Christopher Shaw‘s Liberalism and the Challenge of Climate Change scrutinises how liberal ideologies shape and often hinder climate crisis discourse and policymaking. Laying out five “liberal climate guardrails” that limit the possibilities for real progress in climate action, Shaw’s sharp critique convinces readers why we need radical shifts beyond our current norms, writes Sibo Chen.

Liberalism and the Challenge of Climate Change. Christopher Shaw. Routledge. 2024.

In Liberalism and the Challenge of Climate Change, Christopher Shaw offers a compelling critique of the prevailing liberal narratives regarding climate change. The book closely examines the impact of liberal ideologies on the discourse and governance strategies related to the climate crisis, arguing that these frameworks frequently obstruct the development of more radical, transformative responses that are essential for resolving the current policy gridlock on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Shaw’s analysis focuses on what he calls the “five liberal climate guardrails,” which, by collectively influencing climate change research, policy, and activism, construct a future that is “politically, morally, and economically exactly the same as the life-destroying liberalism of today” (3).

Guardrail One: Climate change is not a challenge to individualism 

The Introduction and Chapter One, which lay the theoretical groundwork of the book by reviewing previous literature on the relationship between liberalism and climate change. By engaging with the writings of critical scholars such as Perry Anderson, Christopher Caudwell, Jacques Ellul, Frank Fischer, and Slavoj Žižek, Shaw problematises the promise of an “emission-free world” under liberalism and notes that climate change has revealed the contradictions and conflicts inherent in liberalism.

Chapter Two then delves deeper into the implications of liberalism’s emphasis on individualism for climate action. The chapter discusses the ideological factors driving the individualisation of climate issues and problematises the notion that “the individual can be abstracted from their social and historical circumstances” (28). The chapter then contrasts liberal climate discourses with Marxist perspectives, which emphasise that “our real nature is social, and historical and social conditions are the real drivers of, and limitations on, our agency” (36).

Guardrail Two: The liberal construction of climate change is universally true 

Chapter Three traces the historical development of liberal institutional norms within international climate governance. It explicates the institutionalisation of norms that legitimise the West’s liberal dominance of the world, often resulting to the marginalisation of alternative approaches. By attending to the policy language of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), the chapter reveals how they reflect a liberal agenda that prioritises market-based solutions over systemic change and disregards climate justice concerns. For example, the voices of the Global South and marginalised voices from the Global North have been largely excluded when determining the carbon budget the world is left with under an “acceptable level of climate risk” and how the budget will be managed through carbon trade or other mechanisms.

Guardrail Three: Climate change is not a historical phenomenon 

Chapter Four discusses the marginalisation of historical change and conflict in public and policy discourses regarding climate change solutions. The discussion highlights the role of liberal intellectuals in the development of knowledge and policy responses that portray climate change as a solvable issue through bourgeois liberalism. This, according to Shaw, is driven by class politics since “many social scientists […] tend to favour scenarios which promise the conditions necessary for the replication of their class’s privileges and status (60)”. The denial of the past diminishes the working class in narratives about transformations for sustainability.

Guardrail Four: We have the technologies to solve climate change 

The faith that technology will serve as a panacea to climate change is assessed in Chapter Five. The chapter criticises the prevailing belief in science and technology, which is rooted in instrumental rationality, contending that the deepening dependence on technology “delegitimizes alternative non-instrumental rationality and genuine political questions, because they are subjective and eternally contestable” (70). As a result, citizens are disempowered and non-scientific responses (e.g., those from Indigenous perspectives) to environmental destruction are overlooked.

Guardrail Five: New stories will save us 

The final guardrail focuses on storytelling, embracing the power of language as the medium connecting our consciousness to the world and seeing to sow the liberal imaginary in the minds of climate-concerned citizens. Chapter Six critically examines liberalism’s assurances that non-conflictual changes will rescue humanity from the climate crisis, noting that “the stories of our net-zero future are generally written by the liberal bourgeois and reflect the interests, privileges, and hopes of this class” (90). In contrast, the chapter adopts the perspective of historical materialism and views the material force of climate change as an upheaval that cannot be resolved by the wishful thinking of liberalism.

 It is imperative to engage in public discourse regarding the prospects of liberalism to help us navigate the intricacies of climate action in a manner that promotes sustainability, justice, and equity.

Following the elucidation of the five guardrails, Chapter Seven presents insights gathered from 14 interviews with academics, activists, and decision-makers conducted during the summer and autumn of 2022. Collectively, the interviews reveal a shared frustration with the current climate action paradigm. They also highlight a “crisis of alternatives” that the liberal framework has introduced, in which progressive actors who are well-versed in the climate emergency find it “almost impossible to articulate the contours of a radically different society” (113). Then in the concluding Chapter Eight, Shaw synthesises the arguments presented throughout the book and reiterates the necessity of more radical visions and approaches to climate governance that can surpass transcend the limitations of liberalism. He advocates for non-liberal climate responses that prioritise democratic engagement, collective action, and the dismantling of systemic inequalities, thereby challenging the liberal hegemony. All being said, the overall tone of Chapter Eight is pessimistic, as it deems the decoupling of individualism and consumerism unfeasible in light of the prevailing economic principles in the West today.

Overall, Liberalism and the Challenge of Climate Change offers engaging critiques of liberal approaches to the climate crisis in merely 131 pages. The analysis is firmly grounded in the critical theory tradition and invites readers to reconsider entrenched beliefs about individual responsibility, technological solutions, and the liberal narratives that frame climate action. The book makes a strong case that it is imperative to engage in public discourse regarding the prospects of liberalism to help us navigate the intricacies of climate action in a manner that promotes sustainability, justice, and equity. One minor drawback of the book is that its condensed arguments assume that readers possess a decent understanding of topics such as liberalism, climate governance, and ideology. Consequently, the book’s primary readership is scholars or students who study climate change politics, despite its broader claim to be a vital resource for policymakers, activists, and scholars. That said, I would still enthusiastically recommend it to anyone who is interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the relationship between climate change and liberalism.

• This review first appeared at LSE Review of Books.
• Image credit: Wildfire in Colorado by Kyle Miller via National Interagency Fire Center on Flickr. License: Public Domain.
• Please read our comments policy before commenting.
• Note: This article gives the views of the reviewer, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-ewI