 I'm going to be speaking today on the topic of climate change and the environmental crisis that we're currently facing. I think it's an incredibly important discussion to be having. Over the last year you've seen a massive explosion in activism related to the climate movement. You've seen the school strike movement started by one student this time last year, Greta Thunberg. This exploded across the world to the extent where you've seen thousands and in some cases millions of students on strike in every single country. On the 20th of September this year activists estimated that there were four million participants in a student strike in 2,500 locations in 163 countries on every single continent. Now this reflects a massive change in consciousness regarding the environmental issue that I think a lot of young people have long recognised as an issue by now finding a political expression for it. Greta Thunberg, one of her most famous statements is act as if the house is on fire because it is. And I think this to a certain extent sums up the kind of feeling that we have as a kind of generation. Something is so clearly wrong. There is a massive crisis that existentially threatens our entire future. And yet every single establishment politician, business and every single person in any position of power seems entirely unable to come up with any kind of solution that is in any way going to solve the crisis that we're facing. And so we can see something as fundamentally wrong but the system cannot solve it. And I think it's important to point out the context in which these radical environmental movements are taking place because it's not just a climate crisis that we face. We face economic crisis and political crisis and social crises in every single planet and every single country across the planet. And for all of these capitalism cannot offer a solution. I think perhaps more than any others climate change is the one that's really capturing young people's imagination at the moment. And so these mass mobilisations reflect a very deeply held anger. But this anger in and of itself will not be enough to solve the crisis because it doesn't have an analysis of what is actually causing the crisis. And so I think the important thing that I want to outline today is not all of the awful things that are going wrong with our planet. Not all of the devastating consequences of climate change because I think you've all seen the headlines because this isn't even decades in the future now. This is right now. We all know what is happening but we need to understand it and then what we need to do is go out and organise and be able to solve this crisis. There are a lot of people out there looking for solutions. You see it on all of these climate strikes. I've been out many different climate strikes around around London in the last year. You see these young people that are desperately looking for solutions. And I think it's vital that we need to be there with socialist solutions, positive, inspiring visions for what it is that a climate justice solution will look like. And I think in that case we need to be really critical of the environmental movement that has come before us. Because the environmentalists have thus far had absolutely no real analysis of what is causing the climate crisis. And the fact that they haven't has led to entirely an effective movement. We have known about climate change for decades and yet nothing has been done. And so I think we need to we do need to be critical of the kind of analysis that is put forward by people who don't take a class perspective. And I think we can recognise the importance of the awareness that groups like Extinction Rebellion have raised. But we need to go a lot further than that. Because there have been many different attempts to kind of understand this crisis, but they have all come from a very flawed place. In particular there are two kind of different approaches. And the old approach, which is very rooted in the older generation of climate activists, is a kind of neo-malthusian approach. It is an approach which reflects which reflects ideas about scarcity. It says there are simply not enough resources enough we don't have enough capacity to sustain as many people as we have. And this is the root of the crisis that we face. You see this reflected in ideas about population control, but also on the left you see it in ideas about de-growth. What is that apart from an understanding of society that puts an absolute limit on our productive capabilities? It assumes that the problem is a technical one and it's one of numbers. And the alternative approach, of course, is a systemic approach. One that says these limits that we face, the development of our society and the productive forces and our economy and the things that we can provide, these limits are not natural. These limits come from the capitalist system and the mode of production under which we live. And this is reflected, I think, very positively and I will go on to talk a little bit about the development of this new kind of climate movement that does have a very positive approach, that mobilises around ideas about the Green New Deal, for instance, and eco-socialism, these kind of buzzwords. And these obviously have their limits as well and I will explain those, but I think it's important to say that that is a massive step forward. Because if you have this kind of neo-malthusian approach, which is what this kind of de-growth approach fundamentally is, you can only have a very negative opinion about what it is that the future holds for us. And I think it's a very dogmatic idea and it's very entrenched. You even see it with people like David Attenborough. He is one of the kind of key figures that is often quoted in the press about climate change. But he supports groups like Population Matters. Now Population Matters is an incredibly reactionary organisation. They advocate for zero net migration. They have refused the idea of letting Syrian refugees into this country. They have mobilised against that. They have campaigned for cutting benefits for mothers with more than two children. It's incredibly racist and reactionary. And that is fundamentally the problem when you view this problem as a function of population. And it's rooted in the ideas of Malthus, and we can go on to discuss that maybe in a discussion if people are interested. And it's been long used. This has been used for centuries to attack ordinary people as the root cause of a crisis in society, the root cause of scarcity. But the truth is for climate change and environmental degradation as a whole, the vast, vast majority of people are victims. They are not causes of climate change. Despite claims that the world is overpopulated, billions of people contribute barely anything to the total emissions that we produce. 49% of lifestyle emissions, which are not the only kind of emissions obviously, but the ones that we as individuals produce, 49% come from the wealthiest 10% of people according to a study by Oxfam. And only 3% are produced by the bottom 50%. Of industrial carbon emissions, since 1988, 100 multinationals have produced 71%. And a study released this month updating that figure found that just 20 corporations have been responsible for 35% of emissions since 1969. And so I think it's really important to understand this. Who is the real cause of the climate crisis? Because if we don't understand that, how could we possibly understand how to tackle it? Because we can say that climate change is anthropogenic, meaning caused by humans. But which humans? Who are us? But also we can say it's anthropogenic meaning caused by humans. But what system do these humans live? What is the logic of the system in which they are compelled to take part? And obviously, I think it's really important to point out as well. We can take this point about scarcity and there is obviously a lot of inequality and many people that go without under capitalism. But that's not inherent. That is a product of the system. We produce enough food to feed 10 billion people every single year. Yet in 2017, it was estimated that one in nine people went hungry. And we can see it again, this contradiction in production. The crop which is produced most by the tonne every year in terms of agriculture is sugar. That's because this is a cash crop. And so an analysis which doesn't take into account this kind of disparity, but not just the disparity, the root cause of the disparity, can only lead to false and reactionary conclusions. And this should not be how we take the movement forward. And this is fundamentally the kind of green austerity that a lot of the environmental movement has thus far been perpetuating. And I'm going to talk a little bit more about degrowth because I think it's important to counter this idea. It's become very trendy on the left to think about this as a radical new idea. But to a capitalist, degrowth is a recession. And what happens to the working class when there is a recession? Well, we've seen it since 2008. And the logic of a recession under capitalism is that the working class must pay for the crimes of the capitalist, for the exploitation and the contradictions created by their system and their drive for profit. And that is exactly the capitalist solution to climate change. It will be the same kind of solution. It will be making the working class pay. The capitalists do not have a progressive solution to climate change, but they do have one. The ideas around ecofascism are rising amongst a certain layer of the capitalist class. But I think it's also important to point out that these ideas are not just reactionary or wrong, but they fundamentally misunderstand the basis for scarcity in capitalist society. And also the development of productive capacity in our economy. Because the problem isn't economic growth, it is the profit motive. And the fact that under capitalism, production and the development of the productive forces is done for profit and therefore in an entirely irrational, an entirely profit driven way, not for social need at all. I think, you know, we can say, yeah, it's correct that if we were living as hunter-gatherers or foragers, then perhaps seven billion people would be an overpopulation. But we don't. We live under a developed capitalist economy with massive advances in the productive forces in the last few hundred years. And we can see in the massive development of production since Malthus' time, his apocalyptic predictions have clearly not withstood the massive explosion in population that's happened since then. And as I say, the only reason that we are not providing for every single one of those people is because of the logic of the capitalist system and the limit of profit and the development of the productive forces and developing efficiency and renewable energy technology that is currently underway. And it's also true that environmental impact will never factor into a system where the only driving force is productive investment into profitable activities. And the truth is that we actually, you know, we have a, we have excess capacity in our lot. We have overproduction. We are producing, if anything, too many things and yet we still see people starve. And so this is the point that we need to make. Scarcity under capitalism is not the problem. Scarcity that we see is not natural. For example, and this doesn't just exist in like tons of food where we see, you know, people starving next to supermarkets throwing away lots of food, which will be incredibly inefficient. It's not just that. And industrially, for example, it's estimated that 50 percent of the steel that China produces is surplus. And it's sold and dumped on markets for really low prices. Steel, for instance, is responsible for an estimated seven to nine percent of carbon emissions. And routinely, you've seen in recent weeks, Shell were forced to burn off a whole load of gas in their processing plant up in Scotland, because it was simply cheaper to burn off all of that rather than store it so that it could be processed and used for fuel. And so it's correct to a certain extent to point out that our current rates of production are unsustainable, but we have to understand why that is. And I think this leads on to the other key point that I want to make in this because the fact is that it is a product of the system. And we as individuals cannot change that by simply acting differently. And you've seen this a lot in the kind of extinction, rebellion, style, development of the climate movement has existed for many decades as well. The actions of individuals who choose to litter or use plastic straws or don't turn out a light or whatever are not anywhere near equivalent to the crimes that the capitalists have committed in garnering millions of pounds in profit at the expense of the environment. And morally condemning working class people for their lifestyles is not just misguided, but it's completely wrong. It approaches this problem in a completely ineffective way. What we need to do is shift from this focus on to individual consumption, on to production, which is where the bulk of efficiencies can and should be made. And that's not to condemn anybody who is trying to make those changes in their lives. This isn't about condemning you either, but it's pretty clear that it doesn't tackle the root cause of the problem. And I think this is why you've seen historically a massive pessimism in the environmental movement. You can see everything that's wrong with the world and the only thing you can do is change yourself and then try and persuade as many people as possible to change themselves as well. And you can see that it's not working. And it's a root of a massive pessimism amongst most people that I've seen or spoken to who are deeply embedded within climate activism. But we need to raise our sights and fight for systemic change because if the only future that you can see is a future under capitalism, of course you're going to be pessimistic about the fate of our environment. And I think it's also important to say we can't just, you know, it's this isn't about paying lip service to system change. This is about fighting for fundamental change in the way that our economy has run. And I think actually a lot of what I've been talking about applies to a relatively diminishing proportion of the environmental movement. This new generation of climate activists that we've seen on these strikes and across the world and various different campaigns have been drawing much more radical conclusions. And I think this is reflected in ideas like the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal is quite an old idea and of itself. It's about a decade old, but it's been recently sort of grabbing people's attention as a slogan. And I think what's really encouraging about it, I have a lot of criticisms especially of the Keynesian nature of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as proposal for a Green New Deal. But what it does do is offer a proposal, a vision for a better society in which fighting climate change is not austerity. It's providing people with jobs. One of the principles that she outlines Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez outlined in her proposal to the House in last year was guaranteeing families sustaining union jobs, accessible housing education, clean water, clean air, healthy food, investment in infrastructure and overhauling transport, stimulating clean domestic manufacturing industries. And this is a vision for a better society. And that is what has been grabbing people's attention. You've seen the UK Climate Strike Network, for example, which organizes climate strikes in the UK taking up this demand. But as I say, when you have this vision on a Keynesian basis, all you are saying is that you are trying to make this transition profitable. You are trying to make green commodities an alternative to dirty commodities. But if that was possible, why wouldn't capitalists have done this already? It's important to remember that this crisis was not made by bad people making bad decisions. It's not individual CEOs that have gone out of their way to try and destroy the planet in some kind of like evil plot. I'm sure some of them are really bad people. But that is a selection that occurs due to the competitive nature of capitalism and the drive for profit. And so it's not malicious. It's a consequence of the system itself. And so we need to understand that it's not just that they won't do these things. We don't need to persuade them morally. We understand that they can't do these things under the logic of this current system because genuinely sustainable economic strategy would not be profitable. We would require, for instance, if we were thinking about transitional phase to climate sustainability in the UK, massive and systemic investment in housing insulation, for example, that would be one thing that you could do in order to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and reduce energy consumption generally. But reducing energy consumption cuts into the profits of energy companies. Renewable energy technology, wherever, once it's installed, provides energy that is essentially free. You stick a solar panel on a house and plug that in. Well, how can you make profit off that? Obviously they're trying. But if you contrast that kind of meager profit to the super profits of fossil fuel cartels, like, for example, the most profitable company in the world is the Saudi State Oil Monopoly. It made over $100 billion in profit in 2018. So even if a government, and so even, you know, even then, even if a government was able to come in and take over and do these things but still remained within a market system, you know, with large-scale investment in green energy and all of this thing, the bulk of production would still be irrationally determined by the market in order to maximize profit. And this would immediately come into conflict with any kind of like genuine attempt to control capitalism. Because capitalism, we need to be clear, regulated or otherwise, cannot guarantee food or housing, let alone clean air and rivers and all of this and reduced carbon emissions. And so, yes, we need to challenge kind of libertarian attempts to make the argument that we need to free the market to solve the climate crisis. But we also need to challenge reformists who think that we can constrain the market and solve the climate crisis. A Marxist understanding of the climate crisis shows that it's not really, in essence, a question about distribution of resources. This is a symptom of a secondary problem. The question of inequality under capitalism and kind of exploitation and all of this flows from the problem of ownership. It's not just about redistributing, which is a lot of what the Green New Deal, I think, especially in America, is trying to do. We're all trying to patch up the system, trying to save it from itself. It's about changing the way in which ownership exists within our society. And this is where the ideas of socialism come in. I think it's important to point out, right? Just because these are old ideas doesn't mean that they are not applicable to the crisis that we're in. If anything, these kind of the ideas around democratic ownership and control of the economy and transforming production, so it is based on production for social necessity rather than profit, are more relevant to the climate crisis than they were 100 years ago. And it is really encouraging, I think, that the labour movement is starting to take up this demand and take up a leadership position within the climate movement. The Labour Party conference, which I was at just in September, passed a resolution of a socialist Green New Deal. As part of this, it contains a commitment to decarbonise the British economy by 2030, produce thousands of well-paid skilled jobs in renewables and the supply chain. And they also state that this will be based on public ownership and democratic control. You can't plan what you don't control and you don't control what you don't own, as you might have heard people in these talks say before. In order to challenge the power of the 100 monopolies that are causing climate change, we must take them over and run them democratically. And however good the rhetoric of the Labour leadership is at the moment, we must be there to push them further. Their current plans for nationalisation are not sufficient to take over the commanding heights of the economy in a way that we would need. What about, you've seen momentum, for example, put forward the idea about persuading Barclays to divest from fossil fuels. Don't persuade Barclays to divest from fossil fuels. You're not even challenging the system. You can't take them over, nationalise them. And so we need to understand what this would look like concretely, because we can talk about this in the abstract sense about democratic control and ownership and what that might look like conceptually. But what might this look like in real terms and how would this work? I think an interesting example of this from British Labour history was the Lucas Plan. Now, in the 1970s you saw massive de-industrialisation, the closing of factories, and one particular factory, Lucas Aerospace, was facing closure for insolvency. And so the workers of this factory came up with an alternative corporate plan. They came up with over a thousand pages where they detailed 150 products where they could manufacture for social need rather than for profit. And this was obviously an aerospace company who were dealing in arms, and so the workers obviously would rather create socially necessary products than arms. What you saw was this, obviously this would have been a massive transformation for production in the UK, but the bosses chose to lay off 2,000 workers, including sacking the leading union reps behind they were organising the committee behind this. And I think this has a lot of lessons for us. The Lucas Plan only failed because of a lack of leadership from the Labour Party. This was a perfectly viable solution, but if there had been a bold socialist Labour government who was able to nationalise this factory and then put it under workers control and allow them to carry out their plan, then this would have been successful. And this is exactly the kind of dilemma that a Labour government would face today, because a lot of these solutions aren't eminently viable, but are they bold enough to put these ideas forward? And we've seen again that this isn't just an example from the 1970s. We saw recently Harland and Wolfe, the shipyard in Belfast, was also due to close. This was a factor with the capacity for building a lot of renewable energy technology. And so they were asking, they were demanding the government to nationalise them and allow them to continue producing socially necessary socially useful goods. Of course this was ignored by Johnson government. We need to make sure that a Corbyn government would go much further and would nationalise these kind of industries. But it's not just about this kind of small scale change. It's not about individually nationalising factories, even if it was quite extensive. This needs to be part of a plan, a national plan, but an international plan. This is an international crisis. This is a crisis which knows absolutely no borders. And we must understand that we cannot have socialism in one country. Once the logic of the market will preclude any effective combating of climate change, and if the rest of the world is capitalist, then we must spread a socialist revolution throughout the world, because the fractured power of the nation's state, the contradiction of that, is unable to control globalised monopoly capital, which is the cause of climate change. And no state is powerful enough. And even if a government was elected with the best of intentions, we have always seen what reformists are always having, which is capitulation, strikes of capital, devaluation of currency. All of these same logics will exist for a radically green environmental programme, as they would for a radically socialist environmental programme, essentially, because they're the same thing. And as we've seen with like the Volkswagen emissions scandal, for instance, companies will try and get around these regulations any way they can. People fitted cheap devices to pass regulatory tests. And if they can't do that, then they will move abroad. And we've seen massive exploitation of emissions from developed capitalist countries out towards developing capitalist countries. Britain's carbon footprint might be going down, but where are we getting all of our products from now? And so I think it's very important to point out, yes, this needs to be an international movement, but it needs to be an international working class movement. It can't be an internationalist movement on the basis of bourgeois nation states. We've seen just how completely inept these kind of international bourgeois agreements are. We can't have any illusions in that kind of, in that kind of democracy. Like the Paris Agreement, for example, was the best thing that they've come up with so far. And I think we can all see how completely inept that it was, and ineffective. Literally, the only success of it was that everyone agreed, and then America pulled out. And all of the agreements that they made are entirely voluntary. And even if they do what they say they would do in the Paris Agreement, the scientists reckon they would still only limit climate change to three degrees. And the IPCC have said very clearly that we need to limit to 1.5. And so I think we can't have any illusions, not only in the capitalist system, but in the processes which capitalism operates, the kind of the capitalist state we can't just take it over. We need to transform it. You can see this, like, there's one good example of an international agreement, which does have a few lessons for us. The Montreal Protocol and a few others were agreements which were looking to control the use of CFCs, which were gases which were depleting your own layer of the Arctic, which could have caused massive issues. They were able to massively reduce the number of CFCs through these kinds of international agreements. But there are concrete reasons why that one worked. And it was because it was used in an incredibly limited number of industries. There was an incredibly cheap alternative that could be used. And it was done in a relatively controlled way. This wasn't a result of a consumer boycott. There was no preference in that sense. So we can definitely rule that out as being effective. And so this is the only thing that you will hear, like bourgeois environmentalists point to, as a genuinely successful international agreement. But what has happened in the last 20 years since this agreement? Well, there's been a creation of a black market for CFCs, which has massively reduced their price in comparison to their legal competitors. And you have seen factories, likely in China, starting to use them again. So even in the cases where this kind of agreement works, it cannot withhold the logic of the market, and it will fail eventually. And so I think we must understand that this is the best that the capitalist can come up with. But that doesn't mean that we should give up. That is not because there is more. There is further that we can go. And in order to successfully guarantee any changes, we must have socialist governments around the world who are able to bake with capitalism. But this is only going to happen under the organized pressure of the working class movement. I'll go on to talk about more how we can organize later. But I think it's also important to challenge a little bit. There's a certain narrative that comes across in certain environmental movements that the issue of climate change is sort of a developed versus developing economy issue. It's industrial versus industrializing. And to a certain extent, this is true. The development of advanced capitalist countries was predicated on massive extraction of colonized countries, massive carbon emissions, and now they're turning around to these countries and telling them that they cannot do the same. And that is absolutely wrong. It must be challenged. But fundamentally, the issue here is not one of nation versus nation, but of class versus class. And I think it's important to understand that these kind of like the inequalities that we see, for example, take natural disasters, something that is going to become much, much worse under the pressure of climate change. We will see currently 98% of global geo-hazard deaths are for people in developing countries. But that is not the only story. If you look, for example, at something like Hurricane Katrina, it shows that within countries it is the working class that is suffering. And the logic that exists between developed capitalist countries and the period logic within capitalist countries and the developing world is an extension and a reflection of this same link which happens within countries as well. So Hurricane Katrina is a really good example of this. It wasn't the strongest storm that hit in 2005, but it's obviously the most famous. And I think it's important to point out that the reason I think a lot of people might perceive this as some kind of freak accident, but it wasn't that at all. There was accurate forecasting and warning and prediction. What there wasn't was an adequate capacity to respond. The evacuation of New Orleans and for Hurricane Katrina was chaotic in part because it hit two days before paycheck and disability benefits were due. And that meant that people simply couldn't afford to leave the city. And you found that the way the city had been structured was entirely around private transport. It was around cars that the inner city and public transport had massively neglected. And what this led to was obviously people being trapped in a city during a natural disaster, a so-called natural disaster. And people died. And predominantly, this was also obviously an American race issue. A lot of the deaths were African American. And you saw this in the fact that 80% of residents' housing in predominantly African American areas was damaged compared to only 50% in white areas. And that wasn't just some freak accident. That is a result of planning and a capitalist system that develops housing according to profit and not according to social need. And this only makes sense under a capitalist system. And we could do so much better. There isn't any such thing as a natural disaster. Because every single thing from the relief effort to the preparations to the people and the society in which we live determines the impact the natural disasters will have. And you can see the contrast of this, especially if you compare places like America to places like Cuba. I mean, Cuba obviously is vastly less wealthy than the United States. But it also has vastly different economic priorities. There is an example of this contrast. There was a hurricane in 2004, Hurricane Ivan, which killed 27 people when it hit in Florida. And when it hit in Cuba, no one was killed. And this is just one of many examples. But just this in particular. Well, some of the things that the government was able to do in preparation for this. So there was to begin with massive education in schools about preparation and responses to hurricanes, community organization before the hurricane hit to secure any potentially dangerous debris. There was preparation and evacuation was organized centrally but done in conjunction with local communities. So this was done effectively. Before the hurricane hit, the government was able to cut gas and electricity supplies to reduce risk of fire. And then the government provided resources for the community to rebuild afterwards. And so you didn't obviously see the kind of massive gentrification process and kind of disaster capitalism that occurred after Katrina did. And so I think this is also a key point to make. I remember hearing outside one of the first climate protests that I went to earlier this year. The school students that were shouting, Theresa May, do your job with the implication that she should be sorting out the climate issue. But the truth is, she was doing her job. And it's a job that Boris Johnson continues to do. And that is the job of bourgeois politicians in capitalist society to protect the interests of capital and not working class people. Or indeed, in the case of Boris Johnson, largely their own interests or the interests of their party. And so this is not to say that like the Cuban government is perfect. I think that's that would certainly not correct. But it demonstrates how the political priorities in the economic system in which we live must change if we are able to, if we're going to be able to solve this crisis. And that we cannot change it if we remain powerless to the logic of the climate crisis. And we cannot do this by appealing to bourgeois governments and bourgeois politicians and corporations. And so I think there's several things that I want to take away, what people want to take away from this discussion. And firstly, obviously, that it's a socialist solution that we need. These may be our old ideas, but they are good ideas. And they fundamentally speak to the same contradictions of capitalism that Marx was talking about when he wrote Capital, The Communist Manifesto. We need to challenge anarchic production, reduce inefficiency and allocate resources according to need, ending exploitation and inequality. And this is only possible under the removal of the profit motive and the transformation of society along socialist lines. But more concretely, what we need to do now in terms of transforming the environmental movement, taking these lessons, taking these examples, taking this analysis and bringing them to environmental movements, we need to, there are several things that I think we need to do. We need to challenge people like Extinction Rebellion who are explicitly apolitical. Well, this is, this is politics. This is class politics. And anyone who attempts to understand the climate crisis in this way is doing it wrong. And you've seen the kind of backlash the Extinction Rebellion are now getting because of the refusal to understand this. The protest, for example, recently on London, on the London Tube Network where protesters stood on a train preventing in East, very working class area of East London, preventing commuters getting into their jobs. These are people in zero hours contracts and they're losing money simply by this protest. They were not targeting the people that needed to be targeted. But they were doing that because they're misguided. And the reason they're misguided is because they don't have a class analysis. And I think this points to another fundamental point. One of the aims of Extinction Rebellion and also a lot of other environmental groups is raising awareness. Well, we don't really need to raise that much more awareness. What we need to do is raise consciousness. We need to, we need the working class to understand their position within, within capitalist society and their exploitation and use that to motivate people to go onto the street. I'm sure the people whose tube journeys were disrupted by Extinction Rebellion are more aware of them now. But they probably don't really have a very positive, you know, view of the environmental movement. And they probably don't have a very positive vision of what environmentalism or solving the climate crisis will mean for them in their everyday life. And so I think it's important to challenge that and use that and then, and then bring these people but into the movement. Bring them, there has been, there have been a lot of environmentalists who have drawn anti-capitalist conclusions. Well, it's not enough to be anti-capitalist. You need to have an alternative. You need to have a concrete political plan in order to galvanise people around to give them a positive vision of transforming society. And so, but even, and I think this is reflected in, in the fact that these people, even if they are anti-capitalist, have not gone into the labour movement thus far. But you have, you've seen this begin to change with the UK school climate network, for example. They have drawn similarly anti-capitalist conclusions and have been going into trade union meetings. We saw, obviously, this call for climate general strike that came out recently. Obviously this didn't transpire and we need to transform unions into genuine fighting unions for that to happen. But I think it reflects a desire to organise within the working class that we need to take full advantage of. In fact, I think we can take a certain amount of I think we can take inspiration from the kind of militancy of the environmental movements, even if they are politically misguided. But this needs to be challenged somewhere, somewhere else. I mean, you've seen, in a positive way, for example, one concrete example of this is recently, Extinction Rebellion and a group called Heathrow Paws tried to ground drones around Heathrow Airport in order to protest expansion. They, you know, they were trying to, yeah, just do this sort of technical fix where they just fly drones and this would ground planes and this would stop it. Well, this is misguided. But I mean, at the same time, you saw workers at Heathrow, you now were organising and balancing for them to go on strike. And I think we need to say, not that you're wrong about Heathrow or anything like this or misguided in that way. But what you should have done is link up with those workers because anyone who takes any kind of transport system knows that once the workers that run it go on strike, you can't get anywhere. And I think, I think this is exactly the kind of positive thing that we need to put forward. We can't allow the red and green movements to be divided as they have been for so long. You saw this, like with the Gilles Jean, for instance, in France where people condemn them for criticising a carbon tax. Well, no, we're socialists. We're against regressive taxation against the working class and for genuine accountability for people who are genuinely causing the crisis. Socialism will not be one on a kind of technicality. We can't morally appeal to anyone. We can't expect anyone to do it for us. And so I think the climate crisis, more than anything else, is the real driving force that we should have to go out there and transform society. Thank you.