Who is Roger Hallam? Organiser of Extinction Rebellion

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Who is Roger Hallam? Organiser of Extinction Rebellion

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:42 am

Who is Roger Hallam? The Ex King’s student and organiser of Extinction Rebellion
He studied Civil Disobedience at uni

3 MONTHS AGO
Eirian Jane ProsserEirian Jane Prosser Guide
KINGS

Roger Hallam is a former King’s PhD student and co-founder of the activist group Extinction Rebellion.

This week he appeared in Southwark Crown Court, accused of spray-painting a listed King’s College London Building in 2017 and causing £7000 worth of damage. He was cleared of all charges.

Hallam said: “We sat in the court, we watched paint dry for three days on a ridiculous charge and the jury returned the common sense verdict of not guilty.

“Chalk on the wall is obviously less important than the impending catastrophe for the planet."

Image may contain: Hat, Vest, Lifejacket, Person, Human, Apparel, Clothing

Roger has been protesting for climate change at King’s for years. As a PhD student studying Civil Disobedience, he spray-painted the Great Hall, subsequently going on a two-week hunger strike until King’s agreed to divest from fossil fuels, and was dragged off campus by security for sticking daffodils to the front of the Strand building.

Extinction Rebellion has been protesting up and down the country – in Manchester, Edinburgh, London, and more. But who is the man at the heart of the organisation?

Roger was suspended for spray painting the Great Hall and sticking daffodils all over campus
He spray painted the front of the Strand and the Great Hall saying: “DIVEST FROM OIL AND GAS” “NOW” and “OUT OF TIME”.

The damage Hallam did to the building was for his involvement in the King’s Climate Change Emergency campaign to stop King’s continuing to invest £14 million a year into fossil fuels.

He was then dragged off campus by security. A spokesperson from King’s Climate Change Emergency at the time stated: “Roger refused to move and was threatened with police arrest. After 20 minutes, two security guards were instructed to drag people out of the Students’ Union building".

He went on a two-week hunger strike to get King’s to divest from fossil fuels
Back in 2017 Hallam went on a hunger strike. He promised he would remain on strike until King’s agrees to end its multi-million investment in oil companies.

The hunger strike lasted 14 days. All he had was some orange juice on the fifth day.

Hallam met with then VP Christ Mottershead, after which the strike ended. The meeting included former KCLSU President Ben Hunt and a representative from King’s press office. It was agreed King’s would divest from fossil fuels by 2020. He celebrated with a victory smoothie.

Image may contain: Paper, Brochure, Flyer, Text, Sitting, Advertisement, Poster, Apparel, Clothing, Human, Person

He protested with Stop Killing Londoners
After being arrested he used this opportunity to reach out to Mayor Sadiq Khan which detailed is requests about the pollution in London.

He boldly claimed that “we have been witnessing the social murder of thousands of our citizens in London and other UK citizens for over a decade due to toxic air pollution”.

After this letter was published Hallam and his fellow campaigners were released with a fine of £385 each.

He got arrested protesting at LSE’s campus during UoL’s cleaners’ strikes
Along with three other activists Hallam was arrested for criminal damage in the middle of a peaceful protest at LSE during the 2017 cleaners strikes. LSE’s walls have been covered in balloons, flowers and posters advocating for better salaries and working conditions for the university’s cleaning staff. Chalk spray paint, a material easily removable with soap and water, was also being used on the buildings’ exteriors.

Image may contain: Coat, Police, Human, Person, Shoe, Clothing, Apparel, Footwear

Roger Hallam took part in the Justice4Cleaners protests, after which he assisted protests at LSE. While campaigning for Life Not Money, Roger said if LSE wanted “to avoid damage to its international reputation”, it needed “to follow the advice of its academics; cut Director pay and provide decent working conditions to all its workers”.

He founded Extinction Rebellion after he left King’s
Since co-founding of the organisation Extinction Rebellion, it now has the support of over 100 academics. The group is described as a non-violent socio-political movement. Extinction Rebellion aims to have the government declare a climate emergency, reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2025, and create a “Citizens’ Assembly” for climate and ecological justice.

Extinction Rebellion was responsible for a number of protests earlier this year in March which caused much disruption to large towns and cities across the U.K. They spray painted a number of listed buildings, banks and roads. Some of the most extreme acts of civil disobedience the organisation has done, includes members gluing their hands to the department doors of the UK’s Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

In an article Hallam wrote for The Guardian he said: “Extinction Rebellion is humbly following in the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. We are simply rediscovering what people do when they have had enough of failure and really want to make a difference.”



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE4z2eCQV2M


The 10 Working Principles of Extinction Rebellion - Roger Hallam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6se6c5qvuV4

Peter Jukes


Now the print version is out, happy to share the illustrious illustrated version of The March of Loot by @MartinRowson and yours truly for this month’s @BylineTimes

“On the road to Downing Street,
All these frauds and chancers meet...”
Image
Image
https://twitter.com/BylineFest



Image


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqNasjUIN6c

Image
does announcing genocide on twitter violate terms of service?
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 31696
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Who is Roger Hallam? Organiser of Extinction Rebellion

Postby liminalOyster » Thu Sep 12, 2019 2:34 pm

Five Heathrow Pause activists 'preemptively' arrested
Roger Hallam and Mike Lynch-White were among those arrested in London before Friday's planned action at the airport.
By Rebecca Taylor, news reporter

Thursday 12 September 2019 18:12, UK

Five people have been arrested over plans to fly toy drones at Heathrow Airport as part of climate change protests.

Two men were arrested in a cafe in Bethnal Green, which was caught on camera, and two women and a man were arrested in Hornsey Lane, in Highgate.

Heathrow Pause released a statement which said: "Prospective drone pilots Roger Hallam and Mike Lynch-White have just been preemptively arrested and we caught it all on film.

"The pair were just concluding an interview with German news magazine der Spiegel at Billy's Cafe in Bethnal Green when four police cars pulled up. Officers handcuffed the Pause activists, placed them in separate cars and drove them away."

The Metropolitan Police confirmed the five arrests, which were "on suspicion of conspiracy to commit a public nuisance in relation to operations at Heathrow Airport".

All five people are at a London police station.

Deputy assistant commissioner Laurence Taylor, said: "We have carried out these arrests today in response to proposed plans for illegal drone use near Heathrow Airport which protest group Heathrow Pause have said will take place tomorrow morning.

"Our policing plan is aimed at preventing criminal activity which poses a significant safety and security risk to the airport, and the thousands of passengers that will be using it. We have warned previously that arrests would be made if this activity continued."

Mr Hallam is one of the co-founders of Extinction Rebellion. Heathrow Pause is understood to be a splinter group from XR.

Heathrow airport said it was determined to remain operational during potential disruption on Friday, which comes shortly after the BA pilot strike at the beginning of the week.

Activists were practicing flying the toy drones today, and said they would not fly them while there were planes in the air.

They also said they were willing to be arrested.


ImageLONDON, ENGLAND - APRIL 19: Extinction Rebellion environmental activist organiser Roger Hallam talks to Police as protesters try to stop police from removing their boat on April 19, 2019 in London, England. The boat, called the Berta Caceres, is named after the Honduran environmentalist that was killed in March 2016 by gunmen who broke into her La Esperanza home that had been a focal point of the Oxford Circus occupation since Monday morning. The boat removed from Oxford Circus was then driven down numerous back roads by the police with an escort of over 100 police in an operation estimated to have involved over 1000 police before protesters stopped it for an hour on the corner of Great Portland Street and Langham Street while deciding how to deal with the situation through a mass vote. The boat was lead past the BBC offices to the Energy Institute in Marylebone by protesters where they allowed it to be taken away by Police. The climate change activist group aims to stop traffic and occupy key locations to cause maximum disruption to the capital for up to two weeks unless their climate protection demands are met by the government, as a series of protests take place globally to highlight the ongoing ecological and climate crisis. (Photo by Ollie Millington/Getty Images)


Linda Davidsen, from the Heathrow Pause group, said: "The idea is that we start the action... before any flights take off because we will not fly the drones when there is a flight already up in the air.

"We tell the authorities an hour before we take the action and then, once we have flown the drone, we call the police."

The group said it wouldn't fly the drones higher than head height.

Ms Davidsen said the act was "symbolic".

Climate change protesters disturb London with 'summer uprising'.

Extinction Rebellion demonstrators blocked streets in central London to demand faster action against climate change.
Earlier this week, Mr Taylor had warned: "We will be arresting anybody who commits unlawful offences.

"We are really clear that it is unlawful, it is a criminal offence, and anybody who turns up expecting to fly drones in that exclusion zone will be arrested."

He said frontline police officers had been drafted in from other areas to help tackle the protest, and added that it if turned out to be a "handful of people, they will be responsible for the fact we've had to put that policing plan in place".

On Friday, more than 50 XR protesters are set to appear before magistrates at courts around the UK, on charges relating to the April protests in London where roads were blocked off for hours.

Despite being warned about the protests' impact on policing and on the justice system, Heathrow Pause said it had no choice but to go ahead.

It said: "The current prime minister is on record for saying his opposition to Heathrow expansion is so profound that he would 'lie down in front of the bulldozers'.

"We invite Boris Johnson to join us in flying a drone and showing his commitment to stopping Heathrow expansion and addressing the climate and ecological emergency."

https://news.sky.com/story/two-extincti ... w-11807855
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Who is Roger Hallam? Organiser of Extinction Rebellion

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:55 am



Extinction Rebellion Groups Organize Climate Change Protests Around the World
By Jeffery Martin On 10/8/19 at 10:40 PM EDT
Displaying its symbol, a stylized hourglass inside a circle, the group Extinction Rebellion has organized some of the biggest climate change protests of the last year. They claim to have over 400 groups in 72 countries, including the United Kingdom, U.S. and Australia.

What is Extinction Rebellion and what is its goal?


Extinction Rebellion Australia
@XRebellionAus
We've been speaking to some of the XR protestors about their personal reasons for being involved.
Embedded video

95
7:24 PM - Oct 8, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

34 people are talking about this

According to its UK website, Extinction Rebellion (XR) is "an international movement that uses non-violent civil disobedience in an attempt to halt mass extinction and minimize the risk of social collapse."

While demanding change concerning the climate change crisis, other human rights issues are included in the protests.

The group's first protest took place on November 2018 in London, England. XR protestors blocked five major bridges across the Thames River. The action led to the arrest of 85 protestors.

Through social media and international news coverage, XR's ideology spread rapidly. With a growing global base, XR started its "international rebellion" in April 2019.

extinction rebellion, climate change, protest, England
Activists in red costume protest on Whitehall, by Downing Street during the second day of climate change demonstrations by the Extinction Rebellion group in central London, on October 8, 2019. Ben Stansall/Getty
In London, XR occupied Piccadilly Circus, Oxford Circus, Waterloo Bridge, Marble Arch and areas near Parliament Square for 11 days. This time, according to The Telegraph, over 1,100 arrests were made.

New York website Patch reported XR activists in New York City climbed light poles and waved banners while some lay in the streets, demanding that a climate emergency be declared.

Large-scale attention grabbing scenes like this are part of XR's philosophy.


Indivisible Chicago Northwest Side
@indivchicagonw
Climate Strike youth staging a die-in in front of City Hall right now. #ExtinctionRebellion
View image on Twitter

156
5:42 PM - Oct 7, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

58 people are talking about this

"We are promoting mass "above the ground" civil disobedience – in full public view," states the group's UK website. "This means economic disruption to shake the current political system and civil disruption to raise awareness. We are deeply sorry for any inconvenience that this causes."

The group is in the news again with a week of climate protests taking place this October. According to The Guardian, London police began clearing away the tents of XR protestors as they began enforcing an order banning demonstrations across central London on the morning of October 8.

WLNY reported that protestors threw a red liquid resembling blood on the famous Charging Bull statue on Wall Street in New York City. Dozens were arrested.

Both the U.S. and UK branches of XR share a core set of principles and values. These include using non-violent tactics to bring about change, bringing about a world that is fit for future generations and mobilizing 3.5 percent of the population to achieve systemic change.


Nicola Davies
@nicolakidsbooks
This is for all the people on the streets in London tonight, sleeping in tents, superglued to cars, sitting on cold concrete, fighting for all our lives, yours, mine,our kids and our fellow species. Love and power to you all @ExtinctionR @XRCardiff @XRLondon @XRBristol
View image on Twitter

135
2:32 PM - Oct 8, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

38 people are talking about this

These protests have a different meaning to Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave, who worries that mass protests like the ones XR organizes take away from situations that could require law enforcement.

"The same amount of work is going to have to be done by fewer people working longer shifts with fewer breaks," Ephgrave said. "That makes life much more difficult for our people. It means they might have to make compromises around which things they go to, how long they spend at incidents."

XR plans on carrying on this round of protests until October 20.
https://www.newsweek.com/extinction-reb ... ld-1463990


liminalOyster » Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:47 am wrote:
After 30 Years Studying Climate, Scientist Declares: "I've Never Been as Worried as I Am Today"
Common DreamsDecember 13, 2018

And colleague says "global warming" no longer strong enough term. "Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet."

Environmental protesters take part in a Greenpeace-organized march to call for the political and economic reforms needed to combat climate change while the COP24 summit takes place in Katowice, Poland. (Photo: Martyn Aim/Getty Images)

Declaring that after three decades of studying the climate he's "never been as worried" about the future of the planet as he is today, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber—founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany—warned that even as extreme weather wreaks havoc across the globe and experts issue one terrifying prediction after another, political leaders are still refusing to confront the climate crisis with the necessary urgency.

"Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet. The risks are compounding all the time. It stands to reason that the sooner we can take action, the quicker we can rein them in."
—Richard Betts, University of Exeter

"I've worked on this for 30 years and I've never been as worried as I am today," Schellnhuber declared during the COP24 climate summit in Poland, arguing that even the language commonly used to describe the changing state of the climate doesn't sufficiently convey the enormity of the crisis.

"Global warming doesn't capture the scale of destruction. Speaking of hothouse Earth is legitimate," added Schellnhuber, who co-authored a "terrifying" study warning that humanity may be just 1°C away from irreversible planetary catastrophe.

Richard Betts, professor of climate impacts at the University of Exeter, agreed with Schellnhuber's dire assessment, and argued that "global heating" is more accurate than "global warming" in describing what continued carbon emissions are doing to the climate.

"Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet," Betts said. "The risks are compounding all the time. It stands to reason that the sooner we can take action, the quicker we can rein them in."

But Betts went on to express dismay at the suicidally slow pace at which world leaders are working to confront the crisis that—if immediate and bold action is not taken—threatens to render the planet uninhabitable for future generations.

"Things are obviously proceeding very slowly," Betts said. "As a scientist, it's frustrating to see we're still at the point when temperatures are going up and emissions are going up. I've been in this for 25 years. I hoped we'd be beyond here by now."

As world leaders refuse to ditch fossil fuels or—in the case of the Trump administration—attempt to increase production, people around the world are mobilizing around ambitious solutions like a Green New Deal, which is rapidly gaining support in the U.S. Congress.

As Common Dreams reported, the "Extinction Rebellion" movement—which is demanding that governments reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025—has spread to 35 countries in just six months.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/ ... i-am-today


The study on collapse they thought you should not read – yet
Posted by jembendell on July 26, 2018

A research paper concluding that climate-induced collapse is now inevitable, was recently rejected by anonymous reviewers of an academic journal.

It has been released directly by the Professor who wrote it, to promote discussion of the necessary deep adaptation to climate chaos.

“I am releasing this paper immediately, directly, because I can’t wait any longer in exploring how to learn the implications of the social collapse we now face,” explained the author Dr Bendell, a full Professor of Sustainability Leadership. deep adaptation paper

In saying the paper was not suitable for publication, one of the comments from the reviewers questioned the emotional impact that the paper might have on readers. “I was left wondering about the social implications of presenting a scenario for the future as inevitable reality, and about the responsibility of research in communicating climate change scenarios and strategies for adaptation.” wrote one of the reviewers. “As the authors pointed out, denial is a common emotional response to situations that are perceived as threatening and inescapable, leading to a sense of helplessness, inadequacy, and hopelessness and ultimately disengagement from the issue…”

That perspective is discussed in the paper as one that enables denial. Professor Bendell explains in his response to the Editor, that the response may reflect “the self-defeating hierarchical attitude towards society that many of us have in both academia and sustainability, where we censure our own exploration of a topic due to what we consider should or should not be communicated. There is both scholarship and experience on the impact of communicating about disaster, and I discuss that in the paper.” Moreover, Bendell consulted with practicing psychotherapists on both the motivational and mental health implications of this analysis and was reassured that perceptions of a collective tragic future should not in itself be a cause for depression. Instead, it could trigger transformative reflection which could be supported – and would be inevitable one day, given the inevitability of mortality for all human life.

The paper offers a new framing for beginning to make sense of the disaster we face, called “deep adaptation.” It is one that Professor Bendell proposed in a keynote lecture two years ago and has influenced community dialogue on climate change in Britain in the past two years, including in Peterborough and Newcastle as well as being used by the Dark Mountain network.

The paper “Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy” is downloadable as a pdf from here.

The response of Professor Bendell to the Editor of the journal follows below.

A list of resources to support people as they process this information, including emotional support is here.

A LinkedIn group on Deep Adaptation exists to support professional discussion of the topic.

Letter to the Editor of SAMPJ, Professor Carol Adams, from Professor Jem Bendell, 26th July 2018.

Dear Professor Adams,

It is an odd situation to be in as a writer, but I feel compassion for anyone reading my Deep Adaptation article on the inevitability of near term social collapse due to climate chaos! I am especially grateful for anyone taking the time to analyse it in depth and provide feedback. So, I am grateful to you arranging that and the reviewers for providing their feedback. Some of the feedback, particularly recommendations for a better introduction, were helpful. However, I am unable to work with their main requests for revisions, as they are, I believe, either impossible or inappropriate, as I will seek to explain.

I agree with Professor Rob Gray that “The journal’s constant exploration of new and challenging perspectives on how accountability and sustainability might play out in organisations ensures a stimulating source of articles, experiences and ideas.” It is why I was pleased to guest edit an issue last year and bring critical perspectives on leadership to its readership. However, the topic of inevitable collapse from climate change is so challenging it is not surprising it didn’t find support from the anonymous peer reviewers.

I would have had difficulty finding motivation for undertaking a complete re-write given the conclusion of the paper – that the premise of the “sustainable business” field that the journal is part of is no longer valid. Indeed, the assumptions about progress and stability that lead us to stay in academia in the field of management studies are also now under question.

The first referee questioned “to which literature (s) does this article actually contribute” and stated that “the research question or gap that you intend to address must be drawn from the literature,” continuing that “to join the conversation, you need to be aware of the current conversation in the field, which can be identified by reviewing relevant and recent articles published in these journals.” That is the standard guidance I use with my students and it was both amusing and annoying to read that feedback after having dozens of peer reviewed articles published over the last 20 years. The problem with that guidance is when the article is challenging the basis of the field and where there are not any other articles exploring or accepting the same premise. For instance, there are no articles in either SAMPJ or Organisation and Environment that explore implications for business practice or policy of a near term inevitable collapse due to environmental catastrophe (including those that mention or address climate adaptation). That isn’t surprising, because the data hasn’t been so conclusive on that until the last couple of years.

It is surprising therefore that the first reviewer says “the paper does not contain any new or significant information. The paper reiterates what has already been told by many studies.” The reviewer implies therefore that the paper is about climate change being a big problem. But the article doesn’t say that. It says that we face an unsolvable predicament and great tragedy. When the reviewer says “There are not clear contributions that can be derived from the article” then I wonder whether that is wilful blindness, as the article is saying that the basis of the field is now untenable.

At a couple of points, I attempted to cut through the unemotional way that research is presented. Or instance, when I directly address the reader about the implications of the analysis for their own likely hunger and safety, it is to elicit an emotional response. I say in the text why I express myself in that way and that although it is not typical in some journals the situation we face suggests to me that we do try to communicate emotively. The reviewer comments “the language used is not appropriate for a scholarly article.”

The second reviewer summarises the paper as “the introduction of deep adaptation as an effective response to climate change” which suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding despite it being made clear throughout the paper. There is no “effective” response. The reviewer also writes “I am not sure that the extensive presentation of climate data supports the core argument of the paper in a meaningful way.” Yet the summary of science is the core of the paper as everything then flows from the conclusion of that analysis. Note that the science I summarise is about what is happening right now, rather than models or theories of complex adaptive systems which the reviewer would have preferred.

One piece of feedback from the 2nd reviewer is worth quoting verbatim:

“The authors stress repeatedly that “climate-induced societal collapse is now inevitable” as if that was a factual statement… I was left wondering about the social implications of presenting a scenario for the future as inevitable reality, and about the responsibility of research in communicating climate change scenarios and strategies for adaptation. As the authors pointed out, denial is a common emotional response to situations that are perceived as threatening and inescapable, leading to a sense of helplessness, inadequacy, and hopelessness and ultimately disengagement from the issue…”

This perspective is one I discuss in some detail in the paper, as one that enables denial. It reflects the self-defeating hierarchical attitude towards society that many of us have in both academia and sustainability, where we censure our own exploration of a topic due to what we consider should or should not be communicated. There is both scholarship and experience on the impact of communicating about disaster, and I discuss that in the paper.

The trauma from assessing our situation with climate change has led me to become aware of and drop some of my past preoccupations and tactics. I realise it is time to fully accept my truth as I see it, even if partially formed and not polished yet for wider articulation. I know that academia involves as much a process of wrapping up truth as unfolding it. We wrap truth in disciplines, discrete methodologies, away from the body, away from intuition, away from the collective, away from the everyday. So as that is my truth then I wish to act on it as well, and not keep this analysis hidden in the pursuit of academic respect. Instead, I want to share it now as a tool for shifting the quality of conversations that I need to have. Therefore, I have decided to publish it simply as an IFLAS Occasional Paper.

The process has helped me realise that I need to relinquish activities that I no longer have passion for, in what I am experiencing as a dramatically new context. Therefore, I must step back from the Editorial team of the journal. Thank you for having involved me and congratulations on it now being in the top ten journals in business, management and accounting.

Please pass on my thanks to the reviewers. On my website http://www.jembendell.com I will be listing some links to articles, podcasts, videos and social networks that are helping people explore and come to terms with a realisation of near term collapse (and even extinction), which they may be interested in.

Yours sincerely,

Jem Bendell

https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2018/0 ... -read-yet/


liminalOyster » Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:47 am wrote:
After 30 Years Studying Climate, Scientist Declares: "I've Never Been as Worried as I Am Today"
Common DreamsDecember 13, 2018

And colleague says "global warming" no longer strong enough term. "Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet."

Environmental protesters take part in a Greenpeace-organized march to call for the political and economic reforms needed to combat climate change while the COP24 summit takes place in Katowice, Poland. (Photo: Martyn Aim/Getty Images)

Declaring that after three decades of studying the climate he's "never been as worried" about the future of the planet as he is today, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber—founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany—warned that even as extreme weather wreaks havoc across the globe and experts issue one terrifying prediction after another, political leaders are still refusing to confront the climate crisis with the necessary urgency.

"Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet. The risks are compounding all the time. It stands to reason that the sooner we can take action, the quicker we can rein them in."
—Richard Betts, University of Exeter

"I've worked on this for 30 years and I've never been as worried as I am today," Schellnhuber declared during the COP24 climate summit in Poland, arguing that even the language commonly used to describe the changing state of the climate doesn't sufficiently convey the enormity of the crisis.

"Global warming doesn't capture the scale of destruction. Speaking of hothouse Earth is legitimate," added Schellnhuber, who co-authored a "terrifying" study warning that humanity may be just 1°C away from irreversible planetary catastrophe.

Richard Betts, professor of climate impacts at the University of Exeter, agreed with Schellnhuber's dire assessment, and argued that "global heating" is more accurate than "global warming" in describing what continued carbon emissions are doing to the climate.

"Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet," Betts said. "The risks are compounding all the time. It stands to reason that the sooner we can take action, the quicker we can rein them in."

But Betts went on to express dismay at the suicidally slow pace at which world leaders are working to confront the crisis that—if immediate and bold action is not taken—threatens to render the planet uninhabitable for future generations.

"Things are obviously proceeding very slowly," Betts said. "As a scientist, it's frustrating to see we're still at the point when temperatures are going up and emissions are going up. I've been in this for 25 years. I hoped we'd be beyond here by now."

As world leaders refuse to ditch fossil fuels or—in the case of the Trump administration—attempt to increase production, people around the world are mobilizing around ambitious solutions like a Green New Deal, which is rapidly gaining support in the U.S. Congress.

As Common Dreams reported, the "Extinction Rebellion" movement—which is demanding that governments reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025—has spread to 35 countries in just six months.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/ ... i-am-today


The study on collapse they thought you should not read – yet
Posted by jembendell on July 26, 2018

A research paper concluding that climate-induced collapse is now inevitable, was recently rejected by anonymous reviewers of an academic journal.

It has been released directly by the Professor who wrote it, to promote discussion of the necessary deep adaptation to climate chaos.

“I am releasing this paper immediately, directly, because I can’t wait any longer in exploring how to learn the implications of the social collapse we now face,” explained the author Dr Bendell, a full Professor of Sustainability Leadership. deep adaptation paper

In saying the paper was not suitable for publication, one of the comments from the reviewers questioned the emotional impact that the paper might have on readers. “I was left wondering about the social implications of presenting a scenario for the future as inevitable reality, and about the responsibility of research in communicating climate change scenarios and strategies for adaptation.” wrote one of the reviewers. “As the authors pointed out, denial is a common emotional response to situations that are perceived as threatening and inescapable, leading to a sense of helplessness, inadequacy, and hopelessness and ultimately disengagement from the issue…”

That perspective is discussed in the paper as one that enables denial. Professor Bendell explains in his response to the Editor, that the response may reflect “the self-defeating hierarchical attitude towards society that many of us have in both academia and sustainability, where we censure our own exploration of a topic due to what we consider should or should not be communicated. There is both scholarship and experience on the impact of communicating about disaster, and I discuss that in the paper.” Moreover, Bendell consulted with practicing psychotherapists on both the motivational and mental health implications of this analysis and was reassured that perceptions of a collective tragic future should not in itself be a cause for depression. Instead, it could trigger transformative reflection which could be supported – and would be inevitable one day, given the inevitability of mortality for all human life.

The paper offers a new framing for beginning to make sense of the disaster we face, called “deep adaptation.” It is one that Professor Bendell proposed in a keynote lecture two years ago and has influenced community dialogue on climate change in Britain in the past two years, including in Peterborough and Newcastle as well as being used by the Dark Mountain network.

The paper “Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy” is downloadable as a pdf from here.

The response of Professor Bendell to the Editor of the journal follows below.

A list of resources to support people as they process this information, including emotional support is here.

A LinkedIn group on Deep Adaptation exists to support professional discussion of the topic.

Letter to the Editor of SAMPJ, Professor Carol Adams, from Professor Jem Bendell, 26th July 2018.

Dear Professor Adams,

It is an odd situation to be in as a writer, but I feel compassion for anyone reading my Deep Adaptation article on the inevitability of near term social collapse due to climate chaos! I am especially grateful for anyone taking the time to analyse it in depth and provide feedback. So, I am grateful to you arranging that and the reviewers for providing their feedback. Some of the feedback, particularly recommendations for a better introduction, were helpful. However, I am unable to work with their main requests for revisions, as they are, I believe, either impossible or inappropriate, as I will seek to explain.

I agree with Professor Rob Gray that “The journal’s constant exploration of new and challenging perspectives on how accountability and sustainability might play out in organisations ensures a stimulating source of articles, experiences and ideas.” It is why I was pleased to guest edit an issue last year and bring critical perspectives on leadership to its readership. However, the topic of inevitable collapse from climate change is so challenging it is not surprising it didn’t find support from the anonymous peer reviewers.

I would have had difficulty finding motivation for undertaking a complete re-write given the conclusion of the paper – that the premise of the “sustainable business” field that the journal is part of is no longer valid. Indeed, the assumptions about progress and stability that lead us to stay in academia in the field of management studies are also now under question.

The first referee questioned “to which literature (s) does this article actually contribute” and stated that “the research question or gap that you intend to address must be drawn from the literature,” continuing that “to join the conversation, you need to be aware of the current conversation in the field, which can be identified by reviewing relevant and recent articles published in these journals.” That is the standard guidance I use with my students and it was both amusing and annoying to read that feedback after having dozens of peer reviewed articles published over the last 20 years. The problem with that guidance is when the article is challenging the basis of the field and where there are not any other articles exploring or accepting the same premise. For instance, there are no articles in either SAMPJ or Organisation and Environment that explore implications for business practice or policy of a near term inevitable collapse due to environmental catastrophe (including those that mention or address climate adaptation). That isn’t surprising, because the data hasn’t been so conclusive on that until the last couple of years.

It is surprising therefore that the first reviewer says “the paper does not contain any new or significant information. The paper reiterates what has already been told by many studies.” The reviewer implies therefore that the paper is about climate change being a big problem. But the article doesn’t say that. It says that we face an unsolvable predicament and great tragedy. When the reviewer says “There are not clear contributions that can be derived from the article” then I wonder whether that is wilful blindness, as the article is saying that the basis of the field is now untenable.

At a couple of points, I attempted to cut through the unemotional way that research is presented. Or instance, when I directly address the reader about the implications of the analysis for their own likely hunger and safety, it is to elicit an emotional response. I say in the text why I express myself in that way and that although it is not typical in some journals the situation we face suggests to me that we do try to communicate emotively. The reviewer comments “the language used is not appropriate for a scholarly article.”

The second reviewer summarises the paper as “the introduction of deep adaptation as an effective response to climate change” which suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding despite it being made clear throughout the paper. There is no “effective” response. The reviewer also writes “I am not sure that the extensive presentation of climate data supports the core argument of the paper in a meaningful way.” Yet the summary of science is the core of the paper as everything then flows from the conclusion of that analysis. Note that the science I summarise is about what is happening right now, rather than models or theories of complex adaptive systems which the reviewer would have preferred.

One piece of feedback from the 2nd reviewer is worth quoting verbatim:

“The authors stress repeatedly that “climate-induced societal collapse is now inevitable” as if that was a factual statement… I was left wondering about the social implications of presenting a scenario for the future as inevitable reality, and about the responsibility of research in communicating climate change scenarios and strategies for adaptation. As the authors pointed out, denial is a common emotional response to situations that are perceived as threatening and inescapable, leading to a sense of helplessness, inadequacy, and hopelessness and ultimately disengagement from the issue…”

This perspective is one I discuss in some detail in the paper, as one that enables denial. It reflects the self-defeating hierarchical attitude towards society that many of us have in both academia and sustainability, where we censure our own exploration of a topic due to what we consider should or should not be communicated. There is both scholarship and experience on the impact of communicating about disaster, and I discuss that in the paper.

The trauma from assessing our situation with climate change has led me to become aware of and drop some of my past preoccupations and tactics. I realise it is time to fully accept my truth as I see it, even if partially formed and not polished yet for wider articulation. I know that academia involves as much a process of wrapping up truth as unfolding it. We wrap truth in disciplines, discrete methodologies, away from the body, away from intuition, away from the collective, away from the everyday. So as that is my truth then I wish to act on it as well, and not keep this analysis hidden in the pursuit of academic respect. Instead, I want to share it now as a tool for shifting the quality of conversations that I need to have. Therefore, I have decided to publish it simply as an IFLAS Occasional Paper.

The process has helped me realise that I need to relinquish activities that I no longer have passion for, in what I am experiencing as a dramatically new context. Therefore, I must step back from the Editorial team of the journal. Thank you for having involved me and congratulations on it now being in the top ten journals in business, management and accounting.

Please pass on my thanks to the reviewers. On my website http://www.jembendell.com I will be listing some links to articles, podcasts, videos and social networks that are helping people explore and come to terms with a realisation of near term collapse (and even extinction), which they may be interested in.

Yours sincerely,

Jem Bendell

https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2018/0 ... -read-yet/
does announcing genocide on twitter violate terms of service?
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 31696
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests