, if only it can be given an honest chance.
But then bizarrely, he turns his ire toward the professional class, laying blame for a lack of climate action at their feet. Here, the entire environmental movement is lumped together as belonging to the professional class of scientists, NGOs, activists, etc. Their misguided politics of "less consumption," motivated by a psychological guilt for their out-sized environmental footprint, will no doubt fail to inspire the working class to join in the fight, as it has watched its material standard of living melt away during neoliberalism.
I think the most valuable contribution of the book is that a politics of consumption is not going to solve the climate crisis, and we must instead focus on a politics of production. But rather than looking to build a coalition of interests between the professional class (who care about climate change, but focus on consumption) and the working class (who focus on production, but don't tend to care about climate change), Huber dismisses the professional class altogether.
Our only saving grace is the blameless working class. Nevermind that Huber admits the labour movement has been practically decimated and is at its weakest, he still believes they are the only class with the power to fight climate change. He also overlooks the extent to which labour unions have been, on the whole, dismissive of environmental politics, deeply protective of the fossil fuel industry in the name of saving jobs, and have become generally conservative, bureaucratic organizations.
In this case, Climate Change as Class War can be added to the large pile of Marxist critiques of capitalism. Rather than looking forward to a politics or a vision that suits our current moment and crises, that can unite the 99% behind a common goal of fighting climate change while improving quality of life, we get more nostalgic looking back toward a pure Marxism that surely this time will save the day, if only it can be given an honest chance.
June 24, 2023
I highly recommend that everyone read this book. You may agree or disagree with Huber's analysis (he is quite provocative at times), but his perspective will absolutely cause you to think about your views of how we should confront the climate crisis. We've been so conditioned to see our relation to climate as consumers. Many of us have been recycling, buying "green" products, and voting for politicians who believe in science for decades, as carbon and methane continues to pour into our atmosphere. It creates a cycle of guilt, dread, and helplessness.
Huber presents a completely different perspective. He identifies where the majority of greenhouse gas is created and surmises that it must be attacked at the point of production rather than the point of consumption. He analyzes the production of concrete and the nitrogen used to manufacture fertilizer, which create an overwhelming portion of greenhouse gas. The corporations have no incentive to convert to a carbon-free production process as it will reduce profits and make them less competitive in the market. Government subsidies to encourage green energy have been largely ineffective and have often pitted JOBS vs ENVIRONMENT. Huber's approach of creating a rank and file labor struggle in the electricity sector is a way to tell workers that we can improve their lives, create more good paying jobs, ensure energy workers that they won't lose jobs as the industry changes, and rapidly expands the idea of democracy to include the workplace.
His proposal is to create socialism in the energy sector since it is urgent to transform our entire energy grid as soon as possible to run on 100% clean energy that is publicly owned and democratically controlled. Ideally this would spark a class consciousness to spur the proletariat to capture state power and pass a massive environmental works program such as a Green New Deal type "thing". Due to the US' strategic role in capital's global hegemony, this would create openings for other countries to struggle for similar transformations. It would need to be a global project that sees the working class as global and the capitalist class as not constricted to national borders as well. The capitalist class has waged class war on the working class for decades through extracting massive profits at the expense of energy workers and the violent act of separating man from nature. It is time for the working class to fight on the terms of class war. Creating a rank and file labor movement in the energy sector that has the power to challenge capital will not be easy, but other environmental movements have not been able to create the change we need. Knowledge and science are not enough. Telling working people, whose lives have gotten steadily worse over the neoliberal era, that they need to consume less is not a winning proposal.
All of these points Huber made resonated with me deeply. He does have a tendency to be quite cynical about other perspectives such as smaller scale community gardens and energy projects. I understand that his point is that this is not a solution that can serve all the people of the world. We can't tell people that it's their responsibility to grow their own food and produce their own energy when they may not have the means and ability to do so. He eventually mentions a "Yes and" approach to smaller scale community projects so I felt the antagonism was unwarranted. Additionally, Huber spends a large portion of the book making a case for his definition of the working class as those without a college degree. As a Marxist, I don't understand why he would be so intent on contradiction Marx and Engels' definition from the Communist Manifesto of the working class as:
a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital
and "proletariat" in Marxist terms, does not mean only factory or industrial workers, as is commonly supposed, but rather, the vast majority of society - the 99%.
It was frustrating to see him redefine workers in relation to education rather than production. He makes some important points about the fact that people who care about the environment tend to be the most educated. And 63% of workers in the US currently have no college degree, so these are the people our movement needs to speak to. He eventually concedes that many graduates are "proletariatizing", are downwardly mobile, and straddled with debt. I found his approach frustrating. He made some good points that could be approached differently from a more standard Marxist perspective.
If you read this far, thank you. I rarely write reviews here and if so, usually just a short paragraph. This book spurred so many thoughts and reactions in me, which is why I hope that you will read it and share your own thoughts! Thanks to Matthew T. Huber for writing a text that caused me to reconsider everything I thought I knew about the climate crisis!
Huber presents a completely different perspective. He identifies where the majority of greenhouse gas is created and surmises that it must be attacked at the point of production rather than the point of consumption. He analyzes the production of concrete and the nitrogen used to manufacture fertilizer, which create an overwhelming portion of greenhouse gas. The corporations have no incentive to convert to a carbon-free production process as it will reduce profits and make them less competitive in the market. Government subsidies to encourage green energy have been largely ineffective and have often pitted JOBS vs ENVIRONMENT. Huber's approach of creating a rank and file labor struggle in the electricity sector is a way to tell workers that we can improve their lives, create more good paying jobs, ensure energy workers that they won't lose jobs as the industry changes, and rapidly expands the idea of democracy to include the workplace.
His proposal is to create socialism in the energy sector since it is urgent to transform our entire energy grid as soon as possible to run on 100% clean energy that is publicly owned and democratically controlled. Ideally this would spark a class consciousness to spur the proletariat to capture state power and pass a massive environmental works program such as a Green New Deal type "thing". Due to the US' strategic role in capital's global hegemony, this would create openings for other countries to struggle for similar transformations. It would need to be a global project that sees the working class as global and the capitalist class as not constricted to national borders as well. The capitalist class has waged class war on the working class for decades through extracting massive profits at the expense of energy workers and the violent act of separating man from nature. It is time for the working class to fight on the terms of class war. Creating a rank and file labor movement in the energy sector that has the power to challenge capital will not be easy, but other environmental movements have not been able to create the change we need. Knowledge and science are not enough. Telling working people, whose lives have gotten steadily worse over the neoliberal era, that they need to consume less is not a winning proposal.
All of these points Huber made resonated with me deeply. He does have a tendency to be quite cynical about other perspectives such as smaller scale community gardens and energy projects. I understand that his point is that this is not a solution that can serve all the people of the world. We can't tell people that it's their responsibility to grow their own food and produce their own energy when they may not have the means and ability to do so. He eventually mentions a "Yes and" approach to smaller scale community projects so I felt the antagonism was unwarranted. Additionally, Huber spends a large portion of the book making a case for his definition of the working class as those without a college degree. As a Marxist, I don't understand why he would be so intent on contradiction Marx and Engels' definition from the Communist Manifesto of the working class as:
a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital
and "proletariat" in Marxist terms, does not mean only factory or industrial workers, as is commonly supposed, but rather, the vast majority of society - the 99%.
It was frustrating to see him redefine workers in relation to education rather than production. He makes some important points about the fact that people who care about the environment tend to be the most educated. And 63% of workers in the US currently have no college degree, so these are the people our movement needs to speak to. He eventually concedes that many graduates are "proletariatizing", are downwardly mobile, and straddled with debt. I found his approach frustrating. He made some good points that could be approached differently from a more standard Marxist perspective.
If you read this far, thank you. I rarely write reviews here and if so, usually just a short paragraph. This book spurred so many thoughts and reactions in me, which is why I hope that you will read it and share your own thoughts! Thanks to Matthew T. Huber for writing a text that caused me to reconsider everything I thought I knew about the climate crisis!
August 26, 2025
Distinguishes itself from other radical climate books I've read by actually daring to propose a concrete strategy (albeit with an almost exclusive US focus): roughly, build on existing union power in the electrical utility sector to force a swift transition to renewables, with an emphasis on improving the lives and livelihoods of the working class majority rather than 'following the science' for its own sake. Huber sees the latter as a dead end for any climate movement with genuinely popular aspirations, and its present strategic centrality as symptomatic of a debate dominated by a PMC that is wracked with guilt over its own relatively carbon-intensive lifestyle. There's a good, ruthless section in this about the kind of politics that this has led to - one motivated by 'carbon guilt' and a futile obsession with education or 'awareness' as the premier field of struggle, and one that opts for a 'less is more' message at a time when most working-class people in the supposedly affluent West are experiencing growing precarity and a marked decline in living standards.
Obviously a lot of this hit home for me, though as a vegetarian who hasn't flown since 2021, I do still think there's some value in following your conscience and opting out of certain aspects of the present system if you can - as a matter of moral principle, as a way of reminding yourself that things can't carry on as they currently are, etc. Still, whatever the ethical status of such decisions, it's absolutely true that they shouldn't and can't form the main rallying point of a broad-based uprising against fossil capital - not least because, as Huber stresses here, industry is by far the biggest generator of emissions, and the decisions taken in the course of a day by the director of an ammonia production facility matter more than a lifetime of refusing to fly and fretting over whether or not to buy a plastic coffee cup.
One query I did have concerned whether the privileging of a kind of 'red plenty' over degrowth is just a matter of framing or a qualitative disagreement about policy. Surely there are some things about the way that most of 'us' live, in the US and elsewhere, that simply have to change, and surely that change will be experienced (at least by some people, including some working-class people) as a loss, however much it might be counterbalanced by improvements in other areas? Maybe Huber's wager is that there just aren't - if so, I hope he's right, but I'm skeptical. Also wondered more generally about the theory of motivation underlying his argument; I'm not necessarily against his attempt to revive the Marxist notion of 'objective class interests', but the way he sketches that here seems more polemically useful than psychologically persuasive, as opposed to his relatively sophisticated account of the neuroses of the PMC (the class to which he belongs).
At any rate, an interesting book: I learned and promptly forgot a lot about the history of fertiliser, and am now keen to read up on the life of Old Left rabblerouser Tony Mazzochi. Surely also 'useful' in a general way, though I don't think I'll be quitting my new job before it's even begun to go and work at the Siemens plant in Byker. Sorry.
Obviously a lot of this hit home for me, though as a vegetarian who hasn't flown since 2021, I do still think there's some value in following your conscience and opting out of certain aspects of the present system if you can - as a matter of moral principle, as a way of reminding yourself that things can't carry on as they currently are, etc. Still, whatever the ethical status of such decisions, it's absolutely true that they shouldn't and can't form the main rallying point of a broad-based uprising against fossil capital - not least because, as Huber stresses here, industry is by far the biggest generator of emissions, and the decisions taken in the course of a day by the director of an ammonia production facility matter more than a lifetime of refusing to fly and fretting over whether or not to buy a plastic coffee cup.
One query I did have concerned whether the privileging of a kind of 'red plenty' over degrowth is just a matter of framing or a qualitative disagreement about policy. Surely there are some things about the way that most of 'us' live, in the US and elsewhere, that simply have to change, and surely that change will be experienced (at least by some people, including some working-class people) as a loss, however much it might be counterbalanced by improvements in other areas? Maybe Huber's wager is that there just aren't - if so, I hope he's right, but I'm skeptical. Also wondered more generally about the theory of motivation underlying his argument; I'm not necessarily against his attempt to revive the Marxist notion of 'objective class interests', but the way he sketches that here seems more polemically useful than psychologically persuasive, as opposed to his relatively sophisticated account of the neuroses of the PMC (the class to which he belongs).
At any rate, an interesting book: I learned and promptly forgot a lot about the history of fertiliser, and am now keen to read up on the life of Old Left rabblerouser Tony Mazzochi. Surely also 'useful' in a general way, though I don't think I'll be quitting my new job before it's even begun to go and work at the Siemens plant in Byker. Sorry.
July 17, 2024
Should I drop out of university and become a linesman? Probably not but this book made me wonder.
Wonderfully written, compelling, and cohesive. It demonstrates a clear program for how to get the Green New Deal, and explains clearly why we haven’t. If you care about the climate movement this book is required reading.
Wonderfully written, compelling, and cohesive. It demonstrates a clear program for how to get the Green New Deal, and explains clearly why we haven’t. If you care about the climate movement this book is required reading.
July 25, 2024
My radicalization is complete! I really like this assessment that a strong climate movement can only come from a unified, international working class and the strong evidence Huber provides. All the Marx quotes make me really just want to read more Marx. My one qualm is that I didn't get a sense of urgency throughout the book. Huber ends on a note of urgency ("time is growing short"), but didn't infuse that message into the text itself. Other than that it was great!
Read
May 24, 2023finished just a few weeks after book group! :P
March 13, 2023
I was very excited about the radical premise of this book: that the climate movement is predominantly rooted with the professional class but is incapable of bringing about widespread change. Instead, the working class, the majority of our population that also owns the means of production, can be powerful agents of decarbonization through unionization.
I found his categorization of climate advocates within the professional class spot on, as well as his historical analysis of how carbon guilt has been cultivated. However, I wish he discussed more ways that the professional class could serve as allies in empowering the working class, rather than completely dismissing them. I also didn’t really see how the working class would be persuaded to unionize in the name of climate - given how conservative and anti-climate so many of them are, which kinda sorta seems to be a huge gap. Though the dense writing style of this book may prevent it, I do hope the ideas in this book find greater exposure!
I found his categorization of climate advocates within the professional class spot on, as well as his historical analysis of how carbon guilt has been cultivated. However, I wish he discussed more ways that the professional class could serve as allies in empowering the working class, rather than completely dismissing them. I also didn’t really see how the working class would be persuaded to unionize in the name of climate - given how conservative and anti-climate so many of them are, which kinda sorta seems to be a huge gap. Though the dense writing style of this book may prevent it, I do hope the ideas in this book find greater exposure!
April 22, 2025
a worker-powered climate strategy is one i could 100% get down on. everyone bitching abt “dismissing the professional class” and getting offended by author’s criticisms of degrowth is obvi missing the point. this text (just like all environmental books tbh) naturally attract the tetiary-educated, environmentally-aware, professional class, including myself. and it’s time we realize our regular “scientific awareness” and anti-material rhetoric isn’t working (and is frankly classist) towards the masses. we need everyone on board for our movement to be powerful and to address the climate crisis in time. i implore readers to go into this with an open mind and work hard to fight internalized class fragility.
i think huber’s arguments offered so many great insights, some that even changed my perspectives on climate solutions. among them are:
- refocusing the goal of climate movements to center material or needs/wants of people needed to thrive and live a dignified life. the mainstream’s central message about the need to consume less to save the planet wont resonate with people who struggle economically — which huber points out is most people who sell their labor.
- decentralizing our power grid as a decarbonizing solution isnt as strategic as unionizing and striking as centralized power workers and making demands that way. this employs marxists framework in restoring the power of production back to workers, which works. in the part 3 chapters (working class), there are some great insights on specific organizing strategy if we want to regain worker power in the electrical industry such as employing rank file strategy, militant minority etc.
- already-unionized workers in existing industries most likely prefer to stay in their jobs and have (understandably) aversive reactions to being asked to switch jobs to clean energy companies (often not unionized). these workers can still make huge change by organizing strikes against their bosses to demand increased workplace safety conditions related to the health impacts of climate pollution etc.
tldr: activating unions and striking to meet demands is how we move the unmoved (aka the industry class who control production). it’s the most strategic way to make change in the mass scale and meets the time urgency of the climate crisis.
i think huber’s arguments offered so many great insights, some that even changed my perspectives on climate solutions. among them are:
- refocusing the goal of climate movements to center material or needs/wants of people needed to thrive and live a dignified life. the mainstream’s central message about the need to consume less to save the planet wont resonate with people who struggle economically — which huber points out is most people who sell their labor.
- decentralizing our power grid as a decarbonizing solution isnt as strategic as unionizing and striking as centralized power workers and making demands that way. this employs marxists framework in restoring the power of production back to workers, which works. in the part 3 chapters (working class), there are some great insights on specific organizing strategy if we want to regain worker power in the electrical industry such as employing rank file strategy, militant minority etc.
- already-unionized workers in existing industries most likely prefer to stay in their jobs and have (understandably) aversive reactions to being asked to switch jobs to clean energy companies (often not unionized). these workers can still make huge change by organizing strikes against their bosses to demand increased workplace safety conditions related to the health impacts of climate pollution etc.
tldr: activating unions and striking to meet demands is how we move the unmoved (aka the industry class who control production). it’s the most strategic way to make change in the mass scale and meets the time urgency of the climate crisis.
May 21, 2024
It's tough being in the Professional Class, I get it.
Quips aside, the book has some interesting stuff in it and I learned a fair bit about Marxian-style class analysis and some neat tidbits about labour history in the energy sector. But if this book is meant to serve as a rallying cry for a strategy to fight climate change via strategic organizing, I am both dispirited and unconvinced. First, I'm not a unionized US energy worker, so I guess I don't have much to offer in Huber's strategic plan for pushing for broad-scale policy change.
And second, if I was, I would think Huber was out of his goddamn mind, because my first instinct would be to ask him where exactly I would be working once my coal-firing plant got shut down and I was put out of a job because the bosses had gotten a bailout, moved state, and had shifted their model to importing cheap solar panels.
I don't want to be too down on what was clearly a well-spirited attempt to try to utilize class analysis for the purposes of advancing broad-scaled policy initiatives and public programs, but I am also now painfully aware of what can happen when you've spent so much time in Capital that it's now serving effectively as a set of horse blinders, which goes a long way towards explaining the credibility-kneecapping sections on Indigenous and racial struggles, as well as the frankly pitifully disingenuous strawman treatment of the degrowth movement.
Four stars for interesting sections on labour history, the research, and the attempt to craft a compelling strategy. Two stars knocked off for the reasons aforementioned. One star added because I can at least appreciate it when something makes me think enough to write more than a paragraph about it.
Other takes on this book that are better than mine: https://www.historicalmaterialism.org...
and: https://www.historicalmaterialism.org...
Quips aside, the book has some interesting stuff in it and I learned a fair bit about Marxian-style class analysis and some neat tidbits about labour history in the energy sector. But if this book is meant to serve as a rallying cry for a strategy to fight climate change via strategic organizing, I am both dispirited and unconvinced. First, I'm not a unionized US energy worker, so I guess I don't have much to offer in Huber's strategic plan for pushing for broad-scale policy change.
And second, if I was, I would think Huber was out of his goddamn mind, because my first instinct would be to ask him where exactly I would be working once my coal-firing plant got shut down and I was put out of a job because the bosses had gotten a bailout, moved state, and had shifted their model to importing cheap solar panels.
I don't want to be too down on what was clearly a well-spirited attempt to try to utilize class analysis for the purposes of advancing broad-scaled policy initiatives and public programs, but I am also now painfully aware of what can happen when you've spent so much time in Capital that it's now serving effectively as a set of horse blinders, which goes a long way towards explaining the credibility-kneecapping sections on Indigenous and racial struggles, as well as the frankly pitifully disingenuous strawman treatment of the degrowth movement.
Four stars for interesting sections on labour history, the research, and the attempt to craft a compelling strategy. Two stars knocked off for the reasons aforementioned. One star added because I can at least appreciate it when something makes me think enough to write more than a paragraph about it.
Other takes on this book that are better than mine: https://www.historicalmaterialism.org...
and: https://www.historicalmaterialism.org...
November 20, 2024
There is some useful analysis here, much of which I at least loosely agree with. Huber essentially argues that to understand climate change we must understand the role of capitalist production, incentivized to grow its own profits with no attention to emissions or other impact. In response, he calls for a union-led movement for a Green New Deal and in particular public ownership of electrical utilities. So far I’m at least largely on board.
But the book gets annoying in the details. The two that most bothered me:
-There are several Appeals to Marx (“this other writer says X. But they must not have read Marx, who clearly states Y.”) who I think is a great reference to cite but is sometimes here treated as automatically right, instead of as possessing one viewpoint among many that needs to be argued for. Where this is most important to the book is Huber’s insistence that only the working class can be a primary agent of change. While he makes sometimes sharp critiques of other strategies, he does not really grapple with t any counterarguments against his own. Instead it’s treated as Marxist common sense, which maybe it is, but maybe Marxists still need to address 150 years of critique.
-The treatment of degrowth is also frustrating. He attributes the movement to an outgrowth of professional-class guilt that’s obsessed with personal consumption, which is at best an incomplete and unfair reading of that literature. It’s not even clear whether Huber would substantively agree with degrowth, he mainly just thinks it’s bad politics—which is potentially valid, but it’s unlikely many degrowthers will really see themselves in the caricature that Huber attacks.
Combined, the above two leave it uncertain what exactly the working class is supposed to do if and when they take power. Implement new technology with no other societal changes necessary? Will workers have an interest in doing so? How can they win in the first place?
I’m glad I read it but it left as many questions as answers.
But the book gets annoying in the details. The two that most bothered me:
-There are several Appeals to Marx (“this other writer says X. But they must not have read Marx, who clearly states Y.”) who I think is a great reference to cite but is sometimes here treated as automatically right, instead of as possessing one viewpoint among many that needs to be argued for. Where this is most important to the book is Huber’s insistence that only the working class can be a primary agent of change. While he makes sometimes sharp critiques of other strategies, he does not really grapple with t any counterarguments against his own. Instead it’s treated as Marxist common sense, which maybe it is, but maybe Marxists still need to address 150 years of critique.
-The treatment of degrowth is also frustrating. He attributes the movement to an outgrowth of professional-class guilt that’s obsessed with personal consumption, which is at best an incomplete and unfair reading of that literature. It’s not even clear whether Huber would substantively agree with degrowth, he mainly just thinks it’s bad politics—which is potentially valid, but it’s unlikely many degrowthers will really see themselves in the caricature that Huber attacks.
Combined, the above two leave it uncertain what exactly the working class is supposed to do if and when they take power. Implement new technology with no other societal changes necessary? Will workers have an interest in doing so? How can they win in the first place?
I’m glad I read it but it left as many questions as answers.
February 2, 2024
Climate Change as Class War;
A refreshing analysis of climate change and its impacts on life. Huber carefully demolishes the popular “green capitalist” policies you’ve heard over and analyzes why green parties have such low support among the working class. The constant proposed austerity and explaining of complicated climate science resonates very little with a class which are in a constant scramble to afford basic living conditions. The politics of less does not work, but it’s all the capitalist system has to offer the working class.
Can become very USA centric, especially when discussing a difference between the working class and the professional managerial being the college education of the latter. I understand how this forms a distinction between classes in the USA where college fees are extortionate, but in countries where 3rd level education is free I don’t believe this is a good line to draw. Yes even in these countries of course the PMC kids will disproportionately attend college, but there is definitely more of a blurring of the line. I’d prefer if he had stuck to the orthodox Marxist definition of classes based on their relationship to the means of production.
I think Huber is very optimistic of the prospects of a socialist, or even broadly “Left”, government in the imperial heartland like the USA being elected through the capitalist system. Recent examples come to mind of Corbyn’s election run in the UK and how he, hardly more than a principled Social Democrat, was ruined by capital interests in the media. I agree that Socialists/ Communists should organize in political parties, but grassroots organizations (that don’t necessarily participate in elections) should always be the driving force.
4/5
A refreshing analysis of climate change and its impacts on life. Huber carefully demolishes the popular “green capitalist” policies you’ve heard over and analyzes why green parties have such low support among the working class. The constant proposed austerity and explaining of complicated climate science resonates very little with a class which are in a constant scramble to afford basic living conditions. The politics of less does not work, but it’s all the capitalist system has to offer the working class.
Can become very USA centric, especially when discussing a difference between the working class and the professional managerial being the college education of the latter. I understand how this forms a distinction between classes in the USA where college fees are extortionate, but in countries where 3rd level education is free I don’t believe this is a good line to draw. Yes even in these countries of course the PMC kids will disproportionately attend college, but there is definitely more of a blurring of the line. I’d prefer if he had stuck to the orthodox Marxist definition of classes based on their relationship to the means of production.
I think Huber is very optimistic of the prospects of a socialist, or even broadly “Left”, government in the imperial heartland like the USA being elected through the capitalist system. Recent examples come to mind of Corbyn’s election run in the UK and how he, hardly more than a principled Social Democrat, was ruined by capital interests in the media. I agree that Socialists/ Communists should organize in political parties, but grassroots organizations (that don’t necessarily participate in elections) should always be the driving force.
4/5
January 6, 2024
The only book I will allow myself to mark as read despite not finishing it. But getting through 3/4 of it feels like a major accomplishment, for me personally.
This book is not for beginners. The pre-req to this college level textbook should really be a decent understanding of socialism and Marxism. It’s a very dense and a very thorough examination of climate change as it relates to the capitalist society we have built, and an angle I haven’t seen much of in other climate literature. Lots of interesting and well developed ideas, but there seems to be a wide gap between those who will actually read this book (professional class, who are rightfully and comically called out) and those he’s hoping to galvanize into a climate uprising (working class). I applaud and admire anyone who self selects to read this and can finish it.
This book is not for beginners. The pre-req to this college level textbook should really be a decent understanding of socialism and Marxism. It’s a very dense and a very thorough examination of climate change as it relates to the capitalist society we have built, and an angle I haven’t seen much of in other climate literature. Lots of interesting and well developed ideas, but there seems to be a wide gap between those who will actually read this book (professional class, who are rightfully and comically called out) and those he’s hoping to galvanize into a climate uprising (working class). I applaud and admire anyone who self selects to read this and can finish it.
July 5, 2025
This book sets out how workers and trade unions are the most effective way for climate action because they control the means of production within the capitalist system and can strike / halt the means of production. There are some good arguments as to what is currently wrong with the current ways groups and individuals aim to achieve climate action but Huber calls out the weaknesses in these movements. A massive criticism I have of his argument is that he critiques other attempts to deliver systemic change for climate action but his own argument is thin and has some glaring omissions and simplicities. It was extremely frustrating at times to read. It's also written in a larger academic style so if that's not your thing I'd avoid!
January 22, 2024
"We do not need better environmental policy ideas to solve climate change; we need a stronger working class. As long as we are losing the larger class struggle, we are also losing the climate struggle."
And Huber makes a good case for the imperative of engaging the working class (most of us) in the climate struggle as a component of the class struggle. I think his parsing of Science Communicator, Policy Technocrat and Anti-System Radical was well done in support of his thesis. I also thought his 'socialism in one sector' approach is intriguing - Huber makes a convincing case for the electricity sector.
And Huber makes a good case for the imperative of engaging the working class (most of us) in the climate struggle as a component of the class struggle. I think his parsing of Science Communicator, Policy Technocrat and Anti-System Radical was well done in support of his thesis. I also thought his 'socialism in one sector' approach is intriguing - Huber makes a convincing case for the electricity sector.
October 12, 2022
Some parts are a little too academic for me, some parts made a lot of sense, and some parts were very idealistic. The author points out, very astutely, different types of climate classes of people. For the most part he’s right on about this and the framing of his argument. I liked this framing but disagreed with his notion or suggestion that what these other classes (not the working class) do to try and stop climate change are useless.
Tough one to get through for me, but definitely a different perspective to fighting climate change, which I appreciated.
Tough one to get through for me, but definitely a different perspective to fighting climate change, which I appreciated.
February 20, 2024
I enjoyed the beginning half more than the second half. I enjoyed the discussion on how capitalism came to be and the history of working conditions, etc in the world. The writing is a little bit more academic than I usually read, taking me a little longer. But near the end, *spoiler alert * there's quite a narrow focus on unions, that the solution is to "join one". I think there needs to be expansion on this part : as a professional class reader, we should join a working class union? Or influence activists to change their professions to working class ones? Or join a 3rd party org that supports and influences unions (I believe this 3rd one being more realistic for the likely professional class readers)?
Possible my fast reading has skipped some things, but I think this last part needs more development of strategy and how-to.
Possible my fast reading has skipped some things, but I think this last part needs more development of strategy and how-to.
February 18, 2025
This was tough to digest and sometimes I got a teeny bit lost in the weeds of the counter arguments within theory but gave me sooooo much to think about. Also adored the methodical approach to the book - how Huber outlined with what systems and strategies we can address the climate crisis and why it is fr very feasible.
July 5, 2023
I kind of skim finished this because it's due back at the library, plus I don't need convincing that the capitalist class is the root of the problem. The author's ideas for what to do seem too focused to me, but might be worth a try. Anyhow, growing the labor movement will have other benefits, so yeah, join a union!
December 7, 2024
Me falta leer algo más introductorio ;/ pero igual está muyinteresante
February 10, 2024
Ecology & socialism: what's not to love
May 15, 2023
This was refreshing to read, and a truly Marxist analysis of climate change- however, for me, too america centric and I’m not sure if I agree w the analysis of electoralism and it’s potential
January 5, 2024
Topboek! Must-read voor iedereen die zich zorgen maakt over het klimaat en die zich afvraagt hoe een (nieuwe) klassenanalyse van toepassing kan zijn op een eerlijke klimaataanpak. Goed geschreven en makkelijk door te lezen. Het enige minpunt voor mij is dat het erg Amerika-gerichr geschreven is.
June 28, 2024
I learned so much from this book, about the US labor movement and Marxism in particular. Huber could have been clearer upfront what conclusions he was leading us toward or what specific sections of the book were meant to showcase (the fertilizer and degrowth sections were interesting but I think Huber could have articulated more clearly where he was going with them). I also felt his characterization of degrowth was a bit misleading; while degrowth on a personal or small local scale is certainly insufficient, in the end what he is arguing for could in some ways not be so different, just scaled at a societal level.
December 9, 2024
Huber says that we need a working-class revolution and socialism in order to solve the climate crisis. I could agree with this part, but Huber seems to go further: we need socialism because it is both necessary AND sufficient to solve the climate crisis. Thus, he attacks the degrowth movement, and describes the whole professional class as opposed to the interests of true socialism. You’ll never be able to organize a revolution around degrowth. He ridicules Hickel’s “Less is More” by saying, in effect, that less actually is less. He is quite aware of the degrowth movement, Herman Daly, Serge Latouche, Tim Jackson, and others. There are a lot of people on the left who are making this precise critique of degrowth, so he’s clearly found something here.
In contrast, he sees the Green New Deal as being a nascent basis for the needed socialist reconstruction of society. He ridicules the peak oil movement, saying (within a parenthesis!) that “This concern has itself dissipated like so much entropy in the deluge of newly-fracked crude.”) He believes (without arguing the issue, or apparently, even thinking about the problem) that the Green New Deal, conceived as a massive build-out of electricity generation following the proposed 2019 Congressional resolution and AOC, will actually deal with climate change. He concludes by arguing for “species solidarity at the climate crossroads.”
This actually is a pretty good book, and a good book to read simultaneously with Jason Hickel’s Less is More. Hickel’s book may have some problems, but noticeably absent among these problems is attention to environmental limits. Further, Huber does have one very telling and probably valid point; degrowth is a non-starter for so many people. The working class is going to hear about degrowth and say, “excuse me, this sounds like ‘eco-austerity.’ We don’t need any more austerity, that’s what we’ve got now.”
Huber is probably right, but I draw very different conclusions from this. I would conclude that since degrowth is not likely to be accepted, that our nation, our economy, and probably our civilization faces near-term collapse. Unfortunately, my crystal ball doesn’t work too well, but, as Bob Dylan says, it doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. This is because “limits to growth” is a real thing, and we’ve likely far overshot the limits to growth already, and not by a small amount. We’ve probably been in “overshoot” for at least the last 50 years, although different limits will hit at different times.
There are so many problems here that it is hard to know where to start. But the starting point for each problem is the same: we really do live on a finite planet.
Let’s start with peak oil. Yes, as Huber correctly points out, the concern over peak oil has dissipated. But not because we have a “deluge” of fracked oil. Oil probably peaked about 6 years ago (2018) but since then has plateaued at a level slightly lower than the peak. Since then we’ve had inflation and everything seems vaguely more expensive. I wonder why? It’s because while there’s plenty of oil, it’s more expensive.
Because countries and industries have a way of delaying the inevitable (with subsidies and whatnot), and there’s no real good substitute for oil, we (as a society) have tried to just absorb this cost (without of course disturbing our class structure). But this sort of delay doesn’t solve the problem, it just shifts the problem around. Huber doesn’t discuss this issue; he just assumes that the critique of peak oil is correct, because it fits his expansionist ideology. The real enemy is the capitalist class, not environmental limits. This sounds like “green growth.” Well, not quite; in fairness, it’s more like “green and democratic growth.”
And so we’ve “solved” peak oil with fracking? I don’t think so. The environmental damage is really part and parcel of the rising “cost” of oil. It’s an environmental cost, just as subsidies (or drilling on public lands, as Trump wants to do) is a political cost, over and above the environmental and economic costs. The economy subsidizes fossil fuels at the expense of the environment and the interests of people living in and around fracked lands. So we’re paying for it, trust me, we just don’t know it.
Now of course Huber would justly respond that the Green New Deal (GND) would take care of that anyway, through electrification with renewable energy. Which brings us to our next point: the GND isn’t going to work nearly as well as we think. There are a whole raft of objections to the GND on technical grounds — because of batteries, need for a vastly expanded electric grid, large but finite supply of sites suitable for wind and solar, needed changes in infrastructure (electric trucks anyone? how about steel manufacture?), etc., etc. Because of these, the GND won’t be nearly as easy or as cheap as we’re being led to believe.
Granted, and none of the common objections to renewables automatically disqualify it. But this continuing stream of problems with renewables — which won’t really kick in until renewables start supplying a substantial portion of our total energy — is an unexamined problem with the GND of which Huber is evidently completely unaware.
Vaclav Smil, a distinguished scientist who has protested the rush to renewables, says that the expectations of climate activists are “delusional” and that the transition alone will consume 20% (or more!) of American’s total GDP — on the same scale as our military expenditures during the Second World War, when automobile manufacture shut down and 40% of our vegetables were grown on “victory gardens.”
Also, it’s sort of odd that the concluding chapter is subtitled “species solidarity at the climate crossroads.” When I first saw that, I thought that “species” was a plural noun (it can be either singular or plural), and I thought, “Great! Now at last he’ll talk about solidarity among all the species on earth, and perhaps the Half-Earth idea.” Wrong! It’s about human solidarity with their own species. (Although, to clarify, it probably means solidarity after disposing of or neutralizing those nasty elites.) Humans and their livestock (another subject not extensively discussed) are now 95% of all the mammal biomass on the planet. Just for our own narrow human interests, we need to give some attention to other species, on whom we depend for our existence.
I could go on, but this suffices for me, at least, to put the book aside. Huber is clearly an excellent writer and understands the class conflict involved in the climate struggle very well. And he’s very likely correct that we will be unable to sell “degrowth” to the working class — at least, not right now. For that, we need a major disaster to befall our civilization. And that, I regret to say, is now more likely than ever, and something that I would earnestly like to avoid, but if it’s a necessary price for dealing with a literally earth-threatening machine, then we should prepare for it — and its aftermath — as best we can.
In contrast, he sees the Green New Deal as being a nascent basis for the needed socialist reconstruction of society. He ridicules the peak oil movement, saying (within a parenthesis!) that “This concern has itself dissipated like so much entropy in the deluge of newly-fracked crude.”) He believes (without arguing the issue, or apparently, even thinking about the problem) that the Green New Deal, conceived as a massive build-out of electricity generation following the proposed 2019 Congressional resolution and AOC, will actually deal with climate change. He concludes by arguing for “species solidarity at the climate crossroads.”
This actually is a pretty good book, and a good book to read simultaneously with Jason Hickel’s Less is More. Hickel’s book may have some problems, but noticeably absent among these problems is attention to environmental limits. Further, Huber does have one very telling and probably valid point; degrowth is a non-starter for so many people. The working class is going to hear about degrowth and say, “excuse me, this sounds like ‘eco-austerity.’ We don’t need any more austerity, that’s what we’ve got now.”
Huber is probably right, but I draw very different conclusions from this. I would conclude that since degrowth is not likely to be accepted, that our nation, our economy, and probably our civilization faces near-term collapse. Unfortunately, my crystal ball doesn’t work too well, but, as Bob Dylan says, it doesn’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. This is because “limits to growth” is a real thing, and we’ve likely far overshot the limits to growth already, and not by a small amount. We’ve probably been in “overshoot” for at least the last 50 years, although different limits will hit at different times.
There are so many problems here that it is hard to know where to start. But the starting point for each problem is the same: we really do live on a finite planet.
Let’s start with peak oil. Yes, as Huber correctly points out, the concern over peak oil has dissipated. But not because we have a “deluge” of fracked oil. Oil probably peaked about 6 years ago (2018) but since then has plateaued at a level slightly lower than the peak. Since then we’ve had inflation and everything seems vaguely more expensive. I wonder why? It’s because while there’s plenty of oil, it’s more expensive.
Because countries and industries have a way of delaying the inevitable (with subsidies and whatnot), and there’s no real good substitute for oil, we (as a society) have tried to just absorb this cost (without of course disturbing our class structure). But this sort of delay doesn’t solve the problem, it just shifts the problem around. Huber doesn’t discuss this issue; he just assumes that the critique of peak oil is correct, because it fits his expansionist ideology. The real enemy is the capitalist class, not environmental limits. This sounds like “green growth.” Well, not quite; in fairness, it’s more like “green and democratic growth.”
And so we’ve “solved” peak oil with fracking? I don’t think so. The environmental damage is really part and parcel of the rising “cost” of oil. It’s an environmental cost, just as subsidies (or drilling on public lands, as Trump wants to do) is a political cost, over and above the environmental and economic costs. The economy subsidizes fossil fuels at the expense of the environment and the interests of people living in and around fracked lands. So we’re paying for it, trust me, we just don’t know it.
Now of course Huber would justly respond that the Green New Deal (GND) would take care of that anyway, through electrification with renewable energy. Which brings us to our next point: the GND isn’t going to work nearly as well as we think. There are a whole raft of objections to the GND on technical grounds — because of batteries, need for a vastly expanded electric grid, large but finite supply of sites suitable for wind and solar, needed changes in infrastructure (electric trucks anyone? how about steel manufacture?), etc., etc. Because of these, the GND won’t be nearly as easy or as cheap as we’re being led to believe.
Granted, and none of the common objections to renewables automatically disqualify it. But this continuing stream of problems with renewables — which won’t really kick in until renewables start supplying a substantial portion of our total energy — is an unexamined problem with the GND of which Huber is evidently completely unaware.
Vaclav Smil, a distinguished scientist who has protested the rush to renewables, says that the expectations of climate activists are “delusional” and that the transition alone will consume 20% (or more!) of American’s total GDP — on the same scale as our military expenditures during the Second World War, when automobile manufacture shut down and 40% of our vegetables were grown on “victory gardens.”
Also, it’s sort of odd that the concluding chapter is subtitled “species solidarity at the climate crossroads.” When I first saw that, I thought that “species” was a plural noun (it can be either singular or plural), and I thought, “Great! Now at last he’ll talk about solidarity among all the species on earth, and perhaps the Half-Earth idea.” Wrong! It’s about human solidarity with their own species. (Although, to clarify, it probably means solidarity after disposing of or neutralizing those nasty elites.) Humans and their livestock (another subject not extensively discussed) are now 95% of all the mammal biomass on the planet. Just for our own narrow human interests, we need to give some attention to other species, on whom we depend for our existence.
I could go on, but this suffices for me, at least, to put the book aside. Huber is clearly an excellent writer and understands the class conflict involved in the climate struggle very well. And he’s very likely correct that we will be unable to sell “degrowth” to the working class — at least, not right now. For that, we need a major disaster to befall our civilization. And that, I regret to say, is now more likely than ever, and something that I would earnestly like to avoid, but if it’s a necessary price for dealing with a literally earth-threatening machine, then we should prepare for it — and its aftermath — as best we can.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews