Deep Adaptation

Jem Bendell, the paper's author, in 2019

Bendell describes Deep Adaptation as an ethical or philosophical framework, rather than as a projection.[1] The paper describes the likelihood of near-term collapse, leading to the argument that envisioning what to do after the post-collapse future arrives requires more than just mitigation.[6] Supporting his argument that mitigation efforts cannot be the only strategy, Bendell argues that even an absolute end to carbon emissions, use of geoengineering, or large-scale infrastructure changes are now insufficient to avert systemic upheaval.[6][2] He describes a three-part strategy to allow 'deep adaptation' to climate change: "resilience" through infrastructure upgrades, "relinquishment" by giving up aspects of civilization that lead to additional climate risk, and "restoration," a return to older culture values and practices.[6] After the paper was released, he added a fourth part to the framework, "reconciliation" which "is all about living in peace."[4]

The paper's writing style is dissimilar to most academic works, including figurative language, dark humor, and the stark conclusion that "climate-induced societal collapse is now inevitable in the near term," in around a decade.[1][6]

Lead author of the 2019 UN global disaster risk assessment, Scott Williams, said "Bendell is closer to the mark than his critics,” as the UN report was “close to stating that ‘collapse is inevitable’."[2] Subsequent to the paper's release in July 2018, more climate scientists have warned of societal collapse. In June 2020, climate scientist Will Steffen explained that “collapse is the most likely outcome of the present trajectory” and former lead author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber said “there is a very big risk that we will just end our civilisation.”[10] Steffen told the BBC: "With global emissions continuing to rise, and no signs that the Paris targets will be respected, Jem Bendell has some justification in taking the strong position that it is already too late and we'd better prepare to deal with the collapse of the globalised economic system… I can't say for sure that Jem Bendell is right… but we certainly can't rule it out."[4]

One of the reviewers at the time, as well as climatologist Michael E. Mann and Gavin Schmidt, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, had criticisms of the paper's core scientific arguments. The reviewer and Mann suggested that the paper's conclusions do not follow climate science, with Mann describing the paper as "pseudo-scientific nonsense." Further, Professor Mann expresses concern that Bendell's "doomist framing" may "lead us down the same very path of inaction as outright climate change denial. Fossil fuel interests love this framing."[2] Gavin Schmidt argued that, though local collapse events might occur more frequently as climatic changes progress, the paper fails entirely to show why global collapse might occur. Myles Allen, professor of Geosystem Science at the University of Oxford, argues that, "So far, the system's responded to greenhouse gas emissions almost exactly as predicted. So to say it's about to change and become much worse is speculation."[2][4]

A further criticism of Deep Adaptation by Thomas Nicholas, Galen Hall and Colleen Schmidt entitled 'The faulty science, doomism, and flawed conclusions of Deep Adaptation' was published in July 2020 on openDemocracy, supported by several prominent climate academics, including Richard A. Betts and Julia Steinberger. It argues that Bendell's claim that runaway climate change has made societal collapse inevitable is not only wrong, but that it undermines the cause of the climate movement.[11] In a response in the same publication, biologist and creator of the term Collapsology, Pablo Servigne argued "We find the Deep Adaptation work to be credible, and the criticisms often misleading. Those criticisms do not invalidate the main message that collapse is a probability high enough to engage in mitigation, adaptation and Deep Adaptation as early as possible."[12]

Writing in the libertarian magazine Reason, Ronald Bailey argues "that as well-meaning as he may be, Bendell is engaging in 'apocalypse abuse.' Like earlier practitioners of that suspect craft, Bendell operates chiefly by extrapolating only the most horrendous trends, while systematically ignoring any ameliorating or optimistic ones, offering worst-case scenarios in the guise of balanced presentations."[13]

In an April 2020 interview with the BBC, Jeremy Lent argues that, "If he [Bendell] chooses to go with his gut instinct and conclude collapse is inevitable, he has every right to do so, but I believe it's irresponsible to package this as a scientifically valid conclusion, and thereby criticize those who interpret the data otherwise as being in denial."[4] Lent expanded on these points in an article for the left-wing political magazine CounterPunch in which said "Deep Adaptation threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophecy, increasing the risk of collapse by diluting efforts toward societal transformation."[14]

Some commentators in the environmental movement, such as Professor Rupert Read, have welcomed Bendell's analysis, suggesting that although the inevitability of societal collapse can be debated, its likelihood means the concept of Deep Adaptation is important to engage with.[15] Naresh Giangrande responded in the Ecologist that "Deep Adaptation is not faulty science at all, but a very necessary contribution to the field of environmental thought and action. First and foremost, Deep Adaptation is robust and motivating science because it is not a single research paper but a new movement of both scholars and activists from around the world."[16]

The BBC highlighted Bendell's response to Mann's criticisms. Bendell rejected Mann's assertion that his framing might lead people to inaction. Bendell suggested that his framing instead leads people to more radical action, gesturing in particular to Deep Adaptation's influence on leadership of and participants in Extinction Rebellion.[4]