Reality clashed with the BBC version of false consensus in a remarkable edition of HardTalklast month. Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, was starkly honest about humanity’s extreme predicament in the face of climate breakdown and refused to buckle under host Stephen Sackur’s incredulous questioning. Sackur’s inability to grasp that we are already in a climate emergency, and that massive changes are necessary now to avoid societal collapse, was clear for all to see. His line of questioning attempted to present Hallam to the BBC audience as a dangerous revolutionary, trying to destroy capitalism for twisted ideological reasons.
Sackur: 'You want to bring down the capitalist system as we know it, is that correct?
Hallam: ‘The capitalist system is going to be brought down by itself. The capitalist system is eating itself.’
Sackur: ‘Well, no, the point about your…’
Hallam (interrupting): ‘Let me make this point clear, right. The capitalist system – the global system that we’re in – is in the process of destroying itself, and it will destroy itself in the next ten years. The reason for that is because it’s destroying the climate. The climate is what’s necessary to grow food. If you can’t grow food, there will be starvation and social collapse. Now, the problem is, people in elites, people in the BBC, and people in the governmental sector, cannot get their heads round what’s actually happening. The fact of the matter is, if you go out and talk to ordinary people in the street, they’re aware of this. And that’s why hundreds of thousands of people around the world are starting to take action…’
Sackur (interrupting): ‘I understand what you’re [saying], your perspective on the climate is that the emergency is here, it’s now and we have to respond.’
Hallam (interrupting): ‘No, I don’t think you have [understood].’
‘It’s Appropriate To Be Scared’
We therefore need to take heart from the growing public awareness and determination to act in the face of the climate crisis. A recent poll showed that, in seven out of the eight countries surveyed, the climate emergency is seen as ‘the most important issue’ facing the world, ahead of migration, terrorism and the global economy.
At least three-quarters of the public agree that the world is facing a ‘climate emergency’, with climate breakdown at risk of becoming ‘extremely dangerous’. In the UK, 64 per cent agreed with the statement ‘time is running out to save the planet’ and a mere 23 per cent in the country think that the government is taking sufficient action.
Time is indeed running out, just as the scale of the crisis becomes ever clearer. …
On the bright side we have but one life and die but once.
Political leaders remain largely beholden to powerful financial, economic and corporate forces that have yet to acknowledge the gravity of the climate crisis; and - in the case of the huge fossil fuel industries, in particular – are actually driving us ever closer towards oblivion. Only massive mobilisation of the public can turn things around. We are literally fighting for human survival
Mike – very few thrive in high co2. Also forgot about the less rainfall, warmer soil nutrient depletion and it’s salinification
You’re absolutely correct. CO2 saturation is dangerous to all life.
Natural out-gassing of CO2
The second way CO2 can be dangerous is a sudden out-gassing of CO2 from the ground.
Out-gassing is defined particularly when in reference to indoor air quality, or the release of a gas that was dissolved, trapped, frozen or absorbed in some material.
Under the right conditions, mines, volcanoes, or fissures in the earth’s surface can suddenly leak tremendous quantities of CO2. The heavier-than-air carbon dioxide settles into low areas and becomes a death trap for any living organisms inside it.
For example, in 1986 Lake Nyos in Cameroon emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby towns and villages.
Consider that in the past 200 years we have reintroduced billions of years of sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere. In global terms that is a very rapid re-introduction of an essential but also dangerous chemical into the ecosystem.
Political leaders remain largely beholden to powerful financial, economic and corporate forces that have yet to acknowledge the gravity of the climate crisis; and – in the case of the huge fossil fuel industries, in particular – are actually driving us ever closer towards oblivion. Only massive mobilisation of the public can turn things around. We are literally fighting for human survival.
All of his intelligent posts are cut-and-pasted from internet articles. He just never gives any credit or citations.
When it comes to climate change, there are so many variables to consider no one knows for sure what will happen. I honestly don’t know what the truth is or what the future holds if we continue to burn fossil fuels.
What I do know is that it’s crazy irresponsible to not do anything. It’s like if you’re driving in the dark and there might be a cliff ahead of you, you don’t accelerate hoping there isn’t, you slow down and drive extra carefully.
It would be far better to have our descendants look back at us and say we didn’t have to do all we did, rather than have them look back and curse us, or worse yet, have no one look back because there’s no one left.
I don't understand where that comes from. It's simple physics, there are plenty of uncertainties but they are dwarfed by the certainties we clearly understand.
No one can know precisely how this will play out - but the outlines are sure as that brick wall one can’t run through. NO matter how well higher thinkers can debate the immaterial nature of matter.
We can be sure it’s going to get a hell of a lot hotter;
We can be sure sea levels are going to rise dramatically, increasingly and then totally erasing current coastlines, it has started out slowly, but is steadily increasing its tempo;
We can be sure that the planet’s hydrological cycle will energize beyond anything modern humanity has experienced;
We can be sure continental glaciers will disappear, causing radical cascading impacts on regional water supplies and hydrological cycle as deserts grow.
We can be sure desertification will increase in some areas, and other will become steamy tropical, some regions will get so warm that humans won’t be able to exist within - because the wet-bulb threshold was reached and humans will not be able to sweat and cool themselves and instead die;
We can be sure our ocean’s alkalinity will continue dropping, which will radically damage creatures and plants (read, food web) that evolved within a different pH regime;
Rule #3, Section C states, " Members should not copy entire articles under copyright to the forum, but instead quote a few sentences and provide a link."
You should always cite the sources or the words and ideas you copy and paste onto your posts. The least problem is that it’s very misleading, and at worst, it’s plagiarism.
“I don’t understand where that comes from. It’s simple physics, there are plenty of uncertainties but they are dwarfed by the certainties we clearly understand.”
I live in red-neck central where no one believes in climate change. Practically none of my friends believes it is real and I hear nothing but reports of how it’s all a conspiracy to bring in more taxes. I try to break out of the right-wing bubble that I’m living in and read/watch reports on climate change by more reputable sources, so my brain gets information from both ends of the spectrum.
The science is not bogus or false, but I can’t say for sure that all of the projections are realistic. You say the physics is simple- it’s not, it’s complex. But it is almost always indicating we’re on the road to a terrible future unless we change our ways. So the only moral and rational course of action is to act as though the worst will happen. Any other response is immoral and monumentally stupid.
I beg you to not misunderstand my admission that I’m confused, by thinking I don’t care or don’t think it’s real. I absolutely believe it’s real and that we need to do something about it. My only question is how severe is it and what’s the time-frame for it to take place.
1. Player didn’t copy and paste the entire article.
2. I don’t think it is harassment, Player, but calling someone “dopey” is against the rules.
“3(b) Members who regularly engage in abusive, nasty or disruptive behavior; or who display a pattern of hostile, antagonistic and uncooperative behavior with Moderators and/or membership.”
I don’t like the idea of banning people, but as a mod, I’m getting really tired of this name calling and accusations. IMHO, I think it’s time to stop warning people, because some have had more than three warnings already and start banning. However, before I start laying down the law hard, I will get with the new mod and not make the decision solely on my own.
Although at this point, I could take all the responsibility for banning people, even if it maybe out of exhaustion from being the only active mod for a time. I know I’ve given at least one person a warning before Doug left, if not two warnings.
Player - Mike – very few thrive in high co2. Also forgot about the less rainfall, warmer soil nutrient depletion and it’s salinification.
Warmer oceans means more evaporation. Which means more rain. Player the best take on this is an article Scientific American. It says more food, but that food may have less critical nutrients. Basely we will need to develop higher CO2 strains that will increase the concentration of critical nutrients. Basely the same thing we are doing right now with our crops, developing the strains that work the best for the different growing areas.
Do you really think that will be a problem as we are now going into the cooling cycle that takes us into the next Ice Age. 10K years to the coldest part of the Ice Age and 90K years to back up to warmest part of the cycle where we are today. Remember, earth’s weather is Ice Age weather. We are just in the warmest part of that Ice Age weather. In the Ice Age there is very little area to grow in. Civilizations have not done well in the cold cycles that have hit civilizations in our past history.
What we need politically is a National Debate. The Republicans want a debate. So do the deniers. Guess who does not want a national debate? The 2020 elections will bring Climate Change back into the center of the news radar screen.
@Player Please read that again. I said you didn’t, as in did not and that was in response to someone who accused you of doing so.
Also Player, you can’t report my post, because I am one of two people who get the report. So all you are doing is telling a mod you didn’t like their post, which happened to scold people, specifically you.
