 Hello and welcome. My name is Emily Jovay. I'm with 350.org. Thank you for joining us for the first of three climate strategy webinars hosted by 350.org and the Labor Strategy Center. I wanted to start off with a few logistics before we get started. So if you're watching this on YouTube or embedded on a web page, if you're having any technical difficulties, we recommend refreshing your page. And if you drop off at any time, this video is being recorded and will be available immediately following the live session. You can access it at the same link that you're watching it now. And after the session, we'll have a Q&A and you can submit your questions either on the YouTube chat. We'll be monitoring that and also we'll be keeping track in the comment box if you're watching on the 350.org page. So we'll have about 25 minutes for questions at the end. And yeah, without any further ado, I'll let David take the floor to introduce our speaker. Thanks, Emily. This is David Sallet. I'm an arts organizer with 350 North America. And we're excited about this is the first of three webinars coming up at 350 and Labor Network for Sustainability, which Jeremy Brecker is a co-founder of, are putting together. The next two are going to be on public trust and just transition. The information for them are wherever you found this one, either the Facebook page or the YouTube. And we also want to highlight that we have a downloadable guide. So if you want to get together a group and read the book, discuss it and take action together. It's designed specifically for that. It's a free download. You can find it at any of the places you found this. And also just to note that the publisher is giving a half off if people order five or more books. And here's the information. And I'm excited to introduce Jeremy Brecker. He's a historian and award-winning documentary filmmaker, a very prolific author of books on labor and social movements, of which he's also a very active participant, such as being arrested for sitting in at the White House against the Keystone XL Pipeline. His classic labor history strike is how I learned how much ordinary working people are capable of when we stand up together and organize. And his new book, Against Doom, a Climate Insurgency Manual, just came out. Naomi Klein says of his new book that it's a crisp, clear and savvy synthesis of key concepts and ideas that will help the global justice movement to succeed. And I'm going to hold up the agenda that Jeremy is going to be walking through as he talks before we switch over to him. Please welcome Jeremy Brecker. Thank you, Jeremy. Great, great. Thank you so much, Emily and David. And especially also to 350 and to the Labor Network for Sustainability for sponsoring this and making it possible. And especially thanks to those of you who have taken the time out of your lives to participate in this discussion. The book and what we're going to talk about tonight is really directed to trying to establish a strategic framework for climate protection and for the climate movement. What we're really doing here is not trying to present my brilliant ideas, but rather to weave together elements that the climate movement is already using, already has in practice. But to look at how those efforts can fit together into a bigger and more effective whole. The goal tonight is to find ways that we can work together to make our action cumulative and complimentary. Now in a democratic social movement, strategy is not just something for leaders to determine. Strategic thinking and deciding must be open to all. So our task here tonight is not for me to tell you what the climate movement strategy should be, but for all of us to make the best strategy we can together. What I'm going to lay out I know is not a perfect strategy. I hope people will correct its flaws or develop a better one. That's really what I'm trying to accomplish here tonight. The talk outline that David held up has three parts. What is climate insurgency? What's the strategy that the climate insurgency movement can use to achieve its goals? And how can we implement such a strategy? I'll try to make sure we leave time for questions and discussion. So climate insurgency, it grows out of a paradox. The people of the world have an overwhelming interest in climate protection. When you look at poll data and other information, it's clear that the people of the world have an overwhelming desire for climate protection. And yet the people of the world, we are unable so far to halt climate destruction. How can that be? The basic reason is we are divided and therefore we are powerless. Now we know that the governments of the United Nations and the various official climate protection activities have been going on. They've been going on for 25 years. We've had international conferences, international agreements like the Paris Agreement. We've had national legislation in many of the countries of the world. But when you add it all up in the face of the incredible threat of climate change, the official climate protection effort and process we can only conclude has essentially failed. Now protecting the climate is up to the people. And that's why we're witnessing the birth of a global nonviolent constitutional climate insurgency. That's what I call the climate insurgency. And what does that mean? What are those words trying to convey about our movement? First of all, insurgency. We read all the time in the newspapers or see in the media insurgencies around the world. Usually there are military resistance movements of communities or attempts to create new nations or to impose new national governments. Think ISIS. Well, that's one kind of insurgency. But more broadly, and we'll see how the climate insurgency is different. More broadly, an insurgency is a movement that denies the legitimacy of existing rulers. The climate insurgency denies the rights of governments and corporations to destroy the earth's climate. It asserts that people have the right to protect the climate, even if governments and corporations claim that we are criminals to do so. Unlike the violent armed militarized insurgencies, this insurgency is a nonviolent insurgency. It's based on people power. It's based on something that we're all led to forget by those who teach us history and those who teach us about current politics. But yet it's a profound truth that we must not forget. And that is that the power of the people to withdraw our acquiescence, cooperation and consent is the power that gives us potential control over those who rule us. And the history of social movements. You can talk about the labor movement, civil rights movement in the United States. We're seeing it today in the resistance to the presidency and the agenda of Donald Trump. And we've seen it all over the world in countries with dictatorships, tyrannies, where people power uprisings have been able to overcome what seemed like all powerful. Rulers. And the underlying reason is, and we'll discuss this more later, that those rulers are dependent for their power on the people that they rule. So another aspect is that constitutional, constitutional insurgency. That sounds pretty paradoxical. And what it does is to allow us to flip the script and redefine, reframe the whole process by which ordinary people challenge their rulers. What it does is to declare the climate destroying governments and corporations are the criminals. And that those who resist them are enforcing the law and the Constitution. Now, how can that be? What grounds do we have for saying that? We're going to discuss this much further in the July 5th webinar on the public trust. But the gist of it is that we have a right to protect the climate. Some of us, for example, about a year ago, the break free from fossil fuel movement that 350 and many other climate protecting organizations were part of declared, issued a declaration, in fact, that we have the right to protect the climate and the governments do not have any right to destroy it. But this way of flipping the script, this way of redefining the situation that we face has made huge strides just in recent months. Two days after Trump's election, federal judge, Ann Aiken, issued a decision in the case that's known familiarly as kids versus U.S. government or the Giuliani, our children's trust case. She found that there is a constitutional right to a stable climate. In fact, she wrote, the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society. And found further that the Earth's climate is a public trust that the federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect. Now this case is going forward. It's now called informally kids versus Trump. And the prime architect of our children's trust case and suit is going to be with us on July 5 on our webinar on the public trust. So I'm not going to say more about that now except the fact that this is going through the courts does not mean that we have to or can wait for the courts because we're facing a situation where irreversible damage is being done every day. We don't slow and halt the fossil fuel burning that's causing climate change. But what it does mean is that those of us in the climate insurgency and the climate protection movement can put on our banners and our proclamations that we have a constitutional right to a stable climate. And that is what we're enforcing with our actions. Finally, it's a no brainer that the climate insurgency is a global movement. We've seen that with actions like break free from fossil fuels. And we've seen an necessity for it because if all the rest of the world and unfortunately we're seeing this story in connection with Mr. Trump in our own country right now. If all the rest of the world says, oh, we want to protect the climate. And one country says, no, we're going to do all the fossil fuel pollution. We can feel like the dynamic is created where you get a race to the bottom and the entire efforts of the world will be undermined. Conversely, we can have a and must have a global movement that imposes global standards and halts the burning of fossil fuels worldwide. So to sum up what climate insurgency is, it's a mass global nonviolent action to restore balance to the Earth's climate system by challenging the legitimacy of those who are destroying it. Okay, what would be a strategy for this kind of effort? How would you go about trying to achieve these goals? The starting point I think we have to recognize is our apparent powerlessness, the fact that for 25 years we've been trying to do this and we haven't been able to. And that lies not only in our disunity and division, but also in what you might call the democracy deficit, the fact that we live in countries that are supposedly democracies. But in fact, the actual power is not held by the people, but it's exercised, especially by the tiny, wealthy and institutionally powerful minority that have control over a extremely unlevel playing field. But that democracy deficit that power inequality doesn't mean that we actually are powerless that there's nothing we can do because addressing institutional powerlessness is what social movements do and all the social movements and I'm not going to give you the list. I wish I could explore some of the history of a variety of them is what I spend most of my life trying to do, but I want to leave some time for questions and challenges at the end. So I've just boiled down quite a number of the techniques that I think we can use for climate protection to just a handful that I'm going to talk about tonight. That are pieces of how climate insurgency can develop power. First of all, it's taking actions that change people, actions that change millions of people. And when you hear that your first thought may be, how does that work? Is it really possible to inspire our friends and neighbors to organize and act after all they aren't out there now. Well, it's very interesting to look at the poll data about climate and climate attitudes for the United States. The polls indicate when you look at the percentages of people have various opinions and answer various questions and project it that what does it mean in terms of national population. There are 100 million Americans who've told polls who whose representatives have told representative polls that they are willing to act to protect the climate 100 million. And they list various things that they'd be willing to do, boycott products, vote, participate in meetings and so on. More staggering to me is the fact that in polls one person, one American in six, that would be 40 million people say they would personally engage in civil disobedience to fight global war. Well, why aren't they on the streets when we go out there? Why aren't we seeing them? It's not because they don't care and it's not because they don't know the dangers of climate change. It's a result of what you might call climate despair. It's the result of feeling that nothing can be done and that nothing they do can be effective. There's another survey that's found that only 6% of people said they believe society can and will reduce global warming. And it's that kind of fatalism and that kind of despair that underlies in my understanding much or even most of the apparent apathy and passivity that people express in the face of this devastating threat. And so what we need to show is the power of action to protect the climate. I'm just going to give one example and throughout this, I wish I could give a lot of examples because these strategies are all based on things that people have done and are doing. But before the Keystone XL pipeline struggles, the largest demonstration against climate change in American history had about 40,000 participants in Washington, D.C. at the White House and at the Capitol. And then we had the incredible, massive, confrontive, contesting struggle against the Keystone XL pipeline went on for years, was a huge factor in public consciousness. And in the aftermath of that, we had the People's Climate March in New York City at the UN, I think it's 2014. And instead of having 40,000 people, it had 400,000 people as a demonstration in Washington and elsewhere around the country. And I'm not going to say that the Keystone XL pipeline struggle made all the difference, but I'm certain that it was a huge factor in changing the scale of opposition expressed in demonstrations against climate change from 40,000 to 400,000. Okay, next point. All rulers depend on support from those they rule. And so a key part of climate strategy is to undermine the fossil fuel industries pillars of support. All the institutions from other businesses to those who invest in fossil fuels to those who simply go along and support politicians who are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. All these forms of complicity need to be challenged and ended. And that's, so I'll just give one example, which is the divestment campaign. And there are now five and a half trillion dollars in assets that investors of all kinds, institutional and individual have pledged to divest from the fossil fuel industry. And this is an example of undermining the pillars of support in a way that combined with other factors will lead to the erosion and eventually breaking of their power. I could give lots of other examples, but we got to go on here. So another key point is to discredit the legitimacy of the climate destroyers and we touched on that because it's at the core of what an insurgency is all about. We need to define the fossil fuel advocates, as well as the industry as criminals laying waste to the common heritage of humanity. And we'll be talking a lot more about how to do that in the public trust webinar. We also need and are very effectively doing it to impose negative consequences for the fossil fuel industries and their supporters. There's a variety of ways to do that. Just turning public opinion against the fossil fuel industry, which has been, if you look at the poll data, they are despised. The oil companies, the gas companies, the coal companies are up there as public enemies in the public mind already. And our movement has done a great deal to make that happen by making clear that they are responsible for climate destruction. So also negative consequences include challenging government collusion and supporting them. For example, all kinds of challenges to public permits, almost all fossil fuel infrastructure and oil burning requires permits from federal or state or other governments. Why are our environmental laws and agencies not stopping that? Well, they are colluding with the destruction of the planet. And we need to reverse that. And it's a very, very large part of the climate protection movement has been involved one way or another with trying to prevent fossil fuel companies from getting the permits to do their destruction. Another piece that is absolutely crucial is the mass disruption of pipelines, of corporate headquarters, and of all the other pieces that the fossil fuel industry is able to use to enable it to do its dirty destruction. And one other thing that I want to mention here is the need to integrate popular needs and what people need, not just in terms of climate protection, but there are other needs into climate protection plans and programs. This is sometimes talked about as a just transition. For example, while fossil fuel elimination and clean energy will create far more jobs than it threatens. Nonetheless, it does in fact threaten the jobs of a certain proportion of people who work in the fossil fuel related industries. Those workers need to be protected and seeing it not made victims of our climate protection actions. Any job is an important job, if it's your job. And that's the way we in the climate movement need to think about protecting fossil fuel workers. There are numerous plans for how to have a just transition, how to include that protection in the programs of the climate movement. And I'm not going to go into that now, because this whole question of a just transition will be discussing in the third webinar July 10th. Another crucial piece of a just transition is to challenge the incredible inequality and the growing inequality that marks our whole society for workers, and especially for specifically disadvantaged people who are discriminated on the basis of race, on the basis of ethnicity, on the basis of immigrant status, gender, sexual preference, and all the other lines on which our society is perpetuating and at the moment intensifying injustice. The transition to a fossil free climate safe economy provides huge opportunities to correct those injustices. A way to allow people who have been excluded from good jobs and excluded from the workforce to have job ladders and affirmative action programs that make them front and center in the jobs that are created fixing the climate. And similarly, people who live in communities that have been the prime targets for climate injustice, the concentration of polluting facilities in their communities. This is a tremendous opportunity to redesign our energy system in such a way that those coal fired power plants and pipelines and other horribly polluting train tracks. They can be rebuilt, transformed, redesigned to reverse the sub concentration of injustice in those communities. Okay, so how would you go about implementing this kind of strategy. First of all, the key thing to remember is that the main target is not the metal in a pipeline. It's not the windows in a corporate office building. The main central target are the hearts and minds of our fellow people in our local communities and our states in our nation and worldwide. The core means is to transform the public mind. Now, that's a pretty slow job if you do it individual by individual, but we need to recognize that this is basically a social process. And what we need to do is transform the milieu is in which people live. There are things that you find in the polls and the studies, but we've all experienced it and in fact I think by certainly I have been a participant in this myself. And I'm sure many of you have in our own families and neighborhoods and communities. But touched by the climate protection movement. There is an invisible wall of silence against talking about climate change, let alone talking about what to do about it. One of the first and most important things we can do and that every human being can participate in is breaking down those barriers by talking about climate change. We're expressing our fears or concerns expressing the fact that we don't feel good about what's happened to us. And that we're concerned about it and that we're looking for things to do, and we want to talk about it with our friends and neighbors. That is central to what's the cellular process that is going to transform the way our whole society deals with climate change. When we do that in our own communities and our own milios, then it's also essential to reach out across the boundaries of those milios and communities to others and other communities and milios. And find a way that we can forge ourselves from a disunited isolated set of individuals into a powerful climate insurgency. Now the public needs not a full elaborate scientific knowledge and ability to answer a long examination about climate change. I think the public needs three key understandings. They're very simple, but they need to be central to what we are trying to convey with our action. First of all, the cause of climate change is not sunspots. It's not some vague human agency that involves dozens or hundreds of different kinds of evil bad things that we're doing to the environment. We need to understand that continuing to burn fossil fuels will destroy the climate system and that that is the core thing we need to change. Of course, there are lots of other good things that we need to do, but if we don't halt the burning of fossil fuels, we will not protect the climate. Second, people need to understand that fossil fuel burning can be rapidly replaced, and that is partially done by demonstrating putting solar panels on the roofs and not having to pay for burning coal and oil and gas. It's a simple example of how we can in fact replace fossil fuels, and we need to have plans and programs that spell out how we do that in our communities in our states and our country. The third essential is that the power of the people can impose this change, and we do that partially by educating people about how it's worked in the past, and most of all by showing concretely in action that we can make that change. Okay, so this leads into two demands that I think we can organize a lot of our action around. The first is what's sometimes called a fossil freeze. The idea is no new fossil fuel infrastructure, no new pipelines, no new power plants that are based on burning fossil fuels, and no new train or other transportation for them. Just stop building new stuff. Now this is very different in the way people react to it from leaving in the ground. I don't think it's really very different, but when people here leave it in the ground, they think, oh, we're going to shiver to death in the dark. And focusing on infrastructure doesn't mean that we should leave every existing coal-fired power plant in place, but it means our core emphasis can be on no new fossil fuel infrastructure, and here's why that's important. The average useful life of the fossil fuel infrastructure that is in place right now is more or less 30 years. So if we don't build any more of it, it's all going to have to be shut down because it's going to be obsolete and hazardous by 2050. As it happens, a 100% fossil-free economy by 2050 is what scientists tell us we need to meet the core targets of the Paris agreements, and those of course embody what climate scientists have evaluated to be what's essential to prevent the worst forms of climate catastrophe. So fossil-free, and again, there's a convergence between those of us who are primarily concerned about protecting the planet and protecting climate, and those in the political system and government who recognize that the era of fossil fuels is over, and that for each of our communities and cities and towns in the country as a whole, halting making that transition from fossil fuels to climate-safe energy is not only necessary to protect the climate, but also a huge advantage for our people and our institutions and our governments, and in fact a huge advantage for everyone except the fossil fuel companies themselves. The second thing we need to do that is a compliment to this is to demand that every community, every city, every state, create and every corporation and colleges and schools, every institution create climate action plans that are adequate to meet their share of the targets of climate reduction, climate destroying greenhouse gas burn, remitting destruction. In the timeframe that we have to to prevent catastrophe. And those climate plans also need to incorporate just transitions that create a far more just society, protect fossil fuel industry workers, and therefore sees that those communities are far from opposing climate protection because they feel threatened by it, become the strongest proponents of the transition to a climate-safe economy. So, to wrap up here, there's a couple of questions that I think almost all of us have and worry about and quite rightly, and I'm not going to provide Pat answers, but we can look at them as well as other questions in the question and answer period. The first is, aren't we too late? Is there any point in trying to hold climate change when we know that there's so much destruction is already in the pipeline, and when we know that the forces that are trying to perpetuate climate destruction are so powerful, and we at least feel and perhaps appear so weak? And whether that's true or not. So, I think there are two answers to that. I think, no matter what happens, we can be sure that the future will be better with fewer greenhouse gas emissions than with more of them. If we send, we can reduce them. If we can have three degrees Celsius instead of 14 degrees Celsius, we are going to make a huge difference to the future of the world. It's not good enough. And obviously, even the Paris targets are just barely in line with a minimal statement of what's necessary. But even if we're not 100% successful, the effort will make a huge difference. The second question is that we know one certainty that business as usual, not making the changes that are necessary to protect the climate, means gradual creeping doom, followed by accelerated accelerating and ultimate doom. The second question is, can any of this work in the climate movement and climate insurgency actually do something and have a significant effect and a significant enough effect? And I think the answer there is that the answer is not certain. And the reason it's not certain is it doesn't necessarily depend on outside factors and the inevitable advance of the Anthropocene and things like that. The answer depends in substantial part on what we do. And I think of the phrase of Mahatma Gandhi when India was struggling to free itself from the colonial control by Great Britain. And he said it's not just a matter of who has the best arguments, but the matter resolves itself into one of matching forces. The climate insurgency is matching forces with the climate destroyers right now. And it's up to us to make sure that we win. Sorry about that. Thank you so much, Jeremy. So now we're going to take some questions from our audience. If you are watching on YouTube, you can type your questions in the chat. Or if you are watching on the 350 page, you can write your questions on the comment box and we'll be monitoring both of them. So, I'll give people a second to come up with their question. And David will be reading loud and asking Jeremy the questions. Have a first question. Thank you for that, Jeremy. The question is, do you have ideas for how the climate movement can work in conjunction or support other movements by the impacts of the Trump era against the travel ban for healthcare for all against healthcare cuts? As it happens, I cut a section of my talk out. There was exactly about that. We're seeing one of the great civil resistance movements of American history. When you look at the 5 million people who participated in the women's marches around the country and add in the people who've been protecting immigrants and all the other aspects of resistance to Trump administration agendas. It may well be the largest civil resistance movement in American history. And the issue of climate change has been incorporated in many, many aspects of that. And I'll just mention that the women's march included climate protection as a key policy plank. And we're seeing that all over, all of the many struggles that are supporting each other involve climate protection as one of their core demands and elements. The climate protection movement similarly has been deeply involved in breaking out of its own silos and recognizing the need to participate with the other movements that are resisting the Trump agenda. This has been particularly clear in the question of immigrant rights where many of the green environmental and climate movements have taken a stand and been actually out on the streets with climate protectors, excuse me, with immigrant protectors in a variety of ways. It is interesting to recall that a few years ago the Sierra Club was actually almost taken over by advocates of immigrant exclusion on the grounds that immigrants were a threat to our wonderful Christine American environment. And today we're seeing a situation where the Sierra Club is out speaking in support of immigrant rights, joining immigrant rights demonstrations around the country. And this is also very much true at a more grassroots level where environmental activists and climate activists are participating in Black Lives Matter and in immigrant rights and in all kinds of other aspects of resistance to the Trump agenda. So I think there's one further step that we need to engage in here, which is to recognize the special role that climate protection can play in the resistance to the Trump agenda. Much of that resistance is based on individual groups, it's based on immigrants who are threatened, it's based on LGBT people who are threatened, it's based on women who are threatened. And each of those groups in fact needs to make their own challenge to the Trump agenda. But climate change is something that threatens every one of those groups. And so it has the potential to be a common thread and a common interest that helps unite all of us, not taking away from those separate struggles, but recognizing that each of those groups is threatened by climate change. And that joining together to oppose it is a central part of our joining together to oppose the Trump agenda. And the good news is, it's happening. Now the question, which is, for people who aren't comfortable or able to risk arrest, what other confrontational tactics are available? Well, let me start by saying that risking arrest and other activities of that kind are and should be only a crucially important but a small proportion of the work that we do in the climate insurgency. It's entirely appropriate for most people to feel that most of the time their work is not getting arrested, their work is educating their neighbors, reaching out to other people, doing media work, participating in legal demonstrations, influencing the political system, on and on and on, those are all crucial parts of the climate insurgency. The goal is to have the actual civil disobedience actions be dramatic, vivid parts of the much wider process of affecting our friends and neighbors and affecting our society and affecting the public. They are a crucial role, but the much broader statement that of support for them and support for the undermining of the pillars of support for the fossil fuel industry and its pals. All of that activity should be seen as confrontation with the climate destroyers. As far as specifics, you know, just to start with one of the most transgressive things people can do is to talk with their friends and neighbors and people in their communities about climate change and break down the barriers to talking about it. That is transgression of the rules that we have in our society and in our culture. So, something as simple as that is really a key part. And then beyond that, going to meeting, a community meeting, a Democratic or Republican Party meeting, any of the places where people gather to discuss these things. Churches are an important part. Someone who goes to a union meeting and says, you know, our labor movement is not doing what it should do around climate. We need to take a completely different tack. We need to become leaders of the climate protection movement. The people who do that will have all the confrontation that they care to have in the initial phases, because there is a minority inorganized labor that is trying to impose a fossil fuel friendly agenda on the movement as a whole. But our organization, the labor network for sustainability and our labor convergence on climate have hundreds and hundreds of people who are doing exactly that in their unions. They meet plenty of confrontation, but they also are creating new networks within organized labor that are encouraging a completely different approach and one that is in line with the objectives of the climate insurgency. So I think the answer is confrontation does not by any means have to take place by people risking arrest, putting their bodies on the line. There is a necessary and crucial role for that, but there is a necessary and crucial role for confronting all the other kinds of barriers that prevent us from saving our climate. Perfect segue to our next question from Alex. He says, do you have any suggestions for how to start a conversation about climate change with friends or family without being a total downer? I don't have a formula. I think to say, essentially, you know, I just saw the news, I just saw the people that did that demonstration down the street, and I'm really concerned about this. And I know a really large proportion are concerned about this. A large proportion of people actually are worried about it. And I would really love to talk with you about it. You know, if you're at a cocktail party or the equivalent, it's perfectly reasonable to say, I'd really like to talk to you about it. This isn't a good time, but would you be willing to spend a few minutes sometime in the next week or two having a conversation with me about it? You can do that with two or three people or four or five people if they're a kind of natural group to have the conversation. And it used to be that that conversation had to start by saying, do you think climate change is real? I don't think that that's in most places and for most people, if they're honest, they're not going to say, oh, no, it's all just a hoax. There's not one person who says that a lot, but he doesn't seem to be very persuasive with the rest of the population. There's now an estimated maybe 20% who are true climate change denialists. I think that a good starting point is just, you know, tell me what you've been thinking about it and what you've been reading about it and what your thoughts are about it at this point. And start from the point of view of what's sometimes called a listening session. When I do it, I say something like, you know, we're all hearing different things. We're hearing people who deny it all together. We're hearing people who say it's the end of the world. There are people who say we can't do anything about it. There are people who say we all need to work ourselves up and get arrested and go to jail. And, you know, I'm sure that we all have conflicting feelings about it. Tell me what you've been thinking about and I'll tell you what I've been thinking about. And treat that as a kind of starting point for discussion. For organized group, another major way that we do this, for example, here in Connecticut where I live, we do, we have an organization called the Connecticut Roundtable on climate and jobs where we try to pull together climate concerns with the concerns about employment and quality of jobs and union representation. And it's actually co-anchored by the Connecticut AFL-CIO and the Interreligious Task Force on environmental justice. And we go out, among other things that we do, we go out and do workshops, mostly in union locals, but also in religious congregations and other kinds of places where people who have something in common. Or gathered together. And we usually start by having a series of questions that we ask people what they think, what they feel, what they've heard and use that as a starting point. And then we go into, well, here's what we've been able to put together about it. We're not necessarily scientists or experts, but here's our sense of what's going on. And here's what people that we know about are trying to do about it. And then let the discussion go from there, let all the skeptical questions be addressed, and let the dialogue start in that kind of way. And what we found, often specifically with labor groups is there would be somebody who would say, well, my cousin says that there are all this stuff about climate change is a hoax. And then they go through how come it was such a snowy winter last winter and so on and so forth. And it turns out at the end of the conversation, that's the guy who was the believer in climate change and wanted to get all the arguments to use with his cousin. So I think a certain fairly light exploratory listening session kind of approach is really helpful in terms of where you start. More questions. Yes, I'm going to, we've got about four minutes left and I'm going to read you all the questions and let you jump around. Kayla, hi Kayla says, can you say more about the jobs issue in relation to just transition? Phil says, can we counter the climate despair just using the internet, or do we need more face to face? And there's a couple more comments. We found we can't even say the words climate change with some people is like, we're made. Creating climate actions for towns and cities is becoming easier due to quickly spreading acceptance of Sierra Club ready for 100 mayors for 100 campaigns. And lastly, the 20th century results in death injury. How can we ensure that this movement won't result in a replay of the history? Can you read the last question one more time? The person was looking back to labor movements and wondering how we can minimize injury and death amongst our movements. Great. Okay, well, I will, it's a lot to handle in four minutes, but I'll do my best. The jobs question on climate change is going to require to slow it down. A very large number of jobs and a large part of them are manufacturing jobs and construction jobs. And there are lots of studies and plans for how you do it. And you'll find a lot of it on the website of my organization Labor Network for sustainability and other places as well. I'm obviously can't go into it in detail, but basic plans are there and we can all apply them in our own specific settings. We did a study in the KXL pipeline struggle was underway where we actually laid out construction jobs that could be done using workers with similar skills along the route of the pipeline. I think that's the kind of thing that we all need to be doing in places where we're involved in struggles that might threaten people's jobs. In internet versus face to face, I think the demonstration of all our experience in the past few years is that they are and must be made synergistic that if you just do things online, it doesn't have the same kind of sense of reality, but that the organizing has been absolutely crucial for through 50 for all the big campaigns for the last few years and they have to go and they can go hand in hand. As far as the explosive response to climate change. I think again the listening starting point really is the place to go. Some of those people who are most explosive are actually very afraid underneath, and they're defensive or offensive response is because they can't face the reality that they know is probably true. The starting by letting them express it and then engaging them in well what if it were true or are you really so certain or what have you seen that might make your question your own thinking that kind of approach is at least the best that I know how to do. I totally agree about the development of the local mayor's movements and other let's have flank the national politics on climate change, and it's absolutely crucial that it be made the climate insurgency be synergistic with it. It's at the core of what we're trying to do. I view the climate insurgency kind of like the little motor that you use to start the big motor. It's our job to create conditions in which these widespread but blocked types of climate repair, climate fixing can become huge and become a huge motor of climate protection. But the problem is that it's stuck. It's not even though people are in all kinds of governments, all kinds of institutions want to do things for climate change are pushing for it. But there needs to be some iron in the effort. And that's what the climate insurgency job is to provide. And finally, how to minimize the, if I understand the question right, the harm that's created by repression and opposition on the part of the climate protection forces. And we don't have to go back to the history is labor movement to see this. We can just think about the incredibly violent and cruel and brutal force that was unleashed on the standing rock climate protectors. And the people who have written about non violence and the strategy of non violence have a great deal to say about this. And obviously in this amount of time, I can't even summarize that, but the core thing is to take the benefit for them out of using violence and repression. So if the effect of their violence and repression is to turn public opinion against them, if it's to make legislatures refuse to give them permits. If it's to lead, occupy Wall Street. I slept there one night. And that night the police announced that they were going to come in and shut it down. And in that situation with this police threat, thousands and thousands of people responded from all over the city to the ready response work that Occupy Wall Street had set up and thousands of people poured into Wall Street area and into the Cardi part. And the police turned around with their tail between their legs and the mayor announced that he was going to open new negotiations to allow Occupy Wall Street to continue occupying that site. Now, these things don't happen every time there is going to be repression, there is going to be brutality, but the support for climate protection is so widespread that those who use it are putting their own political support and well being at risk when they do it. And it's our job to see that the risk that they're taking by using repression and brutality, that that risk is as big as we can use our own intelligence to define. Thank you, Jeremy, and thanks for everything and for tuning in. If you found this webinar useful, we encourage you to either order the book, get a discount, or share the video, and we have a downloadable discussion either for the book. And finally, we invite you to join us again when we go deep in public trust on Wednesday, July 5th, and deep on just transition strategy on July 10th. Thank you very much.