Extinction Rebellion on TV During the October Rebellion

My primary aim when I write and think about the world is to be as honest, sensitive and evidence-based as possible. To me, the opposite of this is being ideological. Thinking ideologically equates to blind, unempathetic and self-interested thinking.  

The stark, naked truth of a situation is often hard to bear, especially when one looks at things broadly and in context, but this is essential in "growing up" and becoming a well-rounded person who has a positive effect on the world. 

Skeena Rathor on Good Morning Britain

I am impressed that Skeena was able to remain calm when being aggressively attacked by Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain. Healthy dialogue was completely absent from the segment, as Piers, a news host, steered the discussion in a circle, deflecting the actually important issues at hand. Examples of important issues are the rate of ice-melt in the arctic, "biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction" and how the assassination of environmental actvists is tied in with global corporate hegemony.

In so far as Piers is a human being, I love him and I believe he is capable of positive change. But as it stands, he is a manifestation of deep, deep ignorance and the unconscious proponent of a toxic, globalised system that is rapidly destroying the health of our planet and all life within it.

As a news host, it is Piers' job to inform and educate. It is shameful that he displays no knowledge of climate and ecological science, or the history of civil disobedience, and not only this but attacks people who are doing all they can, with what they’ve got, to avert climate and ecological collapse. 

Piers does not provide any mature or evidence-based arguments, but, in a highly ideological manner, blindly defends a system that is destroying life on Earth. Piers promotes trivial discussions about whether the protestors are hypocrites. By doing so, he actively evades vital discussions about the environmental devastation now occurring around the world, that is killing thousands upon thousands of poor people, mostly in the Global South, and destroying indigenous communities.

I think the reason truly vital issues are actively deflected by people like Piers is because such issues challenge the dominant system we live in and signify a desperate need for system change. Perhaps people like Piers are too weak and scared to face this fact? Maybe it is psychologically easier to go along with what we’ve been taught is normal, even though what we’ve been taught is normal is destroying our planet?

Zion Lights on Andrew Neil Show

Andrew Neil cherry picked a few comments made by Roger Hallam to disparage XR. One of them is that "our children will die in 10-20 years", as a result of climate and ecological breakdown, and another is that there will be "billions of deaths in the next century". He used these comments to question XR spokesperson Zion and asked what scientific validity they had. Andrew tried to equate these comments made by Roger with XR itself and used this false pretence to disparage the movement as alarmist.

So a few points to make on this. One is that the comments Andrew refers to were made by one member of XR and do not represent XR’s overall position on climate science. This already renders his argument invalid. Second is that Roger’s figures are actually held by numerous climate scientists and are based on clear scientific studies, for example the effects of arctic methane release. Arguably, Roger's comments are not exaggerations. Roger bases what he says on scientific study and the implications of social collapse. 

During the interview Zion reminded us that XR is simply reponding, in a proportionate way, to what climate scientists are saying. We are not ideologues promoting a biased agenda, but are basing our actions on very clear science and are asking for governmental policies to be made based on the science.

Qualified climate scientist, Jem Bendell, has written “collapse is inevitable, catastrophe is likely, extinction is possible”. If you read his paper, Deep Adaptation, you will see a highly extensive collation of climate studies and a very detailed, sober discussion of their implications. Jem's paper is detailed and well-rounded. Another well-rounded paper is What Lies Beneath, which looks at the limitations of the IPCC.

A Comment on the Conservatism of Science

Jane Morton, who has done a lot of research into the communication and messaging of climate and ecological science, points out that the scientific community is often prone to reticence and conservatism. Thus when David Wallace-Wells published an article, which painted a worst case scenario of climate and ecological breakdown, it was swiftly attacked by climate scientists. David then had to go through every statement he made, outlining his argument. 

Surely it makes sense to prepare for a worst case scenario? This is what risk-planning is. For if we prepare for the least-worst scenario, and the situation gets really bad, we will be completely unprepared. Preparing for the worst case would be a rational and humane approach, especially measured against the suffering of climate and ecological meltdown. But when people are indoctrinated from birth by the ideology of a toxic system, rational, humane and evidence-based approaches are hard to come by.

The reason people don’t want to prepare for a worst case scenario is that this will mean even more system change and will question the way we do almost everything as a globalised society. I think people are often very scared of deep systemic change. But the reality of climate and ecological chaos is far scarier.