Go Fekk Yourself: The Air Conditioning “Debate”
Article by Roger Hallam republished from Roger Hallam. I have made a slight change in spelling to the title. View the original.
The real question isn’t whether everyone should have air conditioning. It’s why we’re still accepting the choices offered by those overseeing ecological collapse.
I sent this piece to the New Statesman. They turned it down within 2 hours. This is itself a central part of the story here — how the left’s thinks about “climate” is effectively the same as the way the Victorians thought about “sex”. Everyone knows something enormous and defining is going on. But nobody in polite company will say what it actually is, or what needs to happen.
So what is actually going on, and what does the actual situation demand of us?
Participating in the “public debate” about whether everyone should have AC has the same logic as the Jewish councils negotiating with the Nazis over the Holocaust in World War Two. The framing is this: do you want to die this way or do you want to die that way? You choose. Do you want people to die by not having AC because it will get so hot they will die in their apartments, or do you want everyone to get AC, which will massively increase emissions so even more people will die through starvation and wars as food production collapses? For the record, put the question “what does 7 days of 40C heat in temperate climate countries — that is, Europe — do to food supplies” into an AI chatbot and you get the answer: a 20 to 50% reduction in food outputs for that year. And that is just the beginning. It goes on and on.
The Jewish Councils were given the obscene proposition that they should cooperate with the Nazi authorities to send just a few people to the death camps in order to save everyone else. Except, of course, their tormentors were lying. Like today’s corporate elites on AC, the Nazis just wanted to reduce their “costs”. Duping the leaders of Jewish communities was a way to do this. And yes, as we now know, the plan was always to progressively exterminate the whole of the Jewish population. In the famous example of the Warsaw ghetto, it took the decline of population from over 300,000 to 60,000 for the penny to drop about what was actually going on — and for the remaining population to revolt: to die on their feet rather than like sheep.
The Jewish political philosopher Hannah Arendt pointed out the indisputable fact that the Jewish Councils’ cooperation with their murderers significantly aided the ability of the Nazis to enact the mass murder of six million people. She was heavily criticised for merely stating what is, of course, obvious. But, as she tried to make clear, she was not making a moral judgement on their actions — she was simply pointing out what happens when you cooperate with such intensity of evil. In a sense, we could say “they did not know.” This level of deliberate genocide had never been enacted before in Europe.
But this is the key point: we do know. After the Second World War, the core moral slogan of Western democracies became “never again” — meaning never again for anyone. We now know what humans are capable of. We cannot pretend. We know the Nazi Holocaust happened. And we know how it happened: by the systematic dehumanisation of the other. Core to this strategy is the framing of “do this and fewer people will die” — the disgusting cesspit of instrumental calculation.
Which brings us to the disgusting cesspit of the mainstream media at the present moment: the framing of the AC debate. The elites, who have no intention of stopping their mass death project of blocking emergency reduction in emissions, use the ever-gullible liberal media class to create “debates” which, by design, take the real question off the agenda. That question being: how do we live a life of integrity when murderers are in the process of murdering all of humanity? The answer to this — the real question — is of course simple: we revolt. And critically, we revolt with no instrumentalist calculation. We revolt because our very humanity demands it. So if we are to die, we die on our feet, not like sheep.
And then the divine paradox comes into play — virtue shows itself to be more effective in getting results than any vile instrumentalism which accepts the options presented to us by those in power.
Let me give you a small example of how this works — of what happens when we choose to live in truth. Last week I was called up by Good Morning Britain to participate in this “Jewish Council” style discussion on whether or not everyone should have AC. I said that if I participated, I would say that 2C is now locked in and unless we overcome capitalism, we will starve to death. They decided not to have me on. I put what I had said on social media and got over 2 million views, landing me on the front page of Reddit.
My action was a tiny echo of the action of one of the Jewish leaders who broke ranks in the Warsaw ghetto. He was taken to a meeting with Nazi officials and told to cooperate in murder to supposedly stop more murders from happening. He told the Nazis, words to the effect: go fuck yourselves. He was shot on the spot.
Does anyone out there get it yet? You die on your feet, or you die like sheep. In the face of radical evil, those are the only choices. And being asked to participate in the murder of our children — billions of them — is the most obscene, most radical evil in human history.
Isn’t it?
Article by Roger Hallam republished from Roger Hallam. I have made a slightly change in spelling to the title. I agree that it is totally ridiculous to both accept the choices offered by the ultra-genocidalists and to actively participate in our own mass deaths instead of rebelling. I tried What does 7 days of 40C heat in Europe do to food supplies?
We are all going to die, you f*cking idiots
https://rogerhallam.com/our-grandchildren-will-starve
Good News: Our Grandchildren Will Starve, Not Our Children
The most extreme climate scenarios are off, according to scientists in the conservative IPCC. However, the Godfather of Climate Science says otherwise.
Good news from The Times: our grandchildren will starve to death rather than our children. The new worst case is just 3.5C. Phew.
Firstly, let’s remember what a 3.5C world actually means.
- Mass food system collapse, particularly in the Global South.
- Vast areas of Africa, South and West Asia will become uninhabitable within the lifetimes of people already born. Translation: billions will die from impending poverty and disaster.
That is what this headline is supposedly reassuring us of.
Secondly, this report is not telling the truth about the science because it is based on outdated models. Even Trump jumped on it to advance his end-times fascist agenda.
To understand why both Trump and the Times are deeply wrong about where we are heading, let’s turn to the godfather of climate science, James Hansen, and look at one of his latest papers on climate sensitivity.
In May 2025, Hansen published a paper on Earth’s albedo (the reflectivity of solar radiation bounced back into space). Over the past 25 years of precise satellite data, Earth’s albedo has declined by 0.5%, leading to an increase of 1.7 watts per square metre of absorbed solar energy. Hansen describes this as a BFD (Big Fucking Deal), and he is right. That single number, in forcing terms, is equivalent to an additional 138 parts per million of CO2.
Clouds reflect sunlight back into space. Fewer clouds, or thinner clouds, means more solar energy reaches the surface and stays there. As the planet warms, evidence now shows that cloud cover is decreasing and, crucially, that this decrease is itself a response to warming. In other words, warming reduces clouds, which in turn cause more warming, which further reduces clouds. This is what climate scientists mean by a feedback loop, and this one is a fucking big one.
And a big cloud feedback means the planet is far more sensitive to CO2 than the IPCC’s standard figures suggest. The IPCC’s best estimate for climate sensitivity — the amount of warming you get from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 — is 3°C. Hansen’s three independent lines of evidence (of which the albedo data is one), all point to 4.5°C. The difference between 3°C and 4.5°C is the difference between devastation and extinction.
The corporate media has barely engaged with this work, and when it has, it has often cast doubt on its truth. At the end of the climate sensitivity paper, Hansen notes:
“Criticisms of the Acceleration paper in the media did not address the physics in our three assessments of climate sensitivity. Instead, criticisms were largely ad hoc opinions, even ad hominem attacks. How can science reporting have descended to this level? Climate science is now so complex, with many sub-disciplines, that the media must rely on opinions of climate experts. Although there are thousands of capable scientists in these disciplines, the media have come to depend on a handful of scientists, a clique of climate scientists who are willing, or even eager, to be the voice of the climate science community. But are they representative of the total community, of capable scientists who focus on climate science?”
The Problem of Fragmented Science
A key problem of scientific understanding is that it requires slicing reality into manageable chunks. Take “the doubling of CO2.” The slice aids understanding but paradoxically kills it too. Attending to the part deflects attention from the whole. Space. Time. The full arc of what’s coming.
So when Hansen and colleagues write that climate sensitivity for doubled CO2 is 4.5°C, and that sensitivity as low as 3°C is excluded with greater than 99 percent confidence — they stop there. Slice completed. No return to the whole. No wonder the media shrugs. So what.
Here’s the whole.
- Doubling CO2 means going from 280ppm to 560ppm. We’re at 420ppm now. At current trajectory — roughly 40ppm additional per decade — we hit 560ppm around 2055. That’s 4.5°C by roughly 2060. Not 2100. 2060. Hansen also shows Earth’s albedo has already darkened by 0.5%, an extra 1.7 W/m² of absorbed solar energy. The system is already running hotter than the models admit.
- Time doesn’t stop at 2060. At those temperatures, natural feedbacks (clouds, ice, permafrost) accelerate. There is no equilibrium, only continuation.
- Above 5°C, effective human extinction is locked in. We are on that path.
- Facts alone don’t move humans. Emotion does. We are human, after all. So the headline that would actually communicate the whole truth? “We are all going to die, you fucking idiots.”
In my recent paper with the 4 Billion Dead team, we examine what an All Systems Approach could look like to counter this fragmented thinking.
…
See the full original article at https://rogerhallam.com/our-grandchildren-will-starve
Labour keeps knocking. The planet keeps burning. Don’t open the door.
Roger Hallam comments on the Greens indecision on how to oppose Andy Burnham at the Makerfield by-election.
You may have noticed that I am supportive of the Green Party and Zack Polanski. Despite seriously considering joining the Green Party, I have not yet done it and I might actually be a liability. I have also seriously considered joining Your Party but can’t see that happening now unfortunately. I probably won’t ever join a political party and expect that some of you can understand why.
The question is to what extent should the Green Party oppose Andy Burnham in the Makerfield by-election. I agree with Roger Hallam that the Labour Party is finished and should be opposed without holding back. The concern is that Greens actions could facilitate a Reform win. I raise three points:
Firstly, it is the Labour Party insisting that Andy Burnham fights and wins an election to participate in a leadership challenge. It is Labour Party rules and the Labour Party NEC can change those rules if it was so minded.
Secondly, so what if Burnham loses to Reform? it has been clear for years that Starmer & Co’s preferred successor is Wes Streeting. There is no certainty that Andy Burnham will defeat Streeting in a leadership contest and there are suggestions of dirty tricks already. A Reform win is instead of a win for Reform in a red rosette. So what if Burnham doesn’t get to compete?
Third, Reform’s position is precarious as is Labour’s, things can change drastically during an election campaign and Farage is already on the missing list. A strong campaign by the Green’s would show that they’re taking the fight to Reform and Labour, that they’re serious about gaining power.
dizzy
So, Are We Just Going to Let Ourselves Die?
Original article by Roger Hallam republished from Roger Hallam. I don’t have permission to republish this article but expect that it will be ok & he’s in prison.
The elites are blind, the media asleep — but the fuse of revolution has been lit, and history is about to turn.
Shortly before I was imprisoned last year, I had the privilege of joining a Zoom call with a man living in the Central American rainforest. He had been the primary fundraiser for the Social Forum, which, as some readers will recall, was the first international organisation of this century to call for a new global social system: “Another world is possible.” He told me, “Roger, when you go to see funders, tell them two things: First, that the money is not theirs, and second, that it will be worth nothing in ten years.”
This week, I recorded a message for one of the most radical Western companies funding climate crisis activism. I spoke to them about these two realities. Five years ago, perhaps even a year ago, they would have politely—or not so politely—shown us the door. But not now. My colleague was told the presentation was “magical,” information about funding a new global movement was shared with over 100 staff members, and a personal letter from me will be delivered by hand to the company’s founder, whose funds run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
At the same time, Just Stop Oil announced it would no longer engage in civil resistance. The media response has been significant, but none of it has focused on what really matters. I was sent a series of questions by Justin Rowlatt, the BBC environment correspondent. I replied to him with three main points. First, it is the evolution of a deep culture of respect, service, and trust that took us from three people in a room with a few quid to a household name, with thousands of arrests and millions of pounds in financial support, all within a year. Equally significant has been the unprecedented battering we have received, resulting in hundreds of people being imprisoned, many on multi-year sentences, including nearly all the key organisers. Nothing like this has happened to an open, nonviolent organisation in this country since the Napoleonic Wars.
A day or two later, the police battered down the door of Westminster Friends Meeting House in a raid to arrest a group of young people planning a protest. How many centuries would you have to go back to find this kind of treatment of the Quakers? The point, however, is this: it is only in the face of such state violence that the fearless personality is forged, prepared for the enormous sacrifices needed to bring down regimes.
Then there is the third, least important point, that obviously JSO has not been able to stop the metamachine of universal death that is the British carbon regime. Justin, in true neoliberal style, focused only on the third point: our “failure” – the superficial, the short-term, the flat material plane. He and the media cannot see cultural and spiritual depth.
The key determinants of regime change are now coming into place — large-scale funding, service-based culture, and the spirit of fearless sacrifice. There is one more ingredient. Ignored by the media is the “climate news” of the past 12 months, which is a hundred times worse than what provoked the mass mobilisation of Extinction Rebellion back in 2018. Underlying temperatures have jumped 0.2°C in a single year. We are now over 1.6°C and will be hitting 2°C by 2030. The carbon sinks are collapsing, and the feedbacks are triggered. Buried in the Appendix of the recent British Insurance Industry report is its prediction of 2 billion deaths at 2°C, and 4 billion at 3°C. That is half of the world’s population dead. This reality is about to explode upon us and trigger the fusion of the elements of revolutionary transformation.
Chris Hedges, the Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent for the New York Times during the 1990s, told me a while ago that the reason why the elites do not see revolutions coming is because they only speak to themselves. They are stuck in their silo. Like Justin Rowlett and the BBC, they can only see what they want to see. The world is falling away beyond our feet. Trump is doing his stuff. They have no alternative but to resort to appeasement. And like in the 1930s, their dream world is about to be swept away.
So are we just going to have ourselves die? The deepest paradox of the present historical moment is that only when we have the courage to answer yes to that question, and so allow ourselves to experience the agonising depths of despair, desolation, and self-contempt, can we come to see and feel reality as it actually is, and so play our part in the coming re-making of the world.
To find out about this new global movement (we’re recruiting!) go to rev21.earth.
Sign Up for Revolution in the 21st Century
Original article by Roger Hallam republished from Roger Hallam. I don’t have permission to republish this article but expect that it will be ok & he’s in prison.
