 about deep adaptation. I will start the recording now. And I will also, one moment, I will record this to the cloud now. Jim, you can also record it on your own computer now. Welcome to all of you at the session about deep adaptation. I hope you will have an inspiring session. My name is Ina Hardlings, Professor in Social Spatial Planning at the University of Groningen, and I will be sharing the session. Before I will introduce you to our speaker, let me first provide you with some practical guidelines. This session will be recorded, as you can see, and participants who want to stay anonymous can switch off the camera, but we can't see you anyway. You can write questions in the chat during or after the presentation. After the presentation of maximum half an hour, we will have around 50 minutes for questions. So we might not be able to answer all your questions. I will collect and, well, possible also combine some questions and ask if possible one of the participants to clarify by unmuting their mic. This session is open for everyone. Let me emphasize this. But we target it specifically towards students and young people. So they are invited to ask questions particularly. So let me introduce you to our speaker of today, Jim Bendell. I'm honored and very pleased that Professor Jim Bendell accepted our invitation to be with us today, all the way from Bali in Indonesia. For those who don't know him yet, Jim Bendell is a strategist and educator on social and organizational change and now focused on deep adaptation. He's also a professor on sustainability leadership at the University of Kambriar in the UK. In 2018, he wrote a paper on deep adaptation, which went viral and inspired people around the world. Jim Bendell is also the founder and former coordinator of the Deep Adaptation Forum, which has its mission to support loving responses to the climate crisis. And this is quite a different message as you will see than the general argument during this adaptation week. Jim, the floor is yours. Thank you. Yeah, thank you very much, Professor Ina Hollings. Yeah, I'm going to be talking about adaptation to climate change from what might be considered now in early 2021 as a more radical perspective. And as you say, yeah, I'm going to address the undergraduate students who are joining the session for whom it's been organized. Now, because it's an adaptation conference, I'm not going to use our time to talk about the climate science that much or indeed the wider scholarship on collapse risks and processes. So if you're already knowledgeable about that, then I still recommend you consider having a look at an output from a group of scientists working in support of Extinction Rebellion. They produced a paper called Emergency on Planet Earth. So that's free online. You could just search for it. And with the phrase Extinction Rebellion, you'll find it. But climate science is only one knowledge base for understanding the risk of disruption or even collapse for our society. So I also recommend if you want to look more at that, there's a book called How Everything Can Collapse by Pablo Savinio and Rafael Stevens, who are scholars who focus on that. But for our half an hour today, I'm going to emphasize I think four issues about all that, which I think are really important context for a more meaningful discussion about adaptation. And first is the pace at which humanity, we as a whole are speeding in the wrong direction despite decades of warnings, efforts, initiatives, and campaigning. So according to one journalist, David Wallace Wells, humanity has emitted a quarter of all carbon that we've ever produced in just the last 12 years. So basically, since Joe Biden was inaugurated vice president, and now he's been inaugurated president. So in that time, a quarter of all carbon emissions from humanity. That is an indicator of how things are speeding up in the wrong way. And second, the anticipation of greater disruption and even collapse in our societies is now actually widespread amongst scientists and scholars worldwide. I was just one of 568 scholars who signed a global scholars warning on societal disruption and collapse. So sadly, this outlook is not coming from a few outlier scholars, but includes UN rapporteurs, former environment ministers, and even contributing authors to IPCC reports. So people may disagree about the topic, and so we should. But dismissing it because it's scary or difficult to engage with, I don't think it's an intelligent thing to do. And I don't think it's the responsible thing to do for people like yourselves who are going to live far longer into this unstable future. The third thing I want to say is that this is all actually happening right now too. Millions of people are suffering not just from an anticipation of future calamity and the stress that brings, but also from a lived experience today. One statistic which really stood out for me came from the International Red Cross when they said that two million more people each week need humanitarian aid due to problems made worse by climate change. And the fourth key bit of context I want to mention for why I'm suggesting we engage with adaptation in the way I'm going to say is to do with COVID-19. COVID-19 and the policy responses to it are obviously massively disrupted to our lives. So as we consider adaptation to climate change, I think COVID is actually the elephant in the zoom, by which I mean it's partly a climate impact. And we haven't heard much about the rise of coronavirus transmission within animal populations and to humans and how it's influenced in part by climate change. And you don't need to take my word for it. I'll read you a quote from a UN report on this matter from July 2020. Epidemic zoonoses are often triggered by events such as climate variability, flooding, and other extreme weather. So COVID-19 is one of those zoonotic viruses. So introducing the report, the Executive Director of UN Environment Program, Inga Anderson said, key anthropogenic drivers for the emergence of zoonoses range from agricultural intensification and increased demand for animal protein to the conversion of land and climate change. So you'll probably notice the rather complicated language there. And unfortunately, I think the environmental sector and movement and the global health sector have so far failed to cut through with this crucial analysis. Because once understood, it means we might begin to see all manner of disruptions to our own lives as indirect outcomes of the environmental and climate destabilization that's already occurring. If you're worried about job prospects or experiencing social anxiety because of lockdowns and the risk of infection, if you're annoyed at the increasing polarisation between people who just seem to want to do what they're told or other people who want to believe conspiracy theories, or maybe you're just missing grandmother, you know, once you make the connections then all of that can be understood as our everyday experience of the disruptions from climate change because we're not separate from the planet that makes us. Now, some people argue that people like me should not be talking like this, especially to young adults like you. They want me and others to stick to hopeful messaging. So I am hopeful, as otherwise I wouldn't be talking with you, but the nature of my hope is quite different. It's different to a hope in preserving a way of life that's trashed the biosphere, made hundreds of thousands of species go extinct and oppressed and exploited peoples around the world. Life is beautiful and creative, but despite our rather distracting and somewhat repressed culture, life is also fragile, painful and full of loss. Life is not ours to control. Now, if we feel troubled by the situation that we're in, deeply troubled, even in ways which we feel in our bodies, then that means we're paying attention and we care. So I'm pleased there's a session on emotions and psychological support following this session together and I asked for that because I think it's important to express how we feel as much as what we think about this or what we choose to advocate or work on. And I think it's really important to talk about this difficult stuff as fellow members in civil society because people in the corridors of power have been talking about it for some time now. Although the mainstream narrative in environmentalism is still, yes, we can fix this. There are military planners anticipating collapse. There's billionaires building bunkers and there's our intellectuals now even arguing that universal human rights are ideological luxuries which must be ditched in order to save ourselves in the face of climate chaos. Now, I believe each of these responses is completely wrong and in fact quite insane. Imagine if lots of militaries decide to invade countries to try and secure resources in the face of climate chaos. Imagine if more families decide to get armed and stock loads of food in a sort of a defensive way. Imagine if our political leaders tell us to stop caring for people who live in countries other than ours because we just have to. Individualist, nativist and defensive approaches to our increasing precarity will not work. They will make things worse leading to conflict. So I think instead we should start talking about this very difficult situation now. So more of us have a chance to promote and walk a different path with internationalism, humanism, solidarity, forgiveness and cooperation at the heart of it, to explore with less panic or anger ways of reducing harm and softening the landing for more people. Now, there's some talk of this approach to adaptation. There's some talk of this within the mainstream climate adaptation community but really on the fringes because currently climate adaptation discussion research and policy is dominated by seeing adapting to disturbances as a technical challenge. You know, more irrigation systems, more flood defences, more organizational readiness to extreme heat, better emergency evacuation plans and so on. And that's all fine. But the problem with limiting adaptation to that is threefold. First, it potentially locks in lifestyles that require high energy and resource inputs. Second, it doesn't seek to respond to the wider destabilization that's coming to us in terms of food supply, economics, politics and even mental health. And third, it doesn't embrace the possibility that our predicament actually offers us a huge lesson about the hubris and insanity of our dominant culture that's brought us to this point because what kind of system brings us to a point of such calamity? So with climate adaptation, I'm hopeful we can start to look at how not to repeat the mistakes that brought us here in the first place. So that means we need to pay attention to adaptation's policies being fair and just and respect human rights. I think our adaptation needs to involve us letting go of more of our aspirations or assumptions about a consumer lifestyle. I believe along with increasing numbers of scholars, including many indigenous scholars and activists, that the response to climate change has got to involve a break from the current ideology, including the ideology of progress. We can no longer do things only because we think they're going to fix the problem and help society progress. Instead, we can do things because of our compassion, our curiosity and because they feel the right thing to do. I was talking about this the other day with a Buddhist friend of mine and he told me a story about a man walking along a beach and seeing a little boy in the distance throwing something gently into the surf. He got closer and he said, what are you doing? And the boy said, I'm throwing these starfish back into the sea because the tide's going out and so they'll die. And then the man looks at the beach and it's miles long. And he says, but look, there's miles of beach and hundreds, maybe thousands of starfish. So what you're doing won't make a difference. And the boy says, picking up one, yes, but it will make a difference to this one and then throws it into the ocean. And I think we need to understand that our predicament with climate change, first and foremost, invites us to actually talk like this. We need a heartfelt approach to adaptation. And if that resonates with you, then I recommend some of my writings on on deep adaptation to climate chaos, which, you know, everything I've done is just free online. Most of it's on my website, jembendall.com. But I think this kind of adaptation is going to require activism to make it scale quickly. Because research on adaptation shows that we're not very good at doing any of it right now. A study on universities found that, yeah, our sector is not systematically addressing the risks to our operations, our staff and communities. And in the UK, the government's own expert group on climate change said the UK government's response to adaptation was as similar to a, well, they compared it to a comedy show called Dad's Army. And I think we're bad at these things because they're slow crises. And it's not that we don't know that it's a problem. I mean, a good example is the pandemic. 15 years ago, the World Economic Forum produced a report on global risks and within the top four was a pandemic. And I think arguably we could say that government preparedness and plans for the pandemic have been quite haphazard. So it's suggesting that we haven't been very well organized. So how can we make significant fair and just adaptation more of a priority? Yes, I think activism is needed. Extinction Rebellion and the climate use activism have helped raise awareness of climate change over the past two years, but they've not focused on adaptation. And I think if they do, it does pose a challenge because some movement spokespersons prefer to offer a message of, yes, we can fix this rather than let's try and make it less bad. But I think anyone who's actually involved in radical climate activism with the new generation of climate activists over the last few years, they're changing their lives and taking personal risks as activists because they've got a heightened sense of their own mortality and that of their loved ones. And they feel they've got nothing left to lose. So really, I think this should be a revolutionary moment. And the issue is what kind of revolution do we want to be part of? Can it be peaceful and wise rather than just reactionary, angry and fear-based? And I think it's a shame that though that many incumbent influencers, groups and individuals in the environmental field, to me sound very much like reformists or even apologists for the current order. I see many people with senior roles or media profile arguing about what's the most appropriate thing to say about science and implications for society. But as young adults, you've got half a century to live, at least. And so I don't think you want to be hearing from scientists who have in the back of their mind pleasing a funder, an employer or not upsetting colleagues or whose normal way of thinking is sort of based on that kind of culture. I think you want to hear conclusions of people who don't have such concerns. And of course, that's quite difficult to hear and difficult to find. I keep saying to people it's a very risky bet to make that we'll definitely overcome all the inertia and difficulties to quickly transform everything in all our lives worldwide and for that to definitely prevent catastrophic change in our societies over the coming decades. However, so many of my colleagues in academia and the environmental sector feel perhaps that the risky bet, that risky bet is actually the safest bet to maintain their sense of identity, safety, status, respectability, career and audience with elites. So I think we're going to be bombarded with messages to stay calm, positive, hopeful, even perhaps to blame red herrings for our increasing difficulties and not have the kind of conversations that me and other scholars are now inviting. And then when it gets too late to maintain that sort of denial, then I think we'll just be told that we just have to accept emergency measures or will be considered responsible. But those will be measures that have been discussed and decided beyond the reach of civil society debate unless we demand more public discussion of appropriate preparations for disruption and even collapse. I think there's a better way for humanity and my experience over the last two and a half years working with people about what we call deep adaptation has really encouraged me. You know, people when they face this difficulty, when they allow it to transform them, I don't find people come out as sort of no hopers or just wanting to have parties or I meet people who want to live in truth and love for the rest of their lives, no matter what. So what I want to say is that I think your own decision of what path you want to take in a destabilized world can't be avoided. You might delay it for now. And if you do, you might have an easier life in the short term. But the pain of facing the disruption and the confusion will then just be postponed. So I think the sooner you allow yourself to ask deep questions, if you haven't already, the more time you're going to have to work out what is a meaningful life and walk that path. And then the deepest questions about life, the meaning of life. But I think the climate crisis itself also poses us questions collectively as society. You know, what have we been lying about the most that's enabled humanity to destroy the very basis for life? And why have we been so good at lying to ourselves and each other to destroy the basis for life? I think we've been lying about the nature of wealth, safety and success. We've been lying about our separateness from each other in all life. We've been lying about our inner worlds and how we don't allow certain emotions to be noticed and expressed with curiosity and dialogue. Emotions associated with our insecurities and how that drives us to compete, gain status and economic security. I think we've been good at lying about these things. I think I have been over my career until the last few years from fear of not fitting in, not being accepted or respected, not being safe, not being loved, not being certain and not feeling part of a collective that believes its own story of being in control. And all these things are connected to a culture that some call modernity. And I think it's a culture that is now being challenged by the disastrous situation that climate has brought us to and which is why this topic is so triggering to so many people who don't want to go there. But for me it means it's actually an exciting time. It could be a time of cultural transformation and leaving behind past fetters on human experience. So practically I want to suggest that you, if you're not already up to date with the topic, do so and then consider joining an activist group, political party or even a civil society organization to explore how to take action on adaptation or even just to do more of what you think is right. Because adaptation is not big amongst green environmental NGOs, it's not big in climate activism, it's not big in politics. But when the ecological shit hits the societal fan, I still don't think, unless we make it so, it's the environment is going to be part of the conversation just in the same way COVID and climate is not being connected. So maybe it doesn't really matter. Maybe what really matters is that we embody and promote better ways of living together despite any kind of disturbance or perturbation to our way of life, to help families, communities, countries to respond in more kind-wise and accountable and creative ways. So I've been living in a world for the last couple of years where I no longer anticipate material progress or I don't believe the story that something I do is necessarily going to achieve anything in the long term, but my positivity still exists. It's that the old lies are becoming less powerful, that there's an opportunity for awakening, that the old lies have been the binders, that the bounders are loosening and old truths, the binders are becoming more noticeable. Those old truths that we're mortal beings, we will want to love, we will want to create, we're curious about life, we have a desire to do the right thing by ourselves and each other, and for some of us we want to align our reality and our intention and action with a greater being. Now that reality doesn't mean that new lies won't grow as people get scared and so I think it's, yeah, there's work to be done to prioritize dialogue about reality and what to do no matter how emotionally challenging. So thank you for listening and I will hand back to Ena Hollings, Professor Hollings, to tell me about your question.