Roger Hallam - BBC Hard Talk

On BBC Hard Talk, I didn’t think Roger Hallam was exaggerating or being untruthful. It is important to make a distinction between the basic scientific evidence, such as rate of ice-melt in the arctic, and the framing and projections of such evidence. Thus there is the science, which is pretty indisputable and agreed upon, and the projections of such science. It is the projections that vary a lot.

There is a diversity of views within climate science. Scientists shouldn’t be too confident in thinking they have a stable notion of future events and thus shouldn't be so quick criticising certain climate projections as extreme. When it comes to climate projections, I think it is difficult to say who is exaggerating and who isn’t.

I feel it is arrogant to think we have a clear notion of what is going to happen when we push global temperatures too high and our ecological systems collapse. This is because we are going into  domains of nature we have little knowledge of. “We are climbing rapidly out of mankind’s safe zone into new territory, and we have no idea if we can live in it” (Prof Corell 2007). In light of this idea, it makes sense to talk about and prepare for the worst possible projection of climate breakdown and ecological collapse, because we don’t have a stable idea of what is going to happen.

I understand the position that middle-ground projections of the climate and ecological crisis are bad enough, this is clear. But I also don’t like the idea of patronising the public and underestimating them. We need to include the public as much as possible. We need to empower people and not hide any information from them. This is connected to our demand for a Citizen's Assembly, which reflects XR's vision for a genuinely participatory society and a well-informed, empowered citizenry. I feel, when possible, XR's Media and Messaging team should present the spectrum of scientific interpretations and be clear about what each section of the scientific community is saying.

It is worth noting that XR’s success is in large part due to breaking away from the conservatism and reticence of the scientific community. Of course, scientists are trying to do their jobs and earn a living. But they have undoubtedly operated within a corrupt socio-political system and their communication and interpretation of the science has largely reflected this system. It is this corrupt system that has led to the sixth mass extinction and the climate and ecological crisis.

It seems to me Roger’s approach is one of jolting people into awareness and action and it must be recognised that his interpretations of the science are based on clear evidence and are the views of experienced scientists. It could also be noted that Roger has done exhaustive research into the history of social collapse and mass mental breakdown, which a lot of scientists don’t have or don’t talk about.

Many people are quick to criticise Roger. While some of his actions may be worthy of criticism (no one is flawless after all), I think we have to respect what he has done in co-creating XR and the massive amount of work he is currently doing for the movement. We need to look at things broadly and in context.