 I'm a climate scientist and I have to say that the importance of having, I love your phrase in the film, a recovering politician, of your statue of being able to communicate and actually push the agenda for the climate crisis has been very important. And it's clear that the first film had a huge impact. So it adds to the question, why do you sequel? What was the motivation behind you doing a sequel? Well, when we reached the 10-year anniversary of the first movie, it seemed like an appropriate time to present what's new in the previous decade. And there have been two very big changes and a third that occurred during the filming of the movie. The first is that unfortunately the climate-related extreme weather events have, of course, become far more common and more destructive. The nature is speaking up in a very persuasive way. The second big change is that the solutions are here now. A decade ago you could see them on the horizon, but you had to have the technology experts reassure you that they're coming. They'll be here. Well, now they're here. And for example, electricity from wind and solar has fallen so quickly in price that in many regions it's much cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels and soon will be almost everywhere. Electric cars are becoming affordable. Batteries are now beginning to decline sharply in price, which will be a real game changer for the energy industry. LEDs and hundreds of new, far more efficient technologies are helping to stabilize and soon reduce emissions. I was struck in the middle of your film there was a profound statement you made which really resonated with me where you said, to fix the climate crisis, we need to fix democracy. And I'm like, yes. And then unfortunately the film moved on to something else and I thought, no. So can I take this opportunity to say, how do you think we can fix our democracies now in the 21st century? Well, big money has hacked our democracy even before Putin did. And it accompanied the transition from the printing press to television when all of a sudden candidates, especially in the U.S., were made to feel they have to spend all their time begging rich people and special interests for money so they can buy more TV ads than their opponents. And that's really given an enormous unhealthy and toxic degree of influence to lobbyists and special interests. Now just as television replaced the printing press, now internet-based media are beginning to displace television and once again open up the doorways to the public forum for individuals who can use knowledge and the best available evidence. And if you believe in democracy as I do and if you believe in harvesting the wisdom of crowds, then the interaction of free people exchanging the best available evidence of what's more likely to be true than not will once again push us toward a government ob-bye and for the people. One quick example. Last year, the Bernie Sanders campaign, regardless of what you might think about his agenda, proved that it is now possible on the internet to run a very credible nationwide campaign without taking any money from lobbyists and special interests or billionaires. Instead, you can raise money in small amounts from individuals on the internet and then be accountable to them and not have to worry about being accountable to the big donors. It's really interesting that quite a few companies are also using that small donations and small raising of funds to actually crowdsource quite a lot of the renewables that we need in the future. There was a poignant moment in the film where you're sitting in front of the Senate hearing and there's a Republican senator and he's just not hearing what you're saying and the camera comes on to you and you're just struggling to work out how do you communicate. We both have countries have a problem with having a two-party system. Can I ask you, how do you reach out to those Republicans and some of the Democrats that still don't get climate change? I mean, how do we actually bring them in to actually our side of the debate? Well, part of it is related to the changes necessary and the financing of campaigns. A famous journalist in the US over a century ago, Upton Sinclair, wrote, it's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon him not understanding it. And if you substitute campaign finance for salary, you get part of the answer. But I know for a fact that there are many Republican members of the Senate and House who know that what they've been advocating is wrong and would like to crawl back from the end of the limb. They've put themselves on and as more and more people express the passionate view that we've got to solve the climate crisis that can give them the backbone to change their position. Some of them already have. There's a new Noah's Ark caucus in the Congress, a reference to the biblical deluge, but also a reference to the fact that they only can join by twos, one Democrat, one Republican, and more Republicans are now switching sides. I also want to ask a couple of commentators have mentioned that perhaps you've done a great, well, you have done a great job communicating climate change around the world, but perhaps you being a very prominent, highly respected liberal Democrat has actually incensed some Republicans and actually hardened their view. Do you feel that's fair or do you think that they have that view anyway? Oh, I don't think that's fair at all. And in fact, there's been a great deal of social science research that shows that's completely inaccurate. You may know Joe Rome, who is a great climate blogger. He's compiled all that research for two and a half years after the first movie bipartisanship increased significantly on this issue. The Republican nominee in 2000, a John McCain, what had a very responsible position on this issue. But what happened was in the wake of the Great Recession, the carbon polluters launched the Tea Party movement. Some of them joined on their own, but they actually provided the seed money and insisted that climate denial be a part of that political movement. The carbon polluters have done exactly what the tobacco companies did years ago when they hired actors and dressed them up as doctors and put them on camera to say there are no health problems with cigarettes. A hundred million people died as a result. Well, now the carbon polluters have taken that same approach, hired the same PR firms and have spent more than a billion dollars to put out pseudoscience and false information. They're not necessarily going to win the debate. They just want to give the appearance that there is a debate in order to paralyze the political process, but people are seeing through it now.