LAUSR

In several respects it is easy to agree with Anatol Lieven. To deal with the issue of climate change we need governance with a high level of legitimacy and trust, and the strategy needs to be long term for the present generation to accept sacrifices for the benefit of future generations. Yet is nationalism the political doctrine that could help the world to deliver on the need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions? Is nationalism, an ideology of the 19th century, the correct answer to the biggest challenge of the 21st century? First, I do not think many writers on nationalism dispute the positive aspects of nationalism. At least, if we look at authors in the modernist tradition, authors like Miroslav Hroch (1993) and Benedict Anderson (1983) and others do not dispute the important role of nationalism for the development of democracy and welfare states. In other contexts, authors working in a postcolonial tradition have suggested the crucial role of nationalism for emancipation and state building (see, e.g. Herr, 2003). Thus, a large part of the argumentation provided by Lieven on nationalism opens doors that already are wide open. Yet, the book is relevant. Lieven identifies and provides a correct problem description. The question of climate change responses is all about how we can find a narrative that allows us to act and make people feel included in the decision-making. This is in particular the case if we agree that to deal with climate change life style changes are necessary that go well beyond ideas of ecological modernization that would suggest that we could mitigate climate change efficiently through technological innovations and without reforms costly also in the long term. Yet, to argue that nationalism is the doctrine suitable for the task is a bold claim that the book provides little evidence of. I see at least three major objections. First, if we go beyond the US context and look for instance at Europe, as I will do in this intervention, the nation states can hardly