Blog

Review | Or something worse

Pete Cannell reviews Nicholas Beuret’s book, which critiques green capitalist transition pathways and sets out strategies to fight back against them.

This article was first published on the rs21 website.

Another year, another COP – this time in Brazil. Since the global climate summits began in 1995, levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have climbed inexorably. They now stand approximately 20 per cent higher. It looks like 2025 will have been the year when the 1.5 degree increase in global average temperature was breached. Yet in the face of pressure from petro-states and fossil capital the final statement from COP30 could scarcely hint at the need to end the use of fossil fuels.

The need for a new climate movement

Or Something Worse by Nicholas Beuret is an uncompromising call for a reinvigorated climate movement that faces up to the reality of this crisis and adopts new tactics which reflect the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in. He has no time for the professional optimism of the NGOs looking for slivers of hope in the dismal outcomes of each annual COP conference. In the first half of the book Beuret lays out the stark reality of the consequences of years of inaction. Not just extreme weather events, but crop failures, water shortages and everywhere higher food prices – all of which hit the poorest hardest. The climate crisis is here now, and it has real material impacts on the lives and livelihoods of people around the world.

In the introduction Beuret argues that ‘What is needed is for us to understand the shape of the transition, to map its contours and contradictions … in order to organise not against it, but through it.’ He goes on to explain that ‘we are in the midst of a profound social, political and economic transition’. But throughout the book he describes this process as a ‘green transition’. He makes it clear this is a capitalist transition – one that prioritises the interests of dominant groups and reinforces the status quo. However, I found the green tag unhelpful and a barrier to understanding. 

The first three chapters provide a bleak assessment of the impact of the crisis, using the steel plant at Port Talbot as an example. Together, they paint a compelling picture of the depth and extent of the crisis. In my view, however, the overall framing in terms of green transition has a distorting effect. Part of Beuret’s case is that countries in the Global North bought into the necessity of green transition while establishing a social contract predicated on a state-promoted transition that stimulates economic growth. I think the idea that there was ever such a social contract is overstated. It’s true that governments engaged in green transition rhetoric, some even acknowledging the climate emergency in response to the mass movement of young people that exploded in 2018 and 2019. But most often they put their faith in the market to achieve a transition framed by the priorities of fossil capital. For example, in Britain and elsewhere strategic investment was directed towards hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear. So, we can talk about a process of economic transition that involves increased utilisation of wind and solar power – but it is not clear that there is any meaningful sense in which this is a greentransition either in intention or in practice. 

We are witnessing a rapid growth in new ‘green’ technology. Globally, capital expenditure by the fossil fuel industry is down to just under $600 billion a year, a decline of 40 per cent in the last decade. Yet at the same time (witness COP30) fossil capital is digging in for the longer term. Beuret describes very well how in the Global North countries are pushing down carbon emissions within their territory while pushing fossil fuel use and resource extraction onto the Global South. What’s happening looks like previous capitalist energy transitions – wood to coal (and wood), coal to oil (and coal) – that Jean-Baptiste Fressoz criticises in More and More and More. Can we call this a ‘green transition’ when energy consumption globally continues to rise, and when the expected future use of fossil fuels goes far beyond the level at which limiting global temperature rise to two- or even three-degrees remains achievable?

At one point Beuret talks about governments in the Global North becoming more interventionist and allocating billions of dollars to support national industrial policies. Yet this conflicts with what he says later on in the chapter on the ‘transition economy’, where he explains that in general, policy goals for green transition are almost always left to the market; he’s also scathing about liberal utopianism that assumes that governments or markets will respond to the crisis rationally. This reflects a weakness in the book’s analysis of the economics of the climate crisis. It seems as if Global North ‘transition’ initiatives are the main driver of change rather than mediated through a world economic system which is in flux. Rather than framing what’s taking place as a ‘green transition’, I would argue that technological and economic transition driven by the climate crisis is shaped by and mediated through the changing contours of global imperialist competition following five decades of neo-liberalism. Crude Capitalism, published earlier in 2025, has a much firmer grasp on the geopolitics of the world economy, the deep entanglement of fossil fuels with the military industrial complex and the shifting balance of power between major imperialisms, principally but not exclusively between the US and China. 

Arguably, another weakness of the economic analysis is the discussion of the impact of transition on jobs and employment. Beuret accurately describes how the so-called ‘green transition’ has had a negative effect on employment and working conditions. He goes further, however, to claim that as jobs related to the fossil fuel economy decline:

… while there are many ways to cushion the blow, from reduced working weeks to building up the social economy to strengthening social services and public provisioning, none of these would amount to the creation of an equal number of similar jobs.

No evidence is given for the claim that whatever is done there will be a net loss in jobs. In fact there is strong evidence from a number of studies that suggests that a genuine green transition would involve substantially more jobs than those that will be lost as the fossil fuel economy ends.

Beuret’s pessimism over jobs is also related to pessimism about the way in which the production of solar, wind and other green technologies will take place. It is certainly the case that production is currently dominated by China and he assumes that this will inevitably continue. As a result, he believes that new jobs in the Global North will be exclusively concerned with installing technology produced elsewhere – what he calls the installation economy. Surely there’s a strong case for sites of production to be closer to where equipment will be used to minimise transport distances.

Blockade and refusal

The second half of the book discusses what is to be done. To date the climate movement has largely attempted to persuade states to see the logic of what needs to be done and take action. Beuret argues that there needs to be a much more confrontational approach. He notes that:

The fossil economy is produced in specific places. If we are to build the kind of disruptive power that can move us towards the rapid ending of fossil fuels, then it is precisely at these critical junctions that we must organise.

He characterises the direct action taken by Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil and others as propaganda. He notes that this kind of direct action can win victories through raising consciousness and pressurising politicians. However, to win the kind of systemic change required to break fossil capital he argues that direct action in the form of the blockade is necessary. An effective blockade has to be long term, sustained and targeted at choke points in the fossil fuel supply chain. Most of all it needs to materially affect the operation of the production or the supply chain that is being targeted. It requires organisation and development of cadres. He notes that contemporary examples of the blockade are rare. In Britain in the 1990s direct action stopped the introduction of GMO crops and Thatcher’s huge programme of road building that began in 1989 was severely limited by persistent blockading through permanent encampments. Roughly ten years later in Australia the development of the Jabiluka Uranium mine was stopped by 5,000 protestors camped close to the proposed site. 

Having introduced the blockade, the discussion moves on to other forms of direct action. There’s an important emphasis on building on the anger of working-class people faced with paying the price of transition and a sympathetic use of the French Gilets Jaunes as an example of how this might be developed. There’s an interesting discussion of past examples of community-based campaigning such as the Anti-Poll Tax campaign, tenant organising and actions over transport costs. The emphasis is on developing popular campaigns of refusal. In Beuret’s view, deep community organising includes activity in communities and in the workplace. Workplace organising needs to include fighting around issues of social reproduction and wider political and community issues need to be taken into the workplace. The task is not simply to reject and disrupt the transition but to simultaneously build our own transition from below. In all this there is a rejection of asking governments to act – in effect the mainstream approach of the climate movement for so long.

I want to insist that although it has problems, Or Something Worse is well worth reading. At a time when the left is struggling to be relevant in the face of existential crisis and a burgeoning far right, books like this are essential. They help develop ideas about how to catalyse, grow and coalesce resistance at the level that is required to shift the momentum towards self-conscious collective working class led action locally and internationally.

Or Something Worse by Nicholas Beuret is published by Verso Books.

REELNews Xmas appeal

Crunch time for GKN, the most advanced worker led transition struggle in history 

XMAS APPEAL: Crunch time for GKN, the most advanced worker led transition struggle in history 

The battle by ex-GKN workers in Florence to convert their autoparts factory to zero carbon production under workers control is at a critical stage – and you can help. Find out how below and watch a video of the story of this historic struggle so far – PLUS the latest from the most important strike in Britain, a siginificant victory for education workers in Bristol, and what you can do to help prisoners on hunger strike for Palestine
GKN: Cash urgently needed to start production under workers control

Click here to watch video of the story so far (30 min version)
Click here to watch 5 min version

Those of you who have been following the incredible just transition struggle of ex-GKN workers in Florence (and if you haven’t, you can catch up by watching the video above) will know that the regional council have been stalling on their commitment to put together a consortium to buy the factory off the current owners and hand it to the workers to produce cargo bikes and solar panels – all under workers control, and for the benefit of communities, not for profit.

Now, after delaying the process for months – increasing the suffering of the workers who have now had no wages for 15 months – it’s fallen apart.

The main reason seems to be the drive to war and the increase of arms spending across Europe, with most of the banks who agreed to fund the project now demanding that the workers produce weapons rather than zero carbon products based on equality and social justice. And as the workers point out, “the former GKN is an example they can’t afford. Because a conscious community, insurgent, through the convergence of social and climate justice shows that an alternative would be possible.”

So now the workers have made the decision to go it alone and do everything themselves. Which means raising substantial sums of money from our own workers organisations, social movements and civil society.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL STATEMENT AND EXPLANATION BY THE WORKERS


WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP

1) Make a donation to the workers’ crowdfunder, which has a target of 2 million euros. You can make a donation by clicking here. So if you were looking for somewhere to donate to for Xmas, this is the place!

2) If your trade union branch or organisation, or a collection of individuals can afford 500 euros, that’ll buy you a share in the workers cooperative and be part of the assembly that will collectively run the factory if the workers win.
CLICK HERE TO BUY A SHARE

IMPORTANT: IF YOUR GROUP HAS ALREADY PLEDGED TO BUY A SHARE, CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE TO PAY THE 500 EUROS FOR IT

And a warning: 
the form to buy shares is not easy to fill in. Having just done it to buy the share for the UK rank and file workers delegation that visited Florence last year, we can give you some help below; if you’re still having trouble, please feel free to email us at info@reelnews.co uk and we can talk you through it.

If you’re not in Italy, fill it in as an individual, not as an organisation. If you try to do it as, for example, a trade union branch, you’ll get a load of questions that are impossible to answer because our union branches are not set up in the same way legally as Italian union branches. So you’ll have to pick a trusted individual who doesn’t mind paying the 500 euros out of their personal bank account and then getting it back from the branch.

Most of the questions are meaningless – but what you answer doesn’t matter. The questions are obiously geared to a generic shareholder issue for companies – but don’t worry about the fact that none of the answer choices fit your situation, just pick anything – the answers seem to be completely irrelevant, so for example there’s no need to reveal your financial circumstances.

When you get to the page that says “send link to continue on your phone, or scroll down to continue, choose the phone option. You’ll findthat it’s actually impossible to scroll down, so in fact you have to continue you on your phone – which is actually just to take a picture of your passport as proof of identity. Once you’ve done that, it’ll return you to your computer.

Once you’ve finished this part, you’ll have to wait for another email to set up payment. This comes in a few minutes, but then once you’ve set up payment (bank transfer seems to be easiest), you’ll have to wait for up to 48 hours for it all to be cleared to actually transfer the 500 euros.

Hopefully that hasn’t put any of you off! But if it feels daunting, please get in touch – we’ve done it and can help you do it very quickly. 

We’ll leave the last word to the workers: “After 4 years of struggle, 15 months without a salary, and 8 months of unemployment, all may seem lost. But at the same time, it may all be enough to claim that, “after all, we won”. The lessons we can learn from this struggle are enormous, its historical legacy will not fade away, and its example will speak for years to come. Then, why insist (on continuing the struggle)? Because we cannot afford to lose this fight and “they” cannot afford to let us win. Because it started with the “simple” aim to keep the factory open, but ended up exposing every “systemic” issue that is dragging us towards the catastrophe today.”

Mossmorran briefing

Briefing on the proposed closure of the Exxon Mobile Plant at Mossmorran

Brian Parkin provides background on the proposed closure of the Exxon Mobile Plant at Mossmorran

Fife Ethylene Plant, Image by Richard Webb CC BY-SA 2.0

ExxonMobil has announced plans to close the Fife Ethylene Plant (FEP) at Mossmorran in Fife in February next year. Up to 400 jobs will be lost if the closure goes ahead.

The announced closure of the gas treatment plant closure may have consequences upstream for its supply terminal at St Fergus in Northern Aberdeenshire. St Fergus is the landfall terminal for all the gas produced in the Central and Northern UK Continental Shelf fields and the recently opened North Atlantic West of Shetland fields. It also receives gas from the Western Norwegian sector.

  • Gas at St Fergus is primarily treated ‘fractioned’ to a standard acceptable for distribution through the UK National Transmission Authority network, which in turn supplies further treated gas into the National Grid.  The treatment plant at Mossmorran receives the entirety of its ‘wet’ gas from St Fergus.
  • The site and plant of Mossmorran is jointly owned and operated by Exxon/Mobil and Shell UK.
  • The wet gas at Mossmorran is divided into two separate product streams: 
  • Shell separates liquids further to produce methane vial its Fife Natural Gas Plant which is sent into the National Grid network, as well as some chemical feed-stocks for export.
  • Exxon/Mobil uses an ethylene plant to ‘fraction’ the wet gas into ethylene as a feed-stock for petro-chemicalproduction via its Fife Ethylene Plant as well as:
  • Propane, butane and other liquid gases for further treatment for fuels and also grease and other lubricants.
  • Last year Exxon/Mobil produced over 830,00 tonnes of ethylene, over 50% of which was exported to Europe and the US. Until recently Exxon/Mobil used a direct pipeline to Ineos Grangemouth plant.

Braefoot Bay is a private facility which handles almost all of the output of the two Mossmorran operations, and is presently at 85% capacity. It operates under the joint ownership of Exxon/Mobil and Shell UK and is entirely dependent on the export requirements of Mossmorran.  The port has two jetties- a deep-water jetty capable of handling 40,000- 80,000 tonne vessels, and the smaller, for 5,000- 10,000 tonne tankers.

The main tanker loading is via floating ‘roof’ tanks are continuously ‘toped-up’ from large quayside storage tanks.

At Mossmorran, there are around 90 directly employed in control rooms and plant management.  with most engineers, electrical and welders etc being subcontractors directly employed with Balfour Beatty. Virtually all Balfour Beatty workers are members of Unite. 

Climaximo at the Scot.E3 conference

The Portuguese ecosocialist group Climaximo contributed to the Scot.E3 conference

Leonor Canadas from the Portuguese group Climaximo spoke in the initial plenary session at the conference. on 18 October. Later she spoke in more detail about Climaximo – how they organise and what they do. We recommend checking out the Climaximo website.

In Climax’s words they are ‘an open, horizontal and anti-capitalist collective.’
They say:

We are the ones who refuse to lose everything without first trying to win, for the risk we take can’t be compared to the risk of not acting.

In 2019 we explicitly and consciously took on systemic change as our social and political mission, declaring a state of climate emergency within Climáximo and launching an in-depth process of internal restructuring. Every year we have updated the measures we take based on reality. In 2023 we changed everything. Read the current declaration of a state of climate emergency within Climáximo here: state of emergency.

The background to Climaximo’s approach to climate action and climate politics, and the sharp change they made in 2023, is summarised in the book All In which we reviewed on this website in April. You can find out how to get hold of the book and access more resources on the All In website.

REELnews at the Scot.E3 conference

REELnews hosted film and discussion on the GKN factory occupation

Reel News is a London based activist video collective, using film to help bring about social change. In a world where everyone is increasingly affected by pandemics, climate change, austerity and war, we work with the growing number of campaigns (often ignored by mainstream media) which are not only fighting back, but winning too – not just in the UK, but across the world.

At our 2025 conference Shaun from REELnews ran two film workshops that took an in depth look at the GKN occupation in Italy. Workers at GKN have been fighting for three years to save jobs after their factory was shut down. In the course of the struggle they’ve devised and implemented inspirational plans for alternative production and built alliances with social movements regionally and internationally.

With the help of REELnews who have produced a series of brilliant videos about GKN we’ve covered the story of the occupation on this website. For background check out ‘This is what worker led just transition looks like’ . But do also look at the coverage on the REELnews site.

Troublemakers at work

Links to useful resources from the Scot.E3 conference workshop on organising at work

At the Scot.E3 conference on 18 October Sally Heier facilitated a workshop on taking climate issues into the workplace. These are her slides.

If you’re in a workplace we’d encourage you to join the Troublemakers network. Troublemakers holds meetings and conferences that bring together people who are organising at rank and file level in their workplace.

You might also like to look at the Workers Can Win website which is packed with useful information about organising.

Simon Pirani’s talk at the Scot.E3 conference

The slides from Simon Pirani’s talk at the Scot.E3 conference

Simon edits the People and Nature blog and is the author of Burning Up – a global history of fossil fuel consumption. In the introductory session of the conference he argued that Climate Change is an injustice multiplier and that Net Zero and Technological Transition are frauds. He asked how do we defend workers’ rights in the climate emergency and whether there are spaces we can carve out while capital dominates.

Why Nuclear Power is not the solution to climate change

Pete Roche’s slides from the workshop on nuclear power at the Scot.E3 conference

Pete produces a news digest Daily Nuclear, Energy and Climate news you can subscribe to it here.

Alchemy and imperial delusion: the ideological spell of nuclear power: part 2

Ideological delusions and military secrecy that this generated has left Britain with one of the most uneconomic and unreliable power generation liabilities on the planet

The second part of an article by Scot.E3 activist Brian Parkin which was first published on the rs21 website on August 18, 2023. It (and the first part) provides useful background for the discussion on nuclear power that took place on October 18 2025 at the Scot.E3 conference.

In the first part of this short series, Brian Parkin showed how Britain’s nuclear power programme was a consequence of a nuclear weapons project intended to maintain Britain as a top flight imperialist nation. Here he explains how the ideological delusions and military secrecy that this generated has left Britain with one of the most uneconomic and unreliable power generation liabilities on the planet.

British governments after 1945 pursued a consensus of national recovery based on the re-energising of a depleted economy via new technologies and a welfare state social contract, to drive up productivity and profits to a level capable of sustaining Britain as a world power.

But the post-war ‘spheres of influences agreement’ of 1945 between the USA, Russia and Britain rapidly gave way to the Cold War and a new arms race. The Cold War divided the world into two armed camps, and with the formation of NATO in 1949, much of western Europe fell under the leadership of the USA against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. A year later, with the outbreak of the Korean War, it became clear that sections of the US military were lobbying for the use of nuclear weapons as first strike options.

What was clear within this new order was that Britain’s sphere of influence had dissipated into that marked out by the US nuclear super-power. But Britain nevertheless persisted with its own atomic bomb programme, as well as a V bomber programme as the means of delivering it. For Britain’s cold warriors, this was central to a military first-strike nuclear capacity which would keep them on a par with the USA. As the armed forces Chiefs of Staff Committee put it: ‘If we did not develop megaton weapons (hydrogen bombs), we would sacrifice immediately, and in perpetuity, our status as a first-class power’

Imperialism, independence and isotopes

This ambition was under-written by a total of six Magnox reactors – two at Calder Hall (now Sellafield) and four at Chapelcross in Dumfries – which were central to western plutonium production for H-bombs. By 1958 these reactors had a total capacity of 250 Mw of electrical output. But like the commercial Magnox stations to follow, these reactors proved at times to be unreliable, and the technology posed dangerous challenges. And while Britain was a useful source of cheap plutonium, the USA harboured doubts regarding Britain’s ability to sustain both the empire and a first strike nuclear capability.

Then in 1958, the first British H-bomb test took place on Christmas Island in the Pacific. This was followed by an amendment of the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement, mainly as a means of controlling British nuclear activity by limiting its share of targets within USSR airspace. For a while the plutonium deal with the US remained a one-way street, until UK nuclear strategy became based almost entirely on H-bombs. This now meant the Britain becoming dependent on the US for its supply of tritium (an isotope of hydrogen) necessary for completing the reaction implosion, and thereby boosting the nuclear yield. This was the first stage in the unravelling of the myth of Britain’s ‘independent’ nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the most farcical aspect of the nuclear ‘special relationship’ was the complete American control over Operation Blue Danube – the joint USA-UK European nuclear attack plan. This gave the USA the power of veto over any first strike by the RAF. Overall American command of Nuclear Forces Europe meant that all nuclear weapons, even those at RAF V bomber bases, were in practice American property. All nuclear weapons manuals, fuses, fuse locks and fuse codes were kept in a secure vault on the RAF base, and the agreement provided that ‘…in the event of any RAF personnel attempting to obtain any secured items without superior and strategic authorisation, the [American] marine guards should exercise the duty to shoot (him/her/them) dead’.

Uncritical accountancy

Following the successful production of plutonium from the initial Magnox reactors, the Labour governments of the 1960s decided to proceed with a large-scale civil nuclear power programme. Any doubts regarding the costs of this venture were set aside by the strategic ‘need’ for plutonium, and the belief in nuclear power as protection against a possible miners’ strike. Given such strategic values, even the most basic cost-benefit analysis was regarded as wholly unnecessary.

But in 1988 all of the UK’s nuclear power secrets fell onto the desks of the National Union of Mineworkers Research Department, with the performance and costs of every reactor revealed. They showed that Magnox units constructed under ‘even under the most favourable and lowest Treasury discount (interest) rates, had at best performed at twice the cost of coal-fired stations’They were hopelessly inefficient, in large part due to inherent design flaws such as fuel-rod alloys with a tendency to react explosively on contact with water, and graphite cores which could start to burn at high reactor temperatures. For these reasons, Magnox stations had never run at full capacity.

The figures were even more dismal for the second generation of Advanced Gas (cooled) Reactors (AGRs). Intended to run continually while being re-fuelled, these reactors experienced both fuel rod and control rod jamming. Steam temperatures were rarely optimal and heat exchangers often over-heated. These flaws combined to make them impossible to run at anything like full capacity, with utilisation sometimes as low as 18%. EDF, which would later take them over for almost nothing, described them as ‘basket cases’. One Treasury official in the run-up to electricity privatisation described them as ‘…the most expensive engineering folly ever under-written by the UK taxpayer’.

The dog and the lamp-post: the US-UK special relationship

The super-power dreams embodied in the V bombers had quickly foundered on Russian advances in air defence. With the shooting down of a US spy-plane high over central Russia in 1960, it was clear that no RAF plane with atom-bombs was going to reach its target. In a way this suited some American strategic thinking, as shown by a White House directive of April 1961 which called for a ‘downgrading’ of the ‘special relationship’ and for ‘forcing a greater UK integration into Europe’. 

This allied integration could best be hurried by not prolonging the UK bomber force’– a task quickly achieved through the American failure to complete air-launched missiles upon which the RAF pinned its future strategic role: first Bluestreak (abandoned in 1960) and then the Skybolt (scrapped 1961). But the US was sensitive regarding ‘The UK’s loss of prestige and self-esteem’, hence the sop to share in its Polaris nuclear submarine deterrent, by basing the American vessels at Holy Loch, just 25 miles from Glasgow.

Privatising Prometheus

The eventual privatisation of the UK electricity industry went ahead in 1990, but only on the basis of the government footing the bill for untold nuclear liabilities, and the power stations themselves being split between two companies: Magnox Ltd, a wholly government operation set up prior to the oldest stations being handed over to a Nuclear Decommissioning Agency; and EDF, which acquired the AGRs for a notional peppercorn price, and was also allowed to operate its own power sales company.

The British nuclear power project arose from what was essentially an imperialist H-bomb imperative. As such, it escaped any public economic scrutiny. Instead, it became a key component of the post-1945 great British super-power illusion. Failures in the Magnox reactors were denied because their main job was to produce plutonium for the British nuclear ‘deterrent’. That same arrogant disregard of accountability and high secrecy still marks the nuclear power project to this day.

And now of the AGR fleet, only Heysham 2, Hartlepool and Torness remain in operation, up to 2028, at which point the highly subsidised Pressurised Water Reactor at Sizewell B (the only one ever built in Britain) will be the only pre-privatisation nuclear station left running. When they close, the costs of decommissioning will fall to the tax-payer, a bill that may well run into the next century. But we can be certain of one thing: the plutonium breeding reliabilities of Calder Hall, Chapelcross and the undisclosed number of ‘civil’ Magnox’s. Because somewhere at the leaking, creaking and decaying Sellafield complex, there are 139 metric tonnes of the deadliest material known to humankind with a half-life of 82 million years.