Monbiot lays out his task as ‘identifying and challenging power’, or, more thoroughly, ‘showing the world as it is rather than as the apparatus of justification would wish people to see it’. The goal, he argues, is to ‘play a helpful part’ in a mobilisation of resistance. As a powerful editorial voice in what is really the major journalistic effort of the establishment left, the Guardian, How Did We Get Into This Mess? is as much a statement of Monbiot’s critical identity as it is a critique of neoliberalism.

For Monbiot, the clear core of our dilemma, the ‘how’ of how we got ourselves into this mess, is, of course, neoliberalism. The title essay passionately and successfully weaves together the interests of the ultra-wealthy, critiques of the myth of growth, the vacuousness of consumption, the destructiveness of fossil fuels (and sheep, of course). It culminates in an analysis of the various laws, policies, trade agreements, and more that undermine democracy, destroy ecosystems, exacerbate inequality, and enrich the corporate class.

What is refreshing about Monbiot’s approach is his analysis of the symptoms, the impacts, the very everyday lives that neoliberalism has created. The well-organised compendium begins with the reality of the isolation, loneliness, dissatisfaction, stress, and depression unleashed upon young and old alike. There is a dedicated section on ‘Lost Youth’ that ranges from kids without access to nature, to university grads snapped up by the lure of the banks, to children killed in drone strikes – all linked, of course, to the needs of capital.

Monbiot offers his critiques in beautifully constructed, concise, and informative essays. It is all crucial and true and devastating and well put, and we should be deeply appreciative of both the depth and consistency of Monbiot’s critical reflections on our current mess, and his prominence as an articulate voice of the left. And, yet, I was also left unsettled in two different ways.

One frustration is that the collection is primarily critique, aimed at providing fodder for further criticism and a delegitimisation of the current neoliberal order. Clearly, Monbiot anticipates this with the choice of title – it is, after all, about the mess, not the cleaning. Still, this makes the vision seem incomplete, missing the more reconstructive moment. It reminds me of one of the best analyses of Jeremy Corbyn’s recent surge in popularity – that things changed when Corbyn switched from trying to be the leader of the opposition to being the leader of the alternative.

Maybe there is a humility at work, with so little focus on the alternative (other than teaching kids how to prepare roadkill for breakfast, or how we might use whales for a more ecological geoengineering). Or maybe Monbiot is setting us up for the pitch, the soon-to-come Out of the Wreckage: A new politics in an age of crisis (Verso, 2017).

George MonbiotThe larger frustration, however, is that as broad and encompassing as Monbiot’s critiques are, he unnecessarily limits his targets – and, so, his potential audience. For example, it is crucial to discuss the idea of rebalancing the functioning of the non-human realm – paying attention to the way that ecosystems function, work, and provide for human and nonhuman needs alike. But Monbiot’s approach, ‘rewilding’, is primarily based in a preservationist ideal of the past, and notions of wonder and enchantment. This unnecessarily limits his audience, in large part, to the well-off white liberal environmentalists accused of reading the Guardian over their caffe lattes and avocado toast. Surprisingly, there is only a single mention of the idea of environmental racism in a discussion of lead poisoning (pre-Flint), but here Monbiot misses the opportunity to link to, or, more importantly, to be an advocate for, an environmentalism that is based in justice rather than preservation, in defending one’s home and health rather than being enchanted with a fiction of the ‘wild’.

Related is Monbiot’s advocacy for nuclear power, which has upset many of his readers. While the need to identify a realistic replacement for coal and gas is crucial, Monbiot focuses his vindication of nuclear on the argument that there have been few actual health impacts from existing nuclear power plants, even given major failures such as in Fukushima. This is startlingly naïve, as the health and other impacts of the nuclear industry must include those involved in the mining and production of uranium and in the disposal of spent waste. These impacts of the broader nuclear cycle, especially in the United States and Australia, have come primarily at the expense of the health and sovereignty of indigenous peoples.

There are other examples of this surprising lack of attention to audience – a disconnect from movement discourse, concerns, and action. For someone who began a career focused, in part, on the theft of lands from indigenous peoples, it is quite surprising to see so little on settler colonialism and colonisation in this collection (other than a piece on the right-wing critics of the 2009 film Avatar). An essay on marriage equality does not mention or give credit to gay rights movements; a piece on abortion rights and the church is offered without reference to women’s health movements. Oddly, Monbiot inserts a claim that his 2007 commentary was the first to advocate for leaving fossil fuels in the ground, while in reality the very first Climate Justice Summit, in The Hague in 2000, made the now longstanding claim that keeping carbon in the ground was a basic demand of climate justice.

While Monbiot offers the lament that ‘we have all become skilled in the act of not seeing’, he unfortunately seems to illustrate the same weakness – again, to the detriment of a broad audience.

What is odd is that I have read most of these commentaries over the years, and have a deep appreciation for the role that Monbiot plays in contemporary political discourse and in the absolutely necessary calling out of the practices and actors behind the mess we’re in. What is on the page deserves all of the accolades. It is only seeing the broad historical record in one place that allows us to step back and see the range of topics absent, which defines the role of Monbiot as a commentator as much as what is on the page. I am not going to disagree with the glowing cover blurbs from Naomi Klein and Brian Eno; this is indeed a collection from a dazzling, rigorous, and original critic. But it does seem to miss many of the other ‘countervailing’ – and I would add reconstructive – voices that Monbiot hopes to speak to, influence, and join, in cleaning up the mess we’re in.