 Hello, I'm Miriam Pemberton and I direct the Peace Economy Transitions Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. I want to focus for a minute on a particular moment of our history, namely the beginning of this century. At that point, the evidence had become quite clear that without concerted action by our world's nations, our planet was headed for climate change of catastrophic proportions and that the U.S. had done the most of any nation to create this threat. So that's what we knew in the year 2000 and we know what happened then. 9-11 happened then, followed by the longest period of war in our history. You've been hearing about all the costs of that war and I want to add one more, which is that this war burned up the resources that we could have used to prevent climate catastrophe. We also know who won the presidential election that year and then didn't become president. So Al Gore went on to direct his life's work towards saving our planet from this existential threat. In his movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won him the Nobel Peace Prize, he asked, should we prepare for other threats besides terrorists? Because we weren't. We were deep into the Iraq war, which was sucking up dollars and most of the bandwidth of public attention. With the three trillion dollars that we spent on that war and we're not really done yet, we could have funded a crash program to convert our economy to run on clean energy and clean transportation and also help the rest of the world to make the same kind of transition the rest of the world is going to be paying dearly for our profligate use of fossil fuels. Instead, we got a crash program to use military force to, among other things, protect American access to Middle East oil. And this war didn't just divert our attention from the urgency of the climate threat and waste the money that we could have used to deal with it. It actively increased the greenhouse gases that we were already sending into the atmosphere. So in the Iraq war, we burned about 16 gallons of oil per day per soldier, which amounted to about 3 million gallons per day. Compare that to World War II. We burned in the Iraq war 16 times as much oil per soldier as we were burning to conduct World War II. Since the height of the Iraq war, I've been documenting the trade-off between military security and climate security. And the ratio hovers about 30 to 1, so $30 spent on military force for every dollar we spend to prevent climate catastrophe. The U.S. military itself says that climate change is a growing and urgent threat to national security. That is, it will be a shower of sparks igniting wars around the world over scarce water and land and precipitating new wars as refugees spill over national borders. What the military doesn't say is that therefore we ought to be looking at the overall balance of our security spending and shift resources away from military security toward climate security. So that's what I do in a new report. It's called Combat Versus Climate. So if you Google just Combat Versus Climate, there will be, and this is where I lay all of this out. So we're all at the moment trying to get our heads around the dark time ahead of us and what we need to do to resist. The week before the election I got a surprise invitation from the Army War College which asked me to come and speak to a class of five three-star generals who profess to be interested in my work on climate security versus military security. So I'm going to go and do this. I think I'll be working in a question or two about their current thinking on their duty to refuse illegal orders like torture, for example. But mostly I'll be talking to them about the cost of war making to the country and the planet we're supposed to be protecting. I want to send my best wishes to everyone participating in this important tribunal. It will be and will need to be a cornerstone of the resistance. Thank you.