<i>Fossil Capital</i> at ten: Andreas Malm on capitalism, energy, and resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the publication of Fossil Capital in 2016, Andreas Malm reshaped how scholars understand the relationship between capitalism and fossil fuels. Energy humanities scholars Caleb Wellum and Imre Szeman interviewed Malm in November 2024 about the arguments and impact of Fossil Capital, the development of his thought in several subsequent books, and the shifting landscape of climate politics. At a time when the stakes of climate politics have never been higher, Malm's work is indispensable. This interview provides an opportunity to revisit Fossil Capital in light of the past decade's developments while also exploring the more radical propositions his recent work has put forth. From the role of sabotage in climate activism to the geopolitical entanglements of energy politics, Malm dissects the complex forces obstructing climate action and explores the strategies that might still be able to disrupt them, however powerful they might be. Readers will find in this conversation reflections on Malm's intellectual evolution and a considered engagement with the urgent question that has animated his work: how to bring about the end of fossil capitalism before it brings about the end of all of us.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".