Unfortunately, Hamilton has developed an affinity for the Schmittian perspective. Once a self-proclaimed “green left cosmopolitan,” he now believes he had “excessive faith in the countervailing power of liberal institutions.” He has shifted his stance to become a “left Schmittian,” asserting that Schmitt’s theory on global politics is more convincing than the cosmopolitan vision he previously supported.
Hamilton discusses how world leaders increasingly align with Schmitt’s pessimistic view of humanity, transforming into “right Schmittians.” He argues that this ideological shift accounts for the failure of COP meetings over recent decades. According to Hamilton, the persistence in oil dependency is more a result of changing ideas than the influence of vested interests like the oil industry.
Gracious
Furthermore, the Schmittian hypothesis seems to be on the path to becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Climate breakdown is poised to create the world Schmitt predicted, where leaders from major geopolitical blocs—such as the United States, China, and Europe—will increasingly clash over dwindling resources like food and clean water.
Hamilton first caught my attention when he released Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change in 2010. It was a groundbreaking book that not only acknowledged the likely reality of climate breakdown but also explored how sentient, caring humans might come to terms with it. I found it so important that I purchased hundreds of copies to send to influential individuals who might act on its urgent message.
However, Hamilton’s new book makes significant errors. He has embraced Schmitt’s oversimplifications, yet he is gracious enough to provide enough evidence in his own work to contradict his conclusions.
Sinophobia
The first error is framing his narrative in a Schmittian manner. Hamilton falls into a binary friend-enemy mindset, reducing complex philosophical and ideological systems to two opposing forces, depicting Kant as wholly good and Schmitt as wholly evil. It’s this oversimplification, especially the portrayal of Kant, that undermines his theoretical framework. Kant argued that “world peace is enhanced by the spread of trade and investment.”
The second issue is Hamilton’s reduction of geopolitics to fit his dichotomy. He presents the European Union as Kantian and universalist, while portraying the Chinese elite, including Xi Jinping, as captivated by Schmitt and thus “bad.” In this battle of good versus evil, the latter is winning, according to Hamilton.
Evidence of Schmitt’s influence on Chinese elite thinking is concerning. The suggestion that China could shift towards a modern National Socialism is troubling. While I hold no affection for the Chinese government, Hamilton’s portrayal seems to verge on Schmittian Sinophobia. He describes China’s “chronic anxiety and paranoia” and claims that under Xi Jinping, China has become increasingly fascist, aiming to create a “new Sinocentric world order.”
Stockpiles
Hamilton’s central thesis—that Schmitt’s influence is undermining climate action—is directly contradicted by his own observations. He suggests that China’s ecological civilization only reveals deeper cynicism within its government. Ironically, he criticizes Chinese leaders for seeking philosophical grounding in their history for ecological civilization, despite framing global thought as a clash between two German thinkers.
Hamilton’s interpretation is further undermined by his own acknowledgment of China’s significant progress in climate policies and renewable energy development following the Copenhagen COP failure. Despite having the highest emissions, China leads globally in renewable and low-carbon technology, including electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels.
In the closing chapter, Hamilton concedes that “Beijing understands that China is extremely vulnerable” to climate breakdown. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), dominated by engineers focused on long-term thinking, has advanced plans for mitigation and adaptation, including strategic food stockpiles. He amusingly notes, “CCP leaders are obsessed with food security, understandably.”
MAGA
While highlighting the perceived malevolence of the Chinese state, Hamilton also exaggerates the occasional benevolence of the U.S. state. He suggests that Democratic administrations were earnest about climate issues.
However, he also notes how the U.S. has been swayed by Schmitt’s ideology. JD Vance is mentioned as having studied Schmitt at Yale, while tech leaders have been reading the philosopher. Consequently, the U.S. has shifted from being a climate action champion to appearing intent on accelerating climate breakdown.
It is evident that Donald Trump and the Republicans withdrew from the Paris Agreement and worked to undermine it, while Democrats rejoined when back in power. The MAGA movement and its ICE paramilitary force are characterized as “fascism with American characteristics.” Trump embodies a U.S. administration fervently protecting the oil industry despite the existential threat of climate breakdown.
Breakdown
However, Hamilton overlooks how Democrats are also influenced by oil companies. Obama’s initial undermining of the Paris Agreement is dismissed and blamed on China, while Joe Biden oversaw record oil extraction and exploitation rates in U.S. history.
Moreover, the genocide in Gaza is ignored in this book on good and evil. The war in Ukraine is not well understood, nor is the recent bombing of Iran and the Strait of Hormuz crisis anticipated. These events are clearly linked to the U.S. oil industry and its imperial and hegemonic ambitions, which persist regardless of the ruling party.
Claims that the EU represents the light and good in climate breakdown are equally simplified. Hamilton admits that Britain has succumbed to right-wing extremism with the Reform Party, Brexit, and net-zero policy attacks.
Infantile
Hamilton also notes how Hungary, under Viktor Orbán’s climate-denying leadership at the time of publication, is hard right. Even Germany, once a beacon of progressive environmentalism, prioritizes its fossil fuel car industry over global atmospheric interests. Europe no longer stands as a bastion of universalism and sound climate policy.
This narrative could have been told with different figures. Hamilton, an economist, could have explored the ideological battle between John Maynard Keynes in the universalist corner and Friedrich Hayek in the self-interest corner. Their influence on think tanks behind climate policy and denial is well-documented, but that story is well-known.
The overarching failure is reducing complex geopolitics to a simple dichotomy of good versus evil. Melanie Klein’s psychoanalytic theory of “splitting” describes how the infantile mind divides self, objects, and experiences into extremes of good and bad. Schmitt’s philosophy is based on this division, and this oversimplification affects Hamilton’s analysis of the COPs, which lacks sociological grounding. The COP process is neither designed to wield power nor a neutral or fair playing field. Hamilton’s summary of major COP events distorts facts to fit his framework.
Brazenly
The opposite of splitting is integration. Kant and Schmitt share more similarities than many acknowledge. Both assumed capitalism was the sole economic model for running the planet. Kant believed capitalism could be reformed or contained, with capitalist states cooperating when faced with threats. Schmitt viewed capitalism as inherently about war, exploitation, and competition—a zero-sum game.
Hamilton’s approach challenges explanations that blame the fossil fuel lobby’s blocking power for the talks’ failure. However, he admits in the introduction that the Kant-Schmitt dualism excludes engagement with Karl Marx, another German philosopher.
Hamilton notes, “Kant and Schmitt were concerned with states and did not pay much attention to the role of capital.” Those who focus on fossil fuel corporations in the climate struggle owe more to Marx’s political economy. He further observes that “the neglected third force of this book’s story came brazenly into view at Dubai in 2023…fossil fuel power represented by the petrostates.”
Reintegrate
Marx has not directly influenced elite thought, especially among those dominating COP conferences. Ignoring Marxist analysis of state power and capitalism might be a significant oversight.
Marx argued that capitalism necessitates wealth accumulation, leading to increased social inequality extremes. This inequality fosters ruthless competition, conflict, and cruelty justification, allowing a few to exhaust nature while the majority seems powerless to prevent disaster. Marx contended that this is not inevitable and can be prevented through deliberate action.
Moreover, Marx sought the integration that could prevent the Schmittian nightmare from becoming reality. He envisioned eliminating the economic system driving social inequality and pitting two opposed classes against each other. The goal was to reintegrate humanity and society with nature. Achieving this would make Kant’s universalism more truly universal, and climate breakdown would be largely avoidable.
Sabotaged
Hamilton’s work offers invaluable insights, notably that Kant and Keynes did not challenge capitalism’s logic. This oversight leaves them unable to explain why today’s global elites allow climate breakdown or the tendency toward war. Where does Marx’s exclusion lead us? Hamilton concludes that the choice may no longer be between being a Kantian or a Schmittian but between a left or right Schmittian.
Scylla represents the efforts to convince us that capitalism is the only option and must be reformed to prevent climate catastrophe. This is the COPs’ aim and why they have proven ineffective. Hamilton bravely argues that Scylla is an illusion with no power over us. However, he overgeneralizes, claiming climate breakdown decisively refutes Kant’s belief in reason and human moral development’s progressive unfolding.
Hamilton then succumbs to Charybdis, a whirlpool of doom and reaction. He envisions a future where Schmitt prevails, making climate breakdown and fascism inevitable. The worst human instincts, such as war and greed, become natural and normalized. He writes, “Schmitt’s dystopian outlook matches that of growing numbers who see the climate fight as lost.”
This defeatism amounts to moral abdication. Hamilton’s despondency prevents him from learning the lesson within his climate struggle account. We must focus on understanding capitalism, the oil industry’s role, and how supporters of both have sabotaged climate science, policy, and movements. Otherwise, we risk being caught between Scylla and Charybdis.
This Author
Brendan Montague is an editor of The Ecologist.
