An unabashedly neoliberal (think, Thatcher or Reagan) climate change solutions book that positioned itself as ‘on the left’ (or at least from a think tank aligned with the US Democratic Party)… what in the what?! 🫠

The book was mostly interviews and we platformed:
- multiple market fundamentalists
- a pro-AI guy
- a guy who’s most proud of giving taxpayer dollars to Elon Musk
- a lady who manages billionaires’ investments and wants to privatize public infrastructure to increase their wealth at your expense
- a guy who’s solution to the increased costs of environmental agriculture would reintroduce feudalism
- a pro-IMF lady advocating for IMF loans despite (or because of?) their imperialism

For the rest, this was the book version of ‘socially liberal, fiscally conservative.’ There were a few progressive ideas—but they were all limited to culture (again, so neoliberal; its roots in Hayek’s concept of “double government” and his kinda problematic 1920s Austrian nostalgia for the Hapsburg Empire).

Maybe ‘socially liberal, fiscally conservative’ makes sense for other issues (I don’t think so, but okay). But for climate change solutions, every interview emphasized that fiscal policy, economics, and funding was at its core. And yet every progressive interviewee shrugged off the fiscal side with a “well, I’m not an economist” (except Colette Pichon Battle, who made sure to discuss public ownership, though she was invited to discuss identity politics).

Which ceded all the ground of this (the most important?) issue—economics—to the pro-rich, rightwing, and imperialist voices in here.

This book won’t “get it right” because it was too unjust. In a way that I fear its American audience doesn’t readily notice. Yet for non-Americans and especially for the Global South, this book was bleak AF.

There was something especially dark about this book’s neoliberalism. While Thatcher had to argue for TINA (that, “there is no alternative” to privatization), Johnson presented it more like, ‘since there’s no alternative…’ And I don’t think this is merely an Overton Window shift. The idea that there’s no alternative is categorically untrue—and Johnson MUST know that. Most (all?) of the successful climate change solutions in other countries have come from those alternatives (be they socialist or other rightwing options). And yet, those successful countries kept being brought up in the book—so vaguely that it obscured how they’re all direct refutations of the neoliberal ideas in here.

I’m kinda offended we’re calling the policy suggestion in here a ‘green new deal’ (or a blue new deal for Johnson’s own ocean policy focus). The New Deal was about public ownership (with up to 97% public ownership in some sectors)—with a particular focus on the same sectors as climate change solutions, such as energy and transportation infrastructure. Yet, the solutions in here were dominated by neoliberal privatization. Don’t Americans understand that neoliberalism literally supplanted New Deal-style politics to become the Washington Consensus? They’re completely incompatible political projects. I can’t.

I also just don’t think this was a great anthology. Johnson’s interview style was quite shallow, lots of “oh, interesting!” with little pushback. And a few details made me question the book’s editorial integrity. Like, an interview critiquing business interests in media with a footnote by Johnson that said, “Billionaires should fund local news. That would solve so much.” 😶 Or, a Jason Hickel quote slapped onto a section that he would 100% NOT endorse. Very icky overall.