Category: Academia and Research

The Mirage of Climate Action at the Summit in Brazil

jembendell

In this era of societal disruption and metacrisis, international climate summits provide us a Shakespearean display of the human craving for credible myths to avoid daunting truths. Four lanes of greed carve through one of the remaining lungs and heat-shields of our planet — and this month it speeds 50,000 souls towards reassuring each other that they are noble, not needy, and well-informed, not foolish. Earlier this year, the summit secretariat rushed to tell everyone that this new highway through the Amazon Rainforest would have been built anyway. They’d probably heard how new roads cause – and then enable – deforestation. The Brazilian government responded with some more commitments on rainforest protection. That’s promising, but they still give permits to dig up the Amazon for the metals under the trees. The mirage shimmering above the asphalt, seen by delegates as they approach the city of Belem, is a symbol for what passes as scientific curiosity, environmental care, and responsible leadership on the world stage in 2025. 

Ahead of the latest tropical junket, I spoke with the Climate Emergency Forum about what the climate has been telling us through the crazy temperature readings over the last two years. The changes can’t be explained through carbon gases alone. There are various contributing factors — and an important one is that human activity has badly disrupted the biohydrological processes where large forests and oceans naturally seed clouds. I explained the need for a paradigm shift in climatology and related activism and policy, and mentioned my recent essay on the topic, where I summarise the evidence. As many people have followed my analysis on the topic since 2018, I thought it important to summarise my latest understanding — beyond ‘carbon-centrism’.

Continue reading “The Mirage of Climate Action at the Summit in Brazil” →

Restoring Forest Cover and Ocean Health as the Frontline in the Climate Fight – an FAQ

jembendell1 Comment

After my essay on September 5th on the need for a pan-ecological understanding of climate change and how to respond to it, I received a range of feedback and questions. “Does it change your anticipation of collapse,” was one question. Ahead of next week’s Metacrisis Meeting on this topic, in this blog I am sharing my provisional answers. An 800-word summary of my essay on the topic can be found below the following FAQ.

The renowned Professor Bill Rees, who popularised the concept of ecological footprint, welcomed the climate dogmas essay as follows:

“Most climate science sees climate as mainly a physical system with scant attention to  systems ecology… Your essay goes a step beyond, to see the climate as a biophysical phenomenon, as a product of the interactions among the physical drivers— atmospheric gases, the solar flux, etc. — and biological processes both marine and terrestrial.  I.e., it forces recognition that the climate system cannot be understood in isolation from the biosphere. To acknowledge and fully understand the role of the oceans (e.g., dimethyl sulfide), forest cover, soils production, evapotranspiration, etc. and their effects on atmospheric gases (hydrological cycle), albedo, heat balance , etc. would be a massive leap forward for climate science.  I suspect, as your article implies, it would go a long way toward revealing why (more or less in the words of top US climate scientist Gavin Schmidt) present climate models cannot explain what’s actually been happening for the past decade or so… I agree completely that what you are calling a ‘pan-ecological paradigm’ would “recognise that the pervasiveness and complexity of living systems” and that related bio-processes “are salient to any natural phenomena” including the climate systems.

As a sociologist and transdisciplinary research analyst, rather than a climatologist or ecologist, I am grateful for such feedback, and hope it encourages you to read the essay and look at the sources and references I link to from it. 

Continue reading “Restoring Forest Cover and Ocean Health as the Frontline in the Climate Fight – an FAQ” →

The Dangers of Climate Dogma – and what we can do about it

jembendell1 Comment

“We are already in a manmade climate emergency and it is probably not primarily due to CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s because the pace of change in our climate is what makes this an emergency, and that is largely due to a decline in the Earth’s reflectivity, primarily from a loss of cloud cover, which is due to a fall in cloud seeding, with strong evidence that is mainly from a degrading of forest cover and ocean health. Downplaying this ecological dimension to global heating due to a dogmatic allegiance to carbon-only explanations and targets, has become as bad a response as that from people who dismiss it all as a climate scam.”

How do you feel when you read these lines? Who would say such a thing? Could it be true? Please read on to explore why we can update our understanding of climate chaos and what to do about it…

Being curious despite our fear  

If you have been noticing the temperatures around the world over the last 2 years, then you will have felt some degree of shock and trepidation. Both on land and in the oceans, the thermometers have been going up faster than we were told to expect – and faster than the top scientists have been able to explain. We’re talking about present day measurements – so the facts of observation – not the latest theories about what might, or might not, occur. Living in a world that’s reached 1.5C degrees above pre-industrial averages, years before past predictions of worst case scenarios, is both scary and a challenge to the claimed expertise of mainstream climatology. Or so it should be. That does not need to be something to be feared and avoided. Instead, science is, by definition and methodology, an ongoing dialogue with nature, which requires an openness to unanticipated or anomalous data, which might lead to the ditching of old ideas, the testing of new hypotheses and even the transition into new paradigms. Unfortunately, that is not how all climate science is being practiced and communicated today. Instead, it has become a field plagued by dogma and tribalism, which results from multiple commercial and institutional interests. 

Continue reading “The Dangers of Climate Dogma – and what we can do about it” →

Let’s Turn the Tide on Surveillance – starting with radio biometrics

jembendell3 Comments

Do you ever feel a quietly gnawing discomfort at the direction technology is taking us? Not just a concern about screen addiction or misinformation, but a deeper unease: that a world is being built in which our presence, thoughts, and behaviours are constantly detected, catalogued and analysed, often without us even knowing? Perhaps it’s the sense that the tools of surveillance, often accepted for personal convenience or public security, are being normalized in all aspects of our lives. Perhaps it feels like a tide: as if an inevitable force of nature, rather than a set of human choices. 

I have known that feeling of uneasy resignation for some years. But recently I came across a new study which snapped me out of that torpor. Suddenly I wanted to be clearer on what I think is unacceptable, what should be resisted, and to identify some small steps to take. Consequently, I realise this issue of technosurveillance should be firmly on the political agendas of any serious political party or individual politician. So I want to share with you some ideas on that and why it matters within my particular niche of the environment, metacrisis, and societal collapse. 

Continue reading “Let’s Turn the Tide on Surveillance – starting with radio biometrics” →

On Sociocracy: if we won’t escape patriarchy with new rules on meetings, then how?

jembendell

I once quit a Men’s Group because the rules about the way we would engage each other seemed to become a shield rather than an enabler of connection and support. The group had been really important in my life for two years. Meeting every Monday, we used some process tools from the Mankind Project (MKP), but were not strict about the format, letting each week’s volunteer facilitator to guide us. We benefitted from many of the participants being skilled in facilitating specific processes that we might want to use to become unstuck with an issue in our lives. But over time, the MKP ideas and processes began to structure all meetings. Once that occurred, I noticed a couple of men participated in a different way. Previously we had been gathering as trusting friends wanting to both help each other and benefit from each other. The processes for our meetings were secondary to that. But now, some men were not expressing a brotherly sensitivity, but rather a desire to know the processes, do them correctly, and that we should all be committed to that. One man said he wasn’t with us to be friends but to do ‘the work’. At that time, I pondered whether to express a ‘withhold’, as they call it in the MKP, and probably dominate the rest of that meeting with exploring and releasing my feelings about his approach. Instead, I guessed that the group had shifted and people wanted more of the processes. I now wonder if that was a mistake. Both myself and the co-founder of the group quit soon after.

Continue reading “On Sociocracy: if we won’t escape patriarchy with new rules on meetings, then how?” →

Subcultures of collapse – will there be a convergence?

jembendell

A couple of years ago, Richard Hames interviewed me for Novara Media on the topic of whether we might see a solidarity-based politics of collapse. That’s what I encouraged in Breaking Together, by presenting my particular philosophy for these times. Richard is unusual amongst journalists on the left of politics for taking societal collapse risk and readiness seriously. He writes a blog on a topic he calls ‘critical collapsology’. His latest piece explores seven subcultures on collapse and suggests there could be a convergence over time. That hypothesis raises some interesting questions, and so I’m sharing about it here, in advance of a webinar in a couple of months (part of a new ‘Metacrisis Meetings’ initiative).

Continue reading “Subcultures of collapse – will there be a convergence?” →

Some reasonable essays on collapse

jembendell

In my annual personal update (not the Deep Adaptation Review), I included a summary of the essays I wrote in 2024. I thought it useful also to post these to my blog. I group the essays by topics of: integrating collapse awareness into your working life, the broad trends in Deep Adaptation, the political implications of collapse awareness, making sense of the latest climate data and science, plus personal reflections on motivations in this age of consequences. Next year I will be writing less, as I focus more on the organic farm school (please help!) and music (new single: Aspirations). I hope that both my book and these essays will support your own life choices. For more support, consider joining our online short course. Thx, Jem

Integrating collapse awareness into your working life

The essay “Keeping your job at the end of the world (as we know it)“ addresses the conundrum facing many people who are questioning everything due to collapse anticipation, but can’t quit their job, for financial or other reasons. Written to coincide with a speech at Griffith Business School, where he was an Adjunct Professor, Jem Bendell discusses ideas rarely, if ever, heard in professional contexts. That is because he not only mentions people who have chosen to “keep serving (reveal and recommit in post)” or “repurpose your job (refocus in post)” but also those who de-prioritise their employer’s interests. This includes “quit quietly (retire in post)” and even to “sabotage non-violently (rebel in post).”

Continue reading “Some reasonable essays on collapse” →

Goodbye Academia

jembendell3 Comments

A year ago I took (very) early retirement from academia, and was given the title Emeritus Professor upon leaving. Looking back, I am grateful for the academic freedom I enjoyed at the University of Cumbria. Although there were exacting demands for generating income through MA and MBA courses, the University had a tradition of critical inquiry, interdisciplinarity and experiential learning. Without that freedom I could not have developed my understanding in a range of fields to be able to write the book Breaking Together – and to teach leadership the way I do today. I had always been a polymath and read philosophy about ways of knowing. I was fascinated by the pros and cons of the ways that different academic disciplines constructed their focus, forms of evidence and criteria for conclusions. Therefore, I developed a form of ‘critical interdisciplinary research analysis’, where one interrogates research from different disciplines with a prime focus on real world salience and an awareness of there being limiting assumptions within any field of inquiry. Unfortunately, academia militates against this approach by incentivising career researchers to specialise. Meanwhile, many non-scientists defer to the claims from institutionalised specialists and their peak bodies. That is an understandable reaction, although pretty lazy when coming from scholars and public commentators on our environmental predicament. As the reality with climate change appears to be far worse than what was predicted, some of that deference will reduce, along with the hostility towards better analyses. If you are interested in this matter, please see (or listen to) Chapter 7 of Breaking Together. 

Continue reading “Goodbye Academia” →

The Nine Lies of the Fake Green Fairytale

jembendell7 Comments

Essay shared to coincide with my speech at the 2024 Festival of Dangerous Ideas.

Self-deception is rife within the environmental profession and movement. Some denial or disavowal is not surprising, due to how upsetting it is to focus on an unfolding tragedy. But our vulnerability to self-deception has been hijacked by the self interests of the rich and powerful, to spin a ‘fake green fairytale’. Their story distracts us from the truth of the damage done, that to come, and what our options might be. Indeed, their fairytale prevents us from rebelling to try to make this a fairer disaster, or a more gentle and just collapse of the societies we live in. Averting wider rebellion might be why the fairytale receives loads of funding for books, awards, feature articles and documentaries, as well as videos for popular YouTube channels. That’s why, like me, you might not have realised for years that it is a fairytale. In this essay I will explain the nine lies that comprise this ‘fake green fairytale’ before explaining how much damage is being done to both people and planet from the dominance of this story within contemporary environmentalism.

Continue reading “The Nine Lies of the Fake Green Fairytale” →

No More Warnings Needed – an intransigent managerial class must be sidestepped

jembendell1 Comment

Six hundred and seventy-four scholars from 53 countries, believe that “Only if policymakers begin to discuss this threat of societal collapse might communities and nations begin to prepare and so reduce its likelihood, speed, severity, harm to the most vulnerable, and to nature.” Each signatory, with doctoral degree, endorsed a public warning on societal disruption and collapse due to environmental change. They cover more than 20 major academic disciplines, including ecology and climatology, thereby conclusively demonstrating that preparations for societal collapse are being taken seriously by experts from around the world. The announcement of the final list of signatories concludes a 3-year initiative to promote awareness of the scientific basis for exploring how to reduce the damage from societal disruption, breakdown, and collapse, due to environmental change.

Continue reading “No More Warnings Needed – an intransigent managerial class must be sidestepped” →