Thank You So Much For Watching And STAAAY BLESSED :) If You are interested in my book full of short stories it is available now ! www.amazon.com/dp/B0BPQYT3WH www.amazon.in/dp/B0BPQYT3WH
im blessed to have listened to your content, when i worked in care homes with masks and gloves, unable to hug the old wise souls. when i worked with colleagues riddled with fear. I would retreat on my lunch break into your content and know deep in my heart that the wisdom you project with your content will never be lost. the divine spark gifted to humanity lives on and your content only adds to that fact. stay blessed my friend
If specific people hadn't spend an Era of plundering, looting and colonizing the whole world, the world, definitely, would have been a much better place! China and rest of Asia weren't poor to begin with. British Empire looted Asia and reduced it to shams! Then they industrialized, damaged the majority of environment, and now they're worried about climate change! LOL
So its woke culture that is responsible for carbon footprint? How can we, each of us, help then? Should we go beat ethnic minorities? Lynch some racial minorities, maybe? Will pushing gays into committing suicide help? Maybe killing a trans person or two in the fit of trans panick will help offset the dreadful evil of woke? Or is it too late and we have to establish an ultra right government with maybe a death camp or two, for the Greater Good?
Most of top companies have no problem invest BILLIONS in China while talking about Human's rights and Environment Protection. They don't care, it's all virtual signaling.
They know and could care less about the climate. It’s just a power grab for all that those that spew it for the rest of us and in their own lives ignore all those concerns. Which one of them takes public transportation or uses commercial airlines?
'There is not a parent in the world who would not smash that button so hard their hand bled'. As a parent it is this very statement that hits me hardest from this speech, simply because it is so true.
@@grigturcescu6190 Are you trying to virtue for some people that don't exist that is NEXT level trying to start an argument to fill the silence of your own empty room 😂 amazing you felt the need to try so hard. It's always people like you that come up with scenarios but I bet you've never actually helped anyone ever bought a homeless person lunch or a drink? Ever sat on a bench and talked to an old person about life in the high street? No. Because you're not good 😁
This guy is "polarising" the woke argument, pushing it to an extreme - to try to make his own argument... which shows he's on weak ground. First of all this 'woke' and classifying people as this is nonsense! You know the Republicans in the 1950s called those civil rights defenders who were fighting segregation "all" the same things such as Socialist, Communist, and Marxist. And true 'woke' is not against science, it's about "balance."
Dumb speech. Unsubscribe to this channel. 🖕. The number of undernourished in China is 35 million. The number is falling because the country is becoming richer. The biggest contributors to CO2 is China at 30% and USA at 15%. Just these 2 countries contribute to just less than half of global CO2 emission and both countries can afford it. China is no longer a poverty stricken country as much as he makes out. But it is all besides the point. The problem is his argument based on false dichotomy. Starving children or take action on climate change. BS. Analogy is your family spends a lot of money and is in debt. Then try to argue you can't cut back on anything because we will all die if we just cut back on £1. I can do extreme too. Don't play the victim mentality and just make more money instead of cutting back our spending. Since it is hopeless to cut back our spending because we will all die, we shouldn't even try and focus on getting more income. But wait. Are you? Are you really going out there to push for technology to improve climate change or just making excuses why you don't want to lift a finger to help?
I was born in the Soviet Union too! Outdoor toilet stinks up your whole property sometimes, depending on the wind. Imagine eating an apple and smelling 💩
The most amazing thing about this speech is not his eloquently he revealed the truth, the most amazing thing is that the students actually sat quietly and respectfully and listened! Perhaps there is hope after all!
@@gordonmills7798 Yes, thanks much. It is extremely rare for students at any serious lecture hall to interrupt, hassle, or make comments during a speech. Indeed, while the man happened to be a comedian, he came off as a professor. No student is going to do a MTG during a lecture; they do exactly what was said above: sit quietly, respectfully and listen. They may have questions following his speech, but he was very blunt about leaving. The ONLY ppl who would hassle a speaker are not students; they are mmbrs of a movement sent there specifically to make waves.
thеrе is аlwаys hоpе. thеrе WILL Bе АLWАYS H0PЕ. dоеnst mаttеr оf thе dаy thеrе will аlwаys bе hоpе, еvеn in thе wоrst situаctiоn wе аs humаns will survivе.
As an Indian who has so far managed to cling on to the competitive and greasy pole of a middle-class career, I am astounded by wokeness I see in very rich and well-off Westerners!!
You say he's educating but do you actually know if what he was saying was correct or not? He does not make a single smart or nuanced statement. 1. "poor people don't care about climate change": WRONG! Go tell that to the millions of people in Pakistan who's homes were under water last year, or the millions of people suffering from draught in the Sahel, or the millions living in the Pacific who are worried that they won't even have islands to live on in 50 years. The global south cares a hell of a lot about climate change because they're the one's that are living it. This idea that poor people are too uneducated or too busy just trying to survive to know or care about the climate is ignorant and inaccurate. 3. "Poor places like South America and China will decide the future of the Climate": OK, so China yes, that's true. But I don't know where he gets south america from. If you take the continent as a whole then yes it produces a sizeable chunk of emissions, but still far less than the United States, and far less than the EU. Notice how he chooses to bunch south america together, but then chooses to talk about the UK as a single country. If he was honest and consistent he would add the UK's emissions to the emissions of the wider European economy. 2. "The UK is only 2% of emissions": SOO WHAT? Climate change isn't going to be solved by just a handful of high emitting countries getting their act together. It will require a global effort, with wealthy countries like the UK leading the way. Why? Because that's how broad scale change happens, not by working in isolation, but through global investment, innovation, imitation and cooperation. Just look at Denmark, their Carbon footprint is very small, smaller than the UKs, yet they've managed to develop a thriving wind energy industry and are now selling wind turbines to the rest of Europe. That's why it's important that every country (and especially the industrialised countries) work towards reducing emissions, because then we have the potential to create a positive innovation feedback loop. 3. " young woke people are stupidly clicking buttons in the vain hope of helping the planet": I ASSUME HERE that he's talking about carbon offsets. Like offsetting for a flight. Carbon offsetting is a highly neoliberal (right-wing) solution to climate change, which has been strongly criticised by progressives for being ineffective. So his point here is just DUMB. If he hates carbon offsets so much, then he should be focusing his anger at capitalist corporations for proposing these schemes, not young woke people 4. "Climate change will be solved through growth and technology": I CAN'T BELIEVE people are still making this argument. We already have most of the technology to solve the problem, what we lack is the political will to do it. Notice how he says tech will solve this but he doesn't mention which tech. It's because he doesn't have a fucking clue. There are tens of thousands of engineers, scientists and energy policy experts around the world working tirelessly to develop better renewable tech and make it economically feasible. And having been taught by many of these people for my degree in Environmental Policy, I can guarantee that they ARE NOT proposing that we just stop the economy growing or stop having babies. The de-growth, anti-natal contingent of the environmental movement is fringe faction. What's so disappointing about this speech is that there is so much to criticise when it comes to wokeness. He could have attacked CRT, cancel culture, excessive identity politics, but no, he had to go and pick climate change, a topic that he clearly knows nothing about.
@@jw-ob1wv what's there to talk about? You can't stop climate change unless you stop using technology altogether, which will kill a lot of people. No one is willingly gonna do that. The only way forward now is some kind of clean renewable energy and more advanced technolog, which was mentioned in the speech. No, not your solar panel and EVs that requires mining for lithium and coppers done by child slaves. Something like nuclear energy that's actually clean with proper disposal and produces little waste. There's also public transportation that need to be revamped. Good luck convincing the gen pop to get rid of their cars in favor of electric trains like the one in Japan. People will see the Uber rich with cars and then start bitching about class disparity. There's no pleasing people.
@@jw-ob1wv I appreciate how you demolished this pseudo-intellectual and clearly ideological speech. The positioning of this doofus as 'anti-woke' from the get-go reveals he has a shallow grasp of the issues.
This is truly inspirational speaking. I have now listened to this four times. He does not trash the young audience. He starts with absolute truths and finishes with real optimism,
True, but it’s not just about working. That would imply that people just put their head down and do what someone else tells them to do every day. The ingenuity to create change, requires confidence, creativity, and breakthrough …not following anyone.
I can pick a hole in every fatuous claim he has so boldly espoused here. Truthiness ain't necessarily what follows on the heels of brazenly clichéd postulations. Start with 'woke'. What's that? Like CRT, it's a fatuous coinage that professes faith in sensory miscarriages. Recall the rage on small government? Remind me where we're on that one now? Remember 'judicial activism'? Who's doing activism with our judiciary now? Don't get carried away by the cute phraseology, my friend. It's all brainwash materiel.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
@@rizandro bro you think way too deep to the point where you outsmart yourself. Give it a break the man has a point, Britain fall wouldn't make that big of a change at all and besides everything he said was true. this essay is unnecessary
@@michaeldemus6666 Greta Thunberg was coached, for one, practiced that speech (as did this gentleman), and she offered nothing scientific. Only the emotions of a brainwashed youth. She got social media fame, and the Left kept trotting her out there to exploit the fact that she was a child. Because if anyone disagrees, they would also cry, "How dare you..." These are the same people, of course, who would have readily aborted her at 9 months if given the chance, and who probably try to indoctrinate and sexualize her as well. The same people on the Left who are running school systems, social media, and now healthcare systems. They don't give a shit about the environment or children - they just want everyone compliant, poor, and dependent.
Generally how a speech works TBH. Also good public speaking does not necessarily mean good content. It may sound compelling but if it's full of badly researched and thought through placations to those already aligned with his conclusion, I'd rather take a mumbling man with a list of scrawled notes but something of substance to contribute any day of the week. It might be harder to listen to but on the other hand I might actually learn something in the process. It also helps when you are layered over an epic and inspiring backing track. Nice bit of right wing propaganda though.
How does one delivers so eloquently, full of facts and truth without sounding preachy, condescending and combative.... Be a konstantin. Well done Sir hope those few woke ears there will start to wake up n renavigate their twisted mindset.
So, pollution is the problem, he says, but still business as usual is the solution, the only solution. Havent we heard that one from right wingers before, like a million or trillion times?
@@matshoglund4032 NO he did not talk about pollution; He talked about woke-ism and he mentioned (wokely though) C0two wokely implying like a Normy, as if it were causing a climb it crisis (which is b.s. though) He was saying that going green in UK is totally pointless, That was his introductory preface, and the backbone of his entire talk.
@Mats Hoglund. He didn’t say going green in the Uk was totally pointless. He said the the Uk contribute 2% of emissions. Working hard will realise the technologies and methods to allow cheap and affordable energy. He encourages great minds to work hard and not become distracted with woke behaviours.
The most incredible thing about this speech is that we could still hear bits and pieces of it despite the crap music imposed over the top of it. Amazing.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
A speech for idiots who can’t think for themselves and Oxford is full of them. Pointing out the atrocities of China is not great speech making, when it can’t be challenged. He is in a position where he can say anything detrimental. He points out for instance that many people in Russia don’t have toilets not as many as in India, but he is only interested in condemning Russia. If you think that is great speech making I feel sorry for you. Someone like Stephen Fry would tear him to pieces
The click bait was "the most important speech of 2023". I rejected that claim immediately as we had only just entered the 2nd month of 2023. Then I listened to it for the 3rd time and if there is a better speech it will be a doozie. If Konstantin was my son I would be so proud. It makes me happy too that there are woke people in the audience because they may actually convince others that woke is not the religion that should be followed.
There's a problem with the word woke. I consider myself woke, and through the lens of my "wokeism", I totally agree with your argument. Maybe we could drop that divisive word and say that we need clear, critical thinking. This is thinking that challenges simplistic tropes and unexamined opinions and looks at the structures that harm others and the world, whether that thinking is right-wing or left-wing. That's how I identify myself as woke - being able to seek the truth, even when that truth is inconvenient.
But that's as far away from wokeism as the moon is from the earth. Thinking, making connections, finding scientific approaches - all that is not woke, but intelligent. Being woke has nothing to do with intelligence, but with anger, narcissism and a lot of shouting, i.e. mainly emotions.
You say it's true but do you actually know if what he was saying was correct or not? He does not make a single smart or nuanced statement. 1. "poor people don't care about climate change": WRONG! Go tell that to the millions of people in Pakistan who's homes were under water last year, or the millions of people suffering from draught in the Sahel, or the millions living in the Pacific who are worried that they won't even have islands to live on in 50 years. The global south cares a hell of a lot about climate change because they're the one's that are living it. This idea that poor people are too uneducated or too busy just trying to survive to know or care about the climate is ignorant and inaccurate. 3. "Poor places like South America and China will decide the future of the Climate": OK, so China yes, that's true. But I don't know where he gets south america from. If you take the continent as a whole then yes it produces a sizeable chunk of emissions, but still far less than the United States, and far less than the EU. Notice how he chooses to bunch south america together, but then chooses to talk about the UK as a single country. If he was honest and consistent he would add the UK's emissions to the emissions of the wider European economy. 2. "The UK is only 2% of emissions": SOO WHAT? Climate change isn't going to be solved by just a handful of high emitting countries getting their act together. It will require a global effort, with wealthy countries like the UK leading the way. Why? Because that's how broad scale change happens, not by working in isolation, but through global investment, innovation, imitation and cooperation. Just look at Denmark, their Carbon footprint is very small, smaller than the UKs, yet they've managed to develop a thriving wind energy industry and are now selling wind turbines to the rest of Europe. That's why it's important that every country (and especially the industrialised countries) work towards reducing emissions, because then we have the potential to create a positive innovation feedback loop. 3. " young woke people are stupidly clicking buttons in the vain hope of helping the planet": I ASSUME HERE that he's talking about carbon offsets. Like offsetting for a flight. Carbon offsetting is a highly neoliberal (right-wing) solution to climate change, which has been strongly criticised by progressives for being ineffective. So his point here is just DUMB. If he hates carbon offsets so much, then he should be focusing his anger at capitalist corporations for proposing these schemes, not young woke people 4. "Climate change will be solved through growth and technology": I CAN'T BELIEVE people are still making this argument. We already have most of the technology to solve the problem, what we lack is the political will to do it. Notice how he says tech will solve this but he doesn't mention which tech. It's because he doesn't have a fucking clue. There are tens of thousands of engineers, scientists and energy policy experts around the world working tirelessly to develop better renewable tech and make it economically feasible. And having been taught by many of these people for my degree in Environmental Policy, I can guarantee that they ARE NOT proposing that we just stop the economy growing or stop having babies. The de-growth, anti-natal contingent of the environmental movement is fringe faction. What's so disappointing about this speech is that there is so much to criticise when it comes to wokeness. He could have attacked CRT, cancel culture, excessive identity politics, but no, he had to go and pick climate change, a topic that he clearly knows nothing about.
Insightful video. I just want to know best how people split their pay, how much of it goes into savings, spendings or investments. I'm 27, and earn nothing less than $150k per year, but nothing to show for it yet
I realized that having a job is essential, but relying solely on it can limit my financial growth. With passive income, I have an additional stream of money that keeps flowing in, even if I'm not actively working. It gives me financial security and opens up opportunities for more freedom and choices in life.
There are various ways to generate passive income. One common method is investing in stocks, bonds, or real estate properties that generate regular dividends, interest, or rental income. You can also create and sell digital products, such as e-books or online courses. Another popular option is to invest in businesses or start your own business that can run without your constant involvement. I invest with the help of a fianacial advisor to ensure I only take well calculated risks while also optimizing for maximum profit. So far I've been able to pull in around $470k the past 8 months. Not bad for a passive income I guess
@@RickMckee-nq4ni Like any other investment or business venture, there are risks involved. However, the key is to diversify your income sources and make informed decisions. Passive income doesn't have to be limited to high-risk investments. You can start with the help of a certified financial advisor (CPF) that can guarantee you profits to a large extent. Luckily, I know one Jennifer Puckett Hunter. You can start by looking her up
I'm going to dispute that, but not because I disagree with your clear liking of the speaker's words, but because powerful words also sound like a complete load of rubbish. There are millions of words each day which are written and some appear on social media - THE place that seems to matter nowadays. How many of those words are sensible? Vey few. I'd reword your comment and write "THIS is what truly righteous words sound like."
Wow...someone highly educated and articulate who tells the woke population of the truth they are facing...that we ALL are facing if they continue down this yellow brick road leading to disaster. Thank you for your insights.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
@@rizandro no one is going to read that. He’s a comedian. We’re some of his points silly? Yes. Does that invalidate the point? No. You can argue until your blue in the face. Which by your comment you already have. But it doesn’t change what he said is ultimately true.
@@vinvinvichii Well, if you had been bothered to read it you would have discovered there is significant flaws in his logic. But it`s your choice. His point doesn`t stand true just because you`re not willing to take in criticism.
@@rizandro not really. Just because you autisticlly picked apart all of what he said doesn’t mean you ruined his point. You’ll never get poor people to care about rich people problems. Simple as that. I’m sure your going to say “Its everyone’s problem “ Yea yea.
@@vinvinvichii So what you are telling yourself is that we should only care about what he meant to say rather than what he actually said? What we think he should have said? And he should not be analyzed and criticized? And yes, it is actually everybody’s problem, it seem like it would be quite helpful if everybody pitched in some effort, but there is awareness regarding the effort of each individual and the fact that in order for everyone to live sustainably, some people would have to lower their living standard and some would need to improve. Equity rather than equality.
Did you know about the massive increase in India's and China's solar electricity generation both off and on grid since 2014. Or did you know that for developed countries to become developed they basically are responsible for putting us in this climate crisis. Did you know that all YT comments are bought. Did I know about ❓
As a Brit who has been operating in China on my own dime on sustainable technologies predominantly associated with building stock, this speaker is right on the button as to prioritizing the needs of a given nation, a little odd I find taking such technologies back West is more receptive via USA, but hopeful that just timing. The woke perspective appears to be universally associated with a generation time fame, “feelings over facts” by definition means you can avoid actually focus on the doing. As for impacting a positive response to climate change, it’s a global challenge and those nations that have made their contribution to adversely impacting climate since the first IR should lead those catching up to embrace a clearer route to prosperity not be critical, that’s woke too.
Feelings over facts? That would be Florida and desatan. Conservative people do not like FACTS. ITS been obvious since they decided to ruin our middle class with trickle shit. The Powell memo.... If any remember open up people. These conservatives wear their hearts in the cold part of the body. They are frozen into the 1950s
I don't hear anything motivational all I hear is a man admitting that being a parent makes you think like an idiot. Because what moron is going to sacrifice the planet for somebody who eventually will be forgotten when everyone that knew them is dead? Now I understand people love their children but then again so do most animals and I'm sorry but NO ONE'S CHILDREN ARE WORTH MESSING THIS PLACE UP MORE THAN IT ALREADY IS. People can always screw more and have more children but no woman can squeeze a new planet out of her vagina once this place is gone it's gone and we haven't accomplished Interstellar flight yet so where are we supposed to go if we continue to act the way we do and render this place Uninhabitable? Now I understand people love a good organism but you're going to have to control your hairless ape urges.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Brilliant speech , I hope these young people take on board what Konstantin said. It is Work , Creativity, and Innovation that they need to focus on , Positivity, not NEGATIVITY, AND DESTRUCTION.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
@@mohasat01 It`s a good speech in terms of the rhetorical tools he uses to convince the listensers but if you actually dissect what he says a lot of his statements doesn`t hold up.
@@rizandro I was impressed by his speech - especially what ordinary folks would do for their children despite knowing full well of the harm they would be causing. True. So he suggests using science to help. But other ideas was not ruled out. Appreciate your response.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
You say he's intelligent but do you actually know if what he was saying was correct or not. He does not make a single smart or nuanced statement. 1. "poor people don't care about climate change": WRONG! Go tell that to the millions of people in Pakistan who's homes were under water last year, or the millions of people suffering from draught in the Sahel, or the millions living in the Pacific who are worried that they won't even have islands to live on in 50 years. The global south cares a hell of a lot about climate change because they're the one's that are living it. This idea that poor people are too uneducated or too busy just trying to survive to know or care about the climate is ignorant and inaccurate. 3. "Poor places like South America and China will decide the future of the Climate": OK, so China yes, that's true. But I don't know where he gets south america from. If you take the continent as a whole then yes it produces a sizeable chunk of emissions, but still far less than the United States, and far less than the EU. Notice how he chooses to bunch south america together, but then chooses to talk about the UK as a single country. If he was honest and consistent he would add the UK's emissions to the emissions of the wider European economy. 2. "The UK is only 2% of emissions": SOO WHAT? Climate change isn't going to be solved by just a handful of high emitting countries getting their act together. It will require a global effort, with wealthy countries like the UK leading the way. Why? Because that's how broad scale change happens, not by working in isolation, but through global investment, innovation, imitation and cooperation. Just look at Denmark, their Carbon footprint is very small, smaller than the UKs, yet they've managed to develop a thriving wind energy industry and are now selling wind turbines to the rest of Europe. That's why it's important that every country (and especially the industrialised countries) work towards reducing emissions, because then we have the potential to create a positive innovation feedback loop. 3. " young woke people are stupidly clicking buttons in the vain hope of helping the planet": I ASSUME HERE that he's talking about carbon offsets. Like offsetting for a flight. Carbon offsetting is a highly neoliberal (right-wing) solution to climate change, which has been strongly criticised by progressives for being ineffective. So his point here is just DUMB. If he hates carbon offsets so much, then he should be focusing his anger at capitalist corporations for proposing these schemes, not young woke people 4. "Climate change will be solved through growth and technology": I CAN'T BELIEVE people are still making this argument. We already have most of the technology to solve the problem, what we lack is the political will to do it. Notice how he says tech will solve this but he doesn't mention which tech. It's because he doesn't have a fucking clue. There are tens of thousands of engineers, scientists and energy policy experts around the world working tirelessly to develop better renewable tech and make it economically feasible. And having been taught by many of these people for my degree in Environmental Policy, I can guarantee that they ARE NOT proposing that we just stop the economy growing or stop having babies. The de-growth, anti-natal contingent of the environmental movement is fringe faction. What's so disappointing about this speech is that there is so much to criticise when it comes to wokeness. He could have attacked CRT, cancel culture, excessive identity politics, but no, he had to go and pick climate change, a topic that he clearly knows nothing about.
@@jw-ob1wv are you a bot? You copy and pasted the same thing like 12 times. You and one other seem to be the only two arguing and your both just copy and pasting large amount of text.
@@vinvinvichii Well no I'm not a bot, I did it on purpose. Why should I write something different when all the comments are the same mindless echo chamber drivel. There needs to be at least some pushback against the right wing brainrot that's taken over youtube.
I've seen numerous clips of his speech and am frankly embarrassed that I haven't listened to it in it's entirety until today, 4 months later. Awesome speech!!
@@TimYoung8 Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
@@TimYoung8 What is wrong? Coal consumption in China rose 4.6% in 2021, the strongest rate of growth in a decade. India achieved 55% growth in the production of coal in the last nine years, from 572 million tonne in 2013-14 to 893 MT in 2022-23.
@@grandValo The number of undernourished in China is 35 million. The number is falling because the country is becoming richer. The biggest contributors to CO2 is China at 30% and USA at 15%. Just these 2 countries contribute to just less than half of global CO2 emission and both countries can afford it. China is no longer a poverty stricken country as much as he makes out. But it is all besides the point. The problem is his argument based on false dichotomy. Starving children or take action on climate change. An argument he made up to justify doing nothing on climate change. Another one is to suggest we should spend money on technology rather than tackle climate change. For some reason he does not understand we can do both. His arguments are weak and only convincing to uneducated idiots.
If I ever get to give a speech, this will be my inspiration, a speech also, a conversation also. Just perfect straight from heart and truth bejewelled it.
I share the same sentiment. The pleasure derived from exerting oneself diligently, sensing the contribution made and the subtle transformations brought to the world, all while being rewarded monetarily, adds meaning to every day. Additionally, knowing that I have wholeheartedly dedicated myself to my work, my artistic pursuits, particularly as a teacher, enhances my appreciation for leisure time and enriches my vacation experiences.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Konstantin walked up there, without a script, and just spoke directly to them, pointed out the problem, pointed out the solution, and put things in the proper perspective, and he did so with humour. Fair play to the guy, it was a brilliant speech.
Wow! Sir, that was a speech that was intelligent and inspiring. It was so much common sense. I'm sorry I'm speechless I'm, I'm truly speechless, and I'm going to say thank you, and that's all folk .
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
I discovered this gentlemen only lately, I like him very much. I've long ago adopted the center thinking, a balanced and rational thinking which leads to progress, the good kind for people.
@@shirleylopez4304 Konstantin Kisin, Ex soviet immigrant, his family had harsh times from the soviet government and they immigrated to the UK. He's a comedian with center political views. In my opinion he's very balanced, tend to use humor and his articulation is in high level.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
And yet what have we learned. To hate an imaginary villain. Continue to recycle. Continue to research solutions. Don't waste time participating in divisive youtube bullying.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Konstantin is an inspiration, and to me he is one of the most intelligent and principled people I have listened to for a long time. I wish we had more people like this in our country because his common sense would put an end to the ridiculous 'culture war' we are embroiled in.
What did like of this talk? This is a big lies and use their lies to control you. Is this God to control this climate change 😂 Just to Rob your money . Idiots big time.
wow!! this has got to be the best speech with any doubt for our new generation who are brainwashed by screen addiction and wokeness.. I would hope there is still hope for the future of our race.. Konstantin Kisin is a blessing..
Truth and hard truth !!! Thank You for making people aware of the reality and the actions required from us as a Global Citizen is to Work, Create and Build !!! 😍😍😍
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
"why would I care about the climate when I can't even afford to put food on the table for my kids?". VS "why doesn't anyone care about the future our kids will have to be punished for"? (What's more important?)
But poor India did help and rescue poor people from Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Sudan, Chechnya, Myanmar (Rohingya), China (Uyghur),yemen
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Great content. I plan to retire at 55 with $3MILLION in savings and a few passive income sources, I'm currently 38 and although I started investing this year I have high hopes for the future....
To manage your money and achieve financial freedom. Start investing, that's the only way to multiply your income and stay rich always. I spent my 30's and 40's investing in stocks and real estate. That's the best thing I did for myself. Recently discovered crypto now and life feels more easier.
My first experience with her gave me the assurance that has made me to invest without fear of loosing and I got four of my friends involved with her already ...
I usually go with registered representatives. ''MARCIA LANAE" for example has the best performance history (in my opinion) and does offers 1v1 consultation to her copiers which I think is amazing. I don’t know how many traders like that are there.>
Nothing they haven't heard already. "Need more sanitation projects in poor countries. Need to find technical solutions for green power!" Greta Thunberg has been saying this for years. And she has some credibility, unlike this hypocritical dweeb.
You say he's dead on but do you actually know if what he was saying was correct or not? He does not make a single smart or nuanced statement. 1. "poor people don't care about climate change": WRONG! Go tell that to the millions of people in Pakistan who's homes were under water last year, or the millions of people suffering from draught in the Sahel, or the millions living in the Pacific who are worried that they won't even have islands to live on in 50 years. The global south cares a hell of a lot about climate change because they're the one's that are living it. This idea that poor people are too uneducated or too busy just trying to survive to know or care about the climate is ignorant and inaccurate. 3. "Poor places like South America and China will decide the future of the Climate": OK, so China yes, that's true. But I don't know where he gets south america from. If you take the continent as a whole then yes it produces a sizeable chunk of emissions, but still far less than the United States, and far less than the EU. Notice how he chooses to bunch south america together, but then chooses to talk about the UK as a single country. If he was honest and consistent he would add the UK's emissions to the emissions of the wider European economy. 2. "The UK is only 2% of emissions": SOO WHAT? Climate change isn't going to be solved by just a handful of high emitting countries getting their act together. It will require a global effort, with wealthy countries like the UK leading the way. Why? Because that's how broad scale change happens, not by working in isolation, but through global investment, innovation, imitation and cooperation. Just look at Denmark, their Carbon footprint is very small, smaller than the UKs, yet they've managed to develop a thriving wind energy industry and are now selling wind turbines to the rest of Europe. That's why it's important that every country (and especially the industrialised countries) work towards reducing emissions, because then we have the potential to create a positive innovation feedback loop. 3. " young woke people are stupidly clicking buttons in the vain hope of helping the planet": I ASSUME HERE that he's talking about carbon offsets. Like offsetting for a flight. Carbon offsetting is a highly neoliberal (right-wing) solution to climate change, which has been strongly criticised by progressives for being ineffective. So his point here is just DUMB. If he hates carbon offsets so much, then he should be focusing his anger at capitalist corporations for proposing these schemes, not young woke people 4. "Climate change will be solved through growth and technology": I CAN'T BELIEVE people are still making this argument. We already have most of the technology to solve the problem, what we lack is the political will to do it. Notice how he says tech will solve this but he doesn't mention which tech. It's because he doesn't have a fucking clue. There are tens of thousands of engineers, scientists and energy policy experts around the world working tirelessly to develop better renewable tech and make it economically feasible. And having been taught by many of these people for my degree in Environmental Policy, I can guarantee that they ARE NOT proposing that we just stop the economy growing or stop having babies. The de-growth, anti-natal contingent of the environmental movement is fringe faction. What's so disappointing about this speech is that there is so much to criticise when it comes to wokeness. He could have attacked CRT, cancel culture, excessive identity politics, but no, he had to go and pick climate change, a topic that he clearly knows nothing about.
Great speech. SUCH A SPEECH ALSO Needed FOR LOOKING FOR ALIEN LIFE, DEEP Space AND OCEANIC RESEARCHES ETC, COZ huge amount of money is being wasted on these research rather than making our own planet a better place
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Oh if only Konstantin could be Prime Minister. He not only has a huge brain or intellect it also a big heart. What a tremendously inspiring speech. I hope woke people will truly wake up!
I was raised to think of others. I heard it every day of my life and my mother. And that is what I have done my entire life is think of others. From what I have seen woke is nothing more than narcissism. It seems to be me me I I me me II. I was hoping we would evolve into loving compassionate caring beings. Sadly I have lost my faith in mankind😢
@@captaintom6111 He never referred to them as "opponents", but he did call them" bright young minds" who, if they continue to become inculcated by their woke leftist professors would graduate without knowing how to value work, innovate and think for themselves, but instead feel the need to throw soup at paintings, violently protest, shout and scream. In other words "woke idiots".. Just truth, without animosity.
Do you think only SPEAKING against wokeness will help, without act? How many people of color did you beat yesterday to help fight wokeness, not simply speak against it? Did you at least donate to some ultra right party?
@geoffmcmahon, what do you believe? You believe in the shit about Asia? How pathetic is the British now. Especially China. You believe in this guy who has never been to China and Asia? Did you go search hard about us?
I don’t think it’s that say poor people don’t care about climate change. It’s just not a priority. Staying alive and having opportunities to prosper is more important. As such those who consume most of the worlds resources are responsible for finding a solution for cleaner emissions. The worlds natural resources are finite, end of. I am glad to be a member of the woke brigade, specifically the indigenous peoples woke brigade who have been guardians of the land since time immemorial.
You has million kid has no food and city is getting bankrupt For Eastern large country please go there and see People have enough food. has the technology to build new and clean energy and cheap. is doing for the climate change more than the west. The west is using other countries made items, to cut out the pollution, so if the west is using the poor countries made, you are part of the pollution
Wow!!!!! That was very, very well put Sir, you are one of the smartest people I have ever listened to, you are a 1000% right of what you said, you make me proud and believe that there are still caring and correct ideals of what needs to be done to these woke brainwashed people in this world, I SALUTE YOU SIR
If you like his tone and tempameter and the meaning of the words behind his postulates your gonna abso do backflips for Asha Logos calm well mannered extreme thought ambrosia. Give it try head on over to his channel... I haven't since highschool when cornel a stanford and Princeton and a harvard Proffesor said f education for profit inc and came to do some grassroots critical thinking skills enhancement at my highschool for poly sci, english, us history, us government, us before 1860, us after 1860 and classical lit in our pretty cool rotating rosecrution period system and forward thinking quarter system. Not since then have I been so impressed with well worded thought provoking statements of discernment... Not even my college days and various lectures attended and audited at the best unis and institutions in the world... This guy is plumb wonderful and refreshing... As so is Asha Logos... Bloody Brilliant man...
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply. He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible. The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard. The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system. There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food. Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country. Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool. The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not. His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them. His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences? Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge? Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister: In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen. In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it. Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do. Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now. His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning. By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Yes, but even RUclips censored some of that speech. To be so spot on and not be able to hear that speech in its entirety is the travesty of censorship in media
Thank You So Much For Watching And STAAAY BLESSED :)
If You are interested in my book full of short stories it is available now !
www.amazon.com/dp/B0BPQYT3WH
www.amazon.in/dp/B0BPQYT3WH
im blessed to have listened to your content, when i worked in care homes with masks and gloves, unable to hug the old wise souls. when i worked with colleagues riddled with fear. I would retreat on my lunch break into your content and know deep in my heart that the wisdom you project with your content will never be lost. the divine spark gifted to humanity lives on and your content only adds to that fact. stay blessed my friend
Who is this speaker?
If specific people hadn't spend an Era of plundering, looting and colonizing the whole world, the world, definitely, would have been a much better place!
China and rest of Asia weren't poor to begin with. British Empire looted Asia and reduced it to shams!
Then they industrialized, damaged the majority of environment, and now they're worried about climate change! LOL
Do believe that jesus was'nt awake ? Soon time will tell.
So its woke culture that is responsible for carbon footprint? How can we, each of us, help then? Should we go beat ethnic minorities? Lynch some racial minorities, maybe? Will pushing gays into committing suicide help? Maybe killing a trans person or two in the fit of trans panick will help offset the dreadful evil of woke? Or is it too late and we have to establish an ultra right government with maybe a death camp or two, for the Greater Good?
Needs to be played at the WEF summit. Of course those people already know this, they just have another agenda.
Most of top companies have no problem invest BILLIONS in China while talking about Human's rights and Environment Protection.
They don't care, it's all virtual signaling.
They know and could care less about the climate. It’s just a power grab for all that those that spew it for the rest of us and in their own lives ignore all those concerns. Which one of them takes public transportation or uses commercial airlines?
Lol ya that would do nothing but enfuriate them lol
Yep, they use “climate change” as their rallying cry to fleece the normal people
“Poor people don’t care abou the planet. So why should rich people care?” Great argument!
This discourse ought to be required for any student of public speech, or environmental science, or debating courses. Brilliant man!
'There is not a parent in the world who would not smash that button so hard their hand bled'. As a parent it is this very statement that hits me hardest from this speech, simply because it is so true.
To a degree I'm an outlier but my junkie parents kicked me out at 13 in 1997 😂
And now imagine being the parent of the kid that needs to inhale that. How would that hit you?
@@grigturcescu6190 You don't have children obviously. Or brains. Constantin talks far more sense than the complainers like yourself.
@@grigturcescu6190 Are you trying to virtue for some people that don't exist that is NEXT level trying to start an argument to fill the silence of your own empty room 😂 amazing you felt the need to try so hard. It's always people like you that come up with scenarios but I bet you've never actually helped anyone ever bought a homeless person lunch or a drink? Ever sat on a bench and talked to an old person about life in the high street? No. Because you're not good 😁
This guy is "polarising" the woke argument, pushing it to an extreme - to try to make his own argument... which shows he's on weak ground.
First of all this 'woke' and classifying people as this is nonsense! You know the Republicans in the 1950s called those civil rights defenders who were fighting segregation "all" the same things such as Socialist, Communist, and Marxist.
And true 'woke' is not against science, it's about "balance."
When I heard, "woke" and "wokeness" I considered not watching any further. I'm glad I stayed for the entire speech.
Dumb speech. Unsubscribe to this channel. 🖕. The number of undernourished in China is 35 million. The number is falling because the country is becoming richer. The biggest contributors to CO2 is China at 30% and USA at 15%. Just these 2 countries contribute to just less than half of global CO2 emission and both countries can afford it. China is no longer a poverty stricken country as much as he makes out. But it is all besides the point. The problem is his argument based on false dichotomy. Starving children or take action on climate change. BS. Analogy is your family spends a lot of money and is in debt. Then try to argue you can't cut back on anything because we will all die if we just cut back on £1. I can do extreme too. Don't play the victim mentality and just make more money instead of cutting back our spending. Since it is hopeless to cut back our spending because we will all die, we shouldn't even try and focus on getting more income. But wait. Are you? Are you really going out there to push for technology to improve climate change or just making excuses why you don't want to lift a finger to help?
I was born in the Soviet Union too! Outdoor toilet stinks up your whole property sometimes, depending on the wind. Imagine eating an apple and smelling 💩
I felt the same way and i, too am glad that I listened to the end
.
Excellent...! Now that you are in the correct lane, be brave and continue... (good advice from a guy who has been around for 70+ years...)
Same
The most amazing thing about this speech is not his eloquently he revealed the truth, the most amazing thing is that the students actually sat quietly and respectfully and listened! Perhaps there is hope after all!
The reason those students sat quietly and listened to the speaker is that it happened at a Uk university instead of an American one:
@@gordonmills7798 Yes, thanks much. It is extremely rare for students at any serious lecture hall to interrupt, hassle, or make comments during a speech. Indeed, while the man happened to be a comedian, he came off as a professor. No student is going to do a MTG during a lecture; they do exactly what was said above: sit quietly, respectfully and listen. They may have questions following his speech, but he was very blunt about leaving. The ONLY ppl who would hassle a speaker are not students; they are mmbrs of a movement sent there specifically to make waves.
Don't be fooled, it wasn't in this country
thеrе is аlwаys hоpе. thеrе WILL Bе АLWАYS H0PЕ. dоеnst mаttеr оf thе dаy thеrе will аlwаys bе hоpе, еvеn in thе wоrst situаctiоn wе аs humаns will survivе.
Poor people are not the problem, and the Bible talks about climate as a sighn,and a punishment.
One of the many brillaint speeches at the Oxford Union.Thank you Konstantin Kisi very well presented
As an Indian who has so far managed to cling on to the competitive and greasy pole of a middle-class career, I am astounded by wokeness I see in very rich and well-off Westerners!!
There's no such thing as wokeness. It's stupid and it only exists in small right wingy minds.
“Very rich and well-off” are key words. The rest of us aren’t woke
They choose to live that way
Hear hear sir
They don't have issues in their lives so they need to invent
I like the way he is educating not preaching or attacking.
Brilliant talk.
He is not educating..pandering at best
You say he's educating but do you actually know if what he was saying was correct or not? He does not make a single smart or nuanced statement.
1. "poor people don't care about climate change": WRONG! Go tell that to the millions of people in Pakistan who's homes were under water last year, or the millions of people suffering from draught in the Sahel, or the millions living in the Pacific who are worried that they won't even have islands to live on in 50 years. The global south cares a hell of a lot about climate change because they're the one's that are living it. This idea that poor people are too uneducated or too busy just trying to survive to know or care about the climate is ignorant and inaccurate.
3. "Poor places like South America and China will decide the future of the Climate": OK, so China yes, that's true. But I don't know where he gets south america from. If you take the continent as a whole then yes it produces a sizeable chunk of emissions, but still far less than the United States, and far less than the EU. Notice how he chooses to bunch south america together, but then chooses to talk about the UK as a single country. If he was honest and consistent he would add the UK's emissions to the emissions of the wider European economy.
2. "The UK is only 2% of emissions": SOO WHAT? Climate change isn't going to be solved by just a handful of high emitting countries getting their act together. It will require a global effort, with wealthy countries like the UK leading the way. Why? Because that's how broad scale change happens, not by working in isolation, but through global investment, innovation, imitation and cooperation. Just look at Denmark, their Carbon footprint is very small, smaller than the UKs, yet they've managed to develop a thriving wind energy industry and are now selling wind turbines to the rest of Europe. That's why it's important that every country (and especially the industrialised countries) work towards reducing emissions, because then we have the potential to create a positive innovation feedback loop.
3. " young woke people are stupidly clicking buttons in the vain hope of helping the planet": I ASSUME HERE that he's talking about carbon offsets. Like offsetting for a flight. Carbon offsetting is a highly neoliberal (right-wing) solution to climate change, which has been strongly criticised by progressives for being ineffective. So his point here is just DUMB. If he hates carbon offsets so much, then he should be focusing his anger at capitalist corporations for proposing these schemes, not young woke people
4. "Climate change will be solved through growth and technology": I CAN'T BELIEVE people are still making this argument. We already have most of the technology to solve the problem, what we lack is the political will to do it. Notice how he says tech will solve this but he doesn't mention which tech. It's because he doesn't have a fucking clue. There are tens of thousands of engineers, scientists and energy policy experts around the world working tirelessly to develop better renewable tech and make it economically feasible. And having been taught by many of these people for my degree in Environmental Policy, I can guarantee that they ARE NOT proposing that we just stop the economy growing or stop having babies. The de-growth, anti-natal contingent of the environmental movement is fringe faction.
What's so disappointing about this speech is that there is so much to criticise when it comes to wokeness. He could have attacked CRT, cancel culture, excessive identity politics, but no, he had to go and pick climate change, a topic that he clearly knows nothing about.
@@jw-ob1wv what's there to talk about? You can't stop climate change unless you stop using technology altogether, which will kill a lot of people. No one is willingly gonna do that.
The only way forward now is some kind of clean renewable energy and more advanced technolog, which was mentioned in the speech. No, not your solar panel and EVs that requires mining for lithium and coppers done by child slaves. Something like nuclear energy that's actually clean with proper disposal and produces little waste.
There's also public transportation that need to be revamped. Good luck convincing the gen pop to get rid of their cars in favor of electric trains like the one in Japan. People will see the Uber rich with cars and then start bitching about class disparity. There's no pleasing people.
@@jw-ob1wv I appreciate how you demolished this pseudo-intellectual and clearly ideological speech. The positioning of this doofus as 'anti-woke' from the get-go reveals he has a shallow grasp of the issues.
This dude would be an amazing vacuum cleaner salesman.
This is truly inspirational speaking. I have now listened to this four times. He does not trash the young audience. He starts with absolute truths and finishes with real optimism,
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
True, but it’s not just about working. That would imply that people just put their head down and do what someone else tells them to do every day. The ingenuity to create change, requires confidence, creativity, and breakthrough …not following anyone.
Absolute genius. I could speak for days and not say as much as he said in 7 minutes. I'm awestruck.
I can pick a hole in every fatuous claim he has so boldly espoused here. Truthiness ain't necessarily what follows on the heels of brazenly clichéd postulations. Start with 'woke'. What's that? Like CRT, it's a fatuous coinage that professes faith in sensory miscarriages. Recall the rage on small government? Remind me where we're on that one now? Remember 'judicial activism'? Who's doing activism with our judiciary now? Don't get carried away by the cute phraseology, my friend. It's all brainwash materiel.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
@@rizandro bro you think way too deep to the point where you outsmart yourself. Give it a break the man has a point, Britain fall wouldn't make that big of a change at all and besides everything he said was true. this essay is unnecessary
Brilliant. M.y heart is pounding in my chest due to the excitement you created.thank you.by the way I am an 87 year old female
The man is an idiot
GET IT GRANDMA
Gave that speech without any notes. Just stood up there and spoke from his mind. Amazing.
Yeah, that is a great achievement, isn't it? btw so did Greta Thunberg at the age of 15. In a foreign language. On a scientific level. Go figure.
@@michaeldemus6666 Greta Thunberg was coached, for one, practiced that speech (as did this gentleman), and she offered nothing scientific. Only the emotions of a brainwashed youth. She got social media fame, and the Left kept trotting her out there to exploit the fact that she was a child. Because if anyone disagrees, they would also cry, "How dare you..." These are the same people, of course, who would have readily aborted her at 9 months if given the chance, and who probably try to indoctrinate and sexualize her as well. The same people on the Left who are running school systems, social media, and now healthcare systems. They don't give a shit about the environment or children - they just want everyone compliant, poor, and dependent.
Generally how a speech works TBH. Also good public speaking does not necessarily mean good content. It may sound compelling but if it's full of badly researched and thought through placations to those already aligned with his conclusion, I'd rather take a mumbling man with a list of scrawled notes but something of substance to contribute any day of the week. It might be harder to listen to but on the other hand I might actually learn something in the process.
It also helps when you are layered over an epic and inspiring backing track.
Nice bit of right wing propaganda though.
@@michaeldemus6666 i hope you are joking
@@igorfilipovic6531 lol 😂 my thoughts exactly!!
How does one delivers so eloquently, full of facts and truth without sounding preachy, condescending and combative.... Be a konstantin. Well done Sir hope those few woke ears there will start to wake up n renavigate their twisted mindset.
Must be one of the best speeches give I have ever heard.100% right.
Almost! Its flaw was still considering C02 as a pollutant
So, pollution is the problem, he says, but still business as usual is the solution, the only solution. Havent we heard that one from right wingers before, like a million or trillion times?
@@matshoglund4032 NO he did not talk about pollution; He talked about woke-ism and he mentioned (wokely though) C0two wokely implying like a Normy, as if it were causing a climb it crisis (which is b.s. though) He was saying that going green in UK is totally pointless, That was his introductory preface, and the backbone of his entire talk.
@@mtlicq I totally agree with what he said.
@Mats Hoglund. He didn’t say going green in the Uk was totally pointless. He said the the Uk contribute 2% of emissions. Working hard will realise the technologies and methods to allow cheap and affordable energy. He encourages great minds to work hard and not become distracted with woke behaviours.
It takes immense intelligence, awareness and courage to be a comedian. Hence his speech has such great resonance
The most incredible thing about this speech is that we could still hear bits and pieces of it despite the crap music imposed over the top of it. Amazing.
Yeah whats with the crap music spoiling this brilliant speech 🙄🙉
Yes the music is annoying
I thought the crap music enhanced it. Just like Greta's "How dare you." 🤣 🤣 🤣
@@bayouelton only he makes more sense than Greta ever did.. did you actually listen to the speech?!
@@hummingbird399I don’t think you understood the comment. He is commenting on the ‘soundbite’ within this video of Greta saying ‘how dare you’.
HE SPOKE THE UTTER TRUTH OF LIFE.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
What a bright person.. Wonderful... All young people should be hearing this ebety month st school👍
This speech is a must in The Australian Education curriculum.
a must in all the developed countries
A speech for idiots who can’t think for themselves and Oxford is full of them. Pointing out the atrocities of China is not great speech making, when it can’t be challenged. He is in a position where he can say anything detrimental. He points out for instance that many people in Russia don’t have toilets not as many as in India, but he is only interested in condemning Russia. If you think that is great speech making I feel sorry for you. Someone like Stephen Fry would tear him to pieces
And in every other western country's education system. Well said that man!
I was just thinking the same thing.
Amen to that.
The click bait was "the most important speech of 2023". I rejected that claim immediately as we had only just entered the 2nd month of 2023.
Then I listened to it for the 3rd time and if there is a better speech it will be a doozie.
If Konstantin was my son I would be so proud.
It makes me happy too that there are woke people in the audience because they may actually convince others that woke is not the religion that should be followed.
There's a problem with the word woke. I consider myself woke, and through the lens of my "wokeism", I totally agree with your argument. Maybe we could drop that divisive word and say that we need clear, critical thinking. This is thinking that challenges simplistic tropes and unexamined opinions and looks at the structures that harm others and the world, whether that thinking is right-wing or left-wing. That's how I identify myself as woke - being able to seek the truth, even when that truth is inconvenient.
But that's as far away from wokeism as the moon is from the earth. Thinking, making connections, finding scientific approaches - all that is not woke, but intelligent. Being woke has nothing to do with intelligence, but with anger, narcissism and a lot of shouting, i.e. mainly emotions.
I salute you, sir! You’re telling the truth. You nailed it! Stay as the mouthpiece of TRUTH! A lot are backing you up!
Great. So true. Send it around the world. Everybody should hear that, specially the young folks
You say it's true but do you actually know if what he was saying was correct or not? He does not make a single smart or nuanced statement.
1. "poor people don't care about climate change": WRONG! Go tell that to the millions of people in Pakistan who's homes were under water last year, or the millions of people suffering from draught in the Sahel, or the millions living in the Pacific who are worried that they won't even have islands to live on in 50 years. The global south cares a hell of a lot about climate change because they're the one's that are living it. This idea that poor people are too uneducated or too busy just trying to survive to know or care about the climate is ignorant and inaccurate.
3. "Poor places like South America and China will decide the future of the Climate": OK, so China yes, that's true. But I don't know where he gets south america from. If you take the continent as a whole then yes it produces a sizeable chunk of emissions, but still far less than the United States, and far less than the EU. Notice how he chooses to bunch south america together, but then chooses to talk about the UK as a single country. If he was honest and consistent he would add the UK's emissions to the emissions of the wider European economy.
2. "The UK is only 2% of emissions": SOO WHAT? Climate change isn't going to be solved by just a handful of high emitting countries getting their act together. It will require a global effort, with wealthy countries like the UK leading the way. Why? Because that's how broad scale change happens, not by working in isolation, but through global investment, innovation, imitation and cooperation. Just look at Denmark, their Carbon footprint is very small, smaller than the UKs, yet they've managed to develop a thriving wind energy industry and are now selling wind turbines to the rest of Europe. That's why it's important that every country (and especially the industrialised countries) work towards reducing emissions, because then we have the potential to create a positive innovation feedback loop.
3. " young woke people are stupidly clicking buttons in the vain hope of helping the planet": I ASSUME HERE that he's talking about carbon offsets. Like offsetting for a flight. Carbon offsetting is a highly neoliberal (right-wing) solution to climate change, which has been strongly criticised by progressives for being ineffective. So his point here is just DUMB. If he hates carbon offsets so much, then he should be focusing his anger at capitalist corporations for proposing these schemes, not young woke people
4. "Climate change will be solved through growth and technology": I CAN'T BELIEVE people are still making this argument. We already have most of the technology to solve the problem, what we lack is the political will to do it. Notice how he says tech will solve this but he doesn't mention which tech. It's because he doesn't have a fucking clue. There are tens of thousands of engineers, scientists and energy policy experts around the world working tirelessly to develop better renewable tech and make it economically feasible. And having been taught by many of these people for my degree in Environmental Policy, I can guarantee that they ARE NOT proposing that we just stop the economy growing or stop having babies. The de-growth, anti-natal contingent of the environmental movement is fringe faction.
What's so disappointing about this speech is that there is so much to criticise when it comes to wokeness. He could have attacked CRT, cancel culture, excessive identity politics, but no, he had to go and pick climate change, a topic that he clearly knows nothing about.
Insightful video. I just want to know best how people split their pay, how much of it goes into savings, spendings or investments. I'm 27, and earn nothing less than $150k per year, but nothing to show for it yet
I realized that having a job is essential, but relying solely on it can limit my financial growth. With passive income, I have an additional stream of money that keeps flowing in, even if I'm not actively working. It gives me financial security and opens up opportunities for more freedom and choices in life.
That sounds intriguing. Having a regular job isn't enough to sustain my needs. So how do one generate passive income?
There are various ways to generate passive income. One common method is investing in stocks, bonds, or real estate properties that generate regular dividends, interest, or rental income. You can also create and sell digital products, such as e-books or online courses. Another popular option is to invest in businesses or start your own business that can run without your constant involvement. I invest with the help of a fianacial advisor to ensure I only take well calculated risks while also optimizing for maximum profit. So far I've been able to pull in around $470k the past 8 months. Not bad for a passive income I guess
@@AndrianWiener That sounds great, but isn't it risky to invest in businesses or stocks as an armature without a professional supervision?
@@RickMckee-nq4ni Like any other investment or business venture, there are risks involved. However, the key is to diversify your income sources and make informed decisions. Passive income doesn't have to be limited to high-risk investments. You can start with the help of a certified financial advisor (CPF) that can guarantee you profits to a large extent. Luckily, I know one Jennifer Puckett Hunter. You can start by looking her up
This is what powerful words sound like 👑
I'm going to dispute that, but not because I disagree with your clear liking of the speaker's words, but because powerful words also sound like a complete load of rubbish. There are millions of words each day which are written and some appear on social media - THE place that seems to matter nowadays. How many of those words are sensible? Vey few.
I'd reword your comment and write "THIS is what truly righteous words sound like."
Thank you for correcting me, I'll keep your wisdom😇
@@poopinlumpy very well said
Powerful words indeed. Unfortunately the silly "music" trivializes their impact.
Empty rhetoric.
Wow...someone highly educated and articulate who tells the woke population of the truth they are facing...that we ALL are facing if they continue down this yellow brick road leading to disaster. Thank you for your insights.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
@@rizandro no one is going to read that. He’s a comedian. We’re some of his points silly? Yes. Does that invalidate the point? No.
You can argue until your blue in the face. Which by your comment you already have. But it doesn’t change what he said is ultimately true.
@@vinvinvichii Well, if you had been bothered to read it you would have discovered there is significant flaws in his logic. But it`s your choice. His point doesn`t stand true just because you`re not willing to take in criticism.
@@rizandro not really. Just because you autisticlly picked apart all of what he said doesn’t mean you ruined his point.
You’ll never get poor people to care about rich people problems. Simple as that.
I’m sure your going to say
“Its everyone’s problem “
Yea yea.
@@vinvinvichii So what you are telling yourself is that we should only care about what he meant to say rather than what he actually said? What we think he should have said?
And he should not be analyzed and criticized?
And yes, it is actually everybody’s problem, it seem like it would be quite helpful if everybody pitched in some effort, but there is awareness regarding the effort of each individual and the fact that in order for everyone to live sustainably, some people would have to lower their living standard and some would need to improve. Equity rather than equality.
7 minutes of Wonder, 7 Minutes of Fact, 7 minutes of absolute common sense..........Thank you Konstantin, from the depths of my soul, THANK YOU
Did you know about the massive increase in India's and China's solar electricity generation both off and on grid since 2014. Or did you know that for developed countries to become developed they basically are responsible for putting us in this climate crisis. Did you know that all YT comments are bought. Did I know about ❓
Fact 😅
@@akashsinha2880 Please explain,
Facts? In the first couple of seconds he already is wrong about "woke" and its meaning!
@@kyleisaacson you FOOL
As a Brit who has been operating in China on my own dime on sustainable technologies predominantly associated with building stock, this speaker is right on the button as to prioritizing the needs of a given nation, a little odd I find taking such technologies back West is more receptive via USA, but hopeful that just timing. The woke perspective appears to be universally associated with a generation time fame, “feelings over facts” by definition means you can avoid actually focus on the doing. As for impacting a positive response to climate change, it’s a global challenge and those nations that have made their contribution to adversely impacting climate since the first IR should lead those catching up to embrace a clearer route to prosperity not be critical, that’s woke too.
Feelings over facts? That would be Florida and desatan. Conservative people do not like FACTS. ITS been obvious since they decided to ruin our middle class with trickle shit. The Powell memo.... If any remember open up people. These conservatives wear their hearts in the cold part of the body. They are frozen into the 1950s
In other words
A much needed motivation Right now...🤚
This needs to spread all over on a serious note
I don't hear anything motivational all I hear is a man admitting that being a parent makes you think like an idiot. Because what moron is going to sacrifice the planet for somebody who eventually will be forgotten when everyone that knew them is dead? Now I understand people love their children but then again so do most animals and I'm sorry but NO ONE'S CHILDREN ARE WORTH MESSING THIS PLACE UP MORE THAN IT ALREADY IS. People can always screw more and have more children but no woman can squeeze a new planet out of her vagina once this place is gone it's gone and we haven't accomplished Interstellar flight yet so where are we supposed to go if we continue to act the way we do and render this place Uninhabitable? Now I understand people love a good organism but you're going to have to control your hairless ape urges.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
@@rizandro Absolutely love your dissection of this video. I actually learned a couple of things from your comment.
Serious as cancer my friend, as serious as that.
R.
Why not have this brilliant speech translated into as many languages as possible- and let it be broadcast far and wide - all across our world!JaiHind!
Brilliant speech , I hope these young people take on board what Konstantin said. It is Work , Creativity, and Innovation that they need to focus on , Positivity, not NEGATIVITY, AND DESTRUCTION.
He grabbed my attention and kept me there to full realization of the truth he spoke!
Well you are easily brain washed.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
@@rizandro Can you summarize this - a short paragraph would be enough. No, I did not read it.
@@mohasat01 It`s a good speech in terms of the rhetorical tools he uses to convince the listensers but if you actually dissect what he says a lot of his statements doesn`t hold up.
@@rizandro I was impressed by his speech - especially what ordinary folks would do for their children despite knowing full well of the harm they would be causing. True. So he suggests using science to help. But other ideas was not ruled out. Appreciate your response.
WHAT A GREAT SPEECH!! GREAT MAN!!❤❤
Love u bro from india 🇮🇳 god bless u
This is the most needed message for the current generation and myself .we need to pass this message and PRESS THE BUTTON
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
I wish this speech could be presented to the entire world that might just get them all to think what this brilliant gent has just said!!
He’s a very intelligent man. I love the way he’s speaking tonight.
You say he's intelligent but do you actually know if what he was saying was correct or not. He does not make a single smart or nuanced statement.
1. "poor people don't care about climate change": WRONG! Go tell that to the millions of people in Pakistan who's homes were under water last year, or the millions of people suffering from draught in the Sahel, or the millions living in the Pacific who are worried that they won't even have islands to live on in 50 years. The global south cares a hell of a lot about climate change because they're the one's that are living it. This idea that poor people are too uneducated or too busy just trying to survive to know or care about the climate is ignorant and inaccurate.
3. "Poor places like South America and China will decide the future of the Climate": OK, so China yes, that's true. But I don't know where he gets south america from. If you take the continent as a whole then yes it produces a sizeable chunk of emissions, but still far less than the United States, and far less than the EU. Notice how he chooses to bunch south america together, but then chooses to talk about the UK as a single country. If he was honest and consistent he would add the UK's emissions to the emissions of the wider European economy.
2. "The UK is only 2% of emissions": SOO WHAT? Climate change isn't going to be solved by just a handful of high emitting countries getting their act together. It will require a global effort, with wealthy countries like the UK leading the way. Why? Because that's how broad scale change happens, not by working in isolation, but through global investment, innovation, imitation and cooperation. Just look at Denmark, their Carbon footprint is very small, smaller than the UKs, yet they've managed to develop a thriving wind energy industry and are now selling wind turbines to the rest of Europe. That's why it's important that every country (and especially the industrialised countries) work towards reducing emissions, because then we have the potential to create a positive innovation feedback loop.
3. " young woke people are stupidly clicking buttons in the vain hope of helping the planet": I ASSUME HERE that he's talking about carbon offsets. Like offsetting for a flight. Carbon offsetting is a highly neoliberal (right-wing) solution to climate change, which has been strongly criticised by progressives for being ineffective. So his point here is just DUMB. If he hates carbon offsets so much, then he should be focusing his anger at capitalist corporations for proposing these schemes, not young woke people
4. "Climate change will be solved through growth and technology": I CAN'T BELIEVE people are still making this argument. We already have most of the technology to solve the problem, what we lack is the political will to do it. Notice how he says tech will solve this but he doesn't mention which tech. It's because he doesn't have a fucking clue. There are tens of thousands of engineers, scientists and energy policy experts around the world working tirelessly to develop better renewable tech and make it economically feasible. And having been taught by many of these people for my degree in Environmental Policy, I can guarantee that they ARE NOT proposing that we just stop the economy growing or stop having babies. The de-growth, anti-natal contingent of the environmental movement is fringe faction.
What's so disappointing about this speech is that there is so much to criticise when it comes to wokeness. He could have attacked CRT, cancel culture, excessive identity politics, but no, he had to go and pick climate change, a topic that he clearly knows nothing about.
@@jw-ob1wv are you a bot? You copy and pasted the same thing like 12 times. You and one other seem to be the only two arguing and your both just copy and pasting large amount of text.
@@vinvinvichii Well no I'm not a bot, I did it on purpose. Why should I write something different when all the comments are the same mindless echo chamber drivel. There needs to be at least some pushback against the right wing brainrot that's taken over youtube.
@@jw-ob1wv I'm not good at accents. I know he is Russian but is he speaking from Canada UK or Australia. ?
I've seen numerous clips of his speech and am frankly embarrassed that I haven't listened to it in it's entirety until today, 4 months later. Awesome speech!!
Probably one of the best speeches I have heard and listened too many times
The world political scene needs more people like this gentleman, just facts, no bull and very convincing.
The facts the quoted are actually wrong.
@@TimYoung8 Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
@@TimYoung8 What is wrong? Coal consumption in China rose 4.6% in 2021, the strongest rate of growth in a decade. India achieved 55% growth in the production of coal in the last nine years, from 572 million tonne in 2013-14 to 893 MT in 2022-23.
@@grandValo The number of undernourished in China is 35 million. The number is falling because the country is becoming richer. The biggest contributors to CO2 is China at 30% and USA at 15%. Just these 2 countries contribute to just less than half of global CO2 emission and both countries can afford it. China is no longer a poverty stricken country as much as he makes out. But it is all besides the point. The problem is his argument based on false dichotomy. Starving children or take action on climate change. An argument he made up to justify doing nothing on climate change. Another one is to suggest we should spend money on technology rather than tackle climate change. For some reason he does not understand we can do both. His arguments are weak and only convincing to uneducated idiots.
@@TimYoung8 You are really stupid.
If I ever get to give a speech, this will be my inspiration, a speech also, a conversation also. Just perfect straight from heart and truth bejewelled it.
I share the same sentiment. The pleasure derived from exerting oneself diligently, sensing the contribution made and the subtle transformations brought to the world, all while being rewarded monetarily, adds meaning to every day. Additionally, knowing that I have wholeheartedly dedicated myself to my work, my artistic pursuits, particularly as a teacher, enhances my appreciation for leisure time and enriches my vacation experiences.
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
Truth, such a rare thing these days. Thank you so much, this video should be seen by everyone on Earth.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Konstantin walked up there, without a script, and just spoke directly to them, pointed out the problem, pointed out the solution, and put things in the proper perspective, and he did so with humour.
Fair play to the guy, it was a brilliant speech.
Wow! Sir, that was a speech that was intelligent and inspiring. It was so much common sense. I'm sorry I'm speechless I'm, I'm truly speechless, and I'm going to say thank you, and that's all folk .
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
im impressed by his story.... i usually dont write a comment but this man deserves it
Brilliant speech, should be compulsory viewing in every Australian university, and on continuous playback in Parliament House
I’m grateful I heard this speech! So apt to the times!
Thank you sir……you said the PERFECT TRUTH……God bless you !!!
This guy talks so much sense. Not only in this speech (which was magnificent) but on a multitude of other platforms. We should have this guy as our PM
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
WHAT A BEAUTIFUL SPEECH, that man is brilliant.
I discovered this gentlemen only lately, I like him very much.
I've long ago adopted the center thinking, a balanced and rational thinking which leads to progress, the good kind for people.
Who is he
@@shirleylopez4304 Konstantin Kisin, Ex soviet immigrant, his family had harsh times from the soviet government and they immigrated to the UK.
He's a comedian with center political views.
In my opinion he's very balanced, tend to use humor and his articulation is in high level.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
so honored to have listened to this speech. Facts over the emotions of a privileged few!
And yet what have we learned. To hate an imaginary villain. Continue to recycle. Continue to research solutions. Don't waste time participating in divisive youtube bullying.
Wow,such wisdom, but only to those with open ears and minds
An open mind means, that you’re prepared to explore the possibility that you are dead wrong.
Only to fools who don't understand logical fallacies.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Beautiful. Watched the full debate tooo!
Konstantin is an inspiration, and to me he is one of the most intelligent and principled people I have listened to for a long time.
I wish we had more people like this in our country because his common sense would put an end to the ridiculous 'culture war' we are embroiled in.
How dare any of this speech be redacted in any way. But why am I not surprised! Bravo your intellect and decency Konstantin Kisin.
What did like of this talk?
This is a big lies and use their lies to control you.
Is this God to control this climate change 😂
Just to Rob your money . Idiots big time.
wow!! this has got to be the best speech with any doubt for our new generation who are brainwashed by screen addiction and wokeness.. I would hope there is still hope for the future of our race.. Konstantin Kisin is a blessing..
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
@@edithbannerman4 fine and you!! 😝
@@elliotsober7042 Great how’s your day going and what’re you up to?
@@edithbannerman4 days good and I am feeding my brain with all this free food I'm finding on RUclips! ;)
@@edithbannerman4 by the way I answered you here because I seen your comments in quite a few other places and think you're a great person!! ;^)
Kudos to this gentleman, He said what 2/3rd of the world thinks.
Truth and hard truth !!! Thank You for making people aware of the reality and the actions required from us as a Global Citizen is to Work, Create and Build !!! 😍😍😍
How is it a comedian has a better grasp of polotics than 99% of poloticians?
they know what they are doing, it's intentional
Jesters have ever been wise - they just have a more effective way to communicate.
Comedians tell the truth but they have it to make it funny otherwise the audience will turn on the comedian and k!ll him.
I would say, John Stewart is an excellent example of a comedian is better grasp than most politicians.
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Absolutely Brilliant!...
You deserve a standing ovation!!...👏👏👏
Hello please can you tell me this speech is about what
"why would I care about the climate when I can't even afford to put food on the table for my kids?". VS "why doesn't anyone care about the future our kids will have to be punished for"? (What's more important?)
Facts nailed
He's practical about the present
Salute to you brother
Love from India ❤️🙏
He's stupid
But poor India did help and rescue poor people from Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Sudan, Chechnya, Myanmar (Rohingya), China (Uyghur),yemen
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
@@rizandro That is really a thought provoking insight, you've given me. Thanks a lot for sharing this👍👍
This guy knocks it right out of the park… Superbly spoken….
Great content. I plan to retire at 55 with $3MILLION in savings and a few passive income sources, I'm currently 38 and although I started investing this year I have high hopes for the future....
To manage your money and achieve financial freedom. Start investing, that's the only way to multiply your income and stay rich always. I spent my 30's and 40's investing in stocks and real estate. That's the best thing I did for myself. Recently discovered crypto now and life feels more easier.
My first experience with her gave me the assurance that has made me to invest without fear of loosing and I got four of my friends involved with her already ...
Investment are stepping stone to SUCCESS, investing is what creates wealth
It's rear seeing an experienced broker. I applied for one but haven't gotten any. The market is getting tough for me.
I usually go with registered representatives. ''MARCIA LANAE" for example has the best performance history (in my opinion) and does offers 1v1 consultation to her copiers which I think is amazing. I don’t know how many traders like that are there.>
I honestly hope this got through to some of these kids. Great speech and dead on.
Nothing they haven't heard already. "Need more sanitation projects in poor countries. Need to find technical solutions for green power!" Greta Thunberg has been saying this for years. And she has some credibility, unlike this hypocritical dweeb.
You say he's dead on but do you actually know if what he was saying was correct or not? He does not make a single smart or nuanced statement.
1. "poor people don't care about climate change": WRONG! Go tell that to the millions of people in Pakistan who's homes were under water last year, or the millions of people suffering from draught in the Sahel, or the millions living in the Pacific who are worried that they won't even have islands to live on in 50 years. The global south cares a hell of a lot about climate change because they're the one's that are living it. This idea that poor people are too uneducated or too busy just trying to survive to know or care about the climate is ignorant and inaccurate.
3. "Poor places like South America and China will decide the future of the Climate": OK, so China yes, that's true. But I don't know where he gets south america from. If you take the continent as a whole then yes it produces a sizeable chunk of emissions, but still far less than the United States, and far less than the EU. Notice how he chooses to bunch south america together, but then chooses to talk about the UK as a single country. If he was honest and consistent he would add the UK's emissions to the emissions of the wider European economy.
2. "The UK is only 2% of emissions": SOO WHAT? Climate change isn't going to be solved by just a handful of high emitting countries getting their act together. It will require a global effort, with wealthy countries like the UK leading the way. Why? Because that's how broad scale change happens, not by working in isolation, but through global investment, innovation, imitation and cooperation. Just look at Denmark, their Carbon footprint is very small, smaller than the UKs, yet they've managed to develop a thriving wind energy industry and are now selling wind turbines to the rest of Europe. That's why it's important that every country (and especially the industrialised countries) work towards reducing emissions, because then we have the potential to create a positive innovation feedback loop.
3. " young woke people are stupidly clicking buttons in the vain hope of helping the planet": I ASSUME HERE that he's talking about carbon offsets. Like offsetting for a flight. Carbon offsetting is a highly neoliberal (right-wing) solution to climate change, which has been strongly criticised by progressives for being ineffective. So his point here is just DUMB. If he hates carbon offsets so much, then he should be focusing his anger at capitalist corporations for proposing these schemes, not young woke people
4. "Climate change will be solved through growth and technology": I CAN'T BELIEVE people are still making this argument. We already have most of the technology to solve the problem, what we lack is the political will to do it. Notice how he says tech will solve this but he doesn't mention which tech. It's because he doesn't have a fucking clue. There are tens of thousands of engineers, scientists and energy policy experts around the world working tirelessly to develop better renewable tech and make it economically feasible. And having been taught by many of these people for my degree in Environmental Policy, I can guarantee that they ARE NOT proposing that we just stop the economy growing or stop having babies. The de-growth, anti-natal contingent of the environmental movement is fringe faction.
What's so disappointing about this speech is that there is so much to criticise when it comes to wokeness. He could have attacked CRT, cancel culture, excessive identity politics, but no, he had to go and pick climate change, a topic that he clearly knows nothing about.
@@jw-ob1wvyou actually said the same thing he said in a more round about way.
@@jw-ob1wvstop talking about CRT. It’s not taught in school except for an elective in law school. Stop believing that bullshit lie.
Great speech. SUCH A SPEECH ALSO Needed FOR LOOKING FOR ALIEN LIFE, DEEP Space AND OCEANIC RESEARCHES ETC, COZ huge amount of money is being wasted on these research rather than making our own planet a better place
Yes awesome speech for today’s time Thank You as always
OMG ... I AM IN AWE 🇨🇦💖.I am glad I am part of the British Commonwealth, born, raised and live. 💖🇬🇧🇨🇦💖
You are a bit more special than that. You are part of CANZUK. ruclips.net/video/TW2IqcyFcig/видео.html
You should be president of any nation, you outsmart all the políticians that i've heard in a long time.thank You
One of the best speeches ever. So much truth which we don’t have much of that anymore. 😂
Absolutely great ! Raise the vibe indeed !!!
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Oh if only Konstantin could be Prime Minister. He not only has a huge brain or intellect it also a big heart. What a tremendously inspiring speech. I hope woke people will truly wake up!
What a great video, thanks for sharing. There are two sides to every story, always another perspective. Blessings to you.
I was raised to think of others. I heard it every day of my life and my mother. And that is what I have done my entire life is think of others. From what I have seen woke is nothing more than narcissism. It seems to be me me I I me me II. I was hoping we would evolve into loving compassionate caring beings. Sadly I have lost my faith in mankind😢
I wish there was no background music to this lecture, which was very well delivered! Thank you.
ruclips.net/video/zJdqJu-6ZPo/видео.html
@@ardimediprod.376 thank you!!!
THAT SPEACH SHOULD BE ON EVERY RADIO STATION EVERY DAY FOR A MONTH UNTIL PEOPLE GET IT .
thank god the people running the radio stations are not that stupid.
💯
Well articulated, well delivered with a splattering of humor bur without animosity; Perfect.
He called his opponents "woke idiots" but sure, no animosity.
@@captaintom6111 He never referred to them as "opponents", but he did call them" bright young minds" who, if they continue to become inculcated by their woke leftist professors would graduate without knowing how to value work, innovate and think for themselves, but instead feel the need to throw soup at paintings, violently protest, shout and scream. In other words "woke idiots".. Just truth, without animosity.
@@captaintom6111the truth can hurt
Fact check true. Every single word 100% on point.
That is exactly what I needed to hear 😮and I thought I was woke, not anymore. Very smart speech, thank you Constantin.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention 🙏
His speech is refreshing
Thanks!
And we all want EVERYONE to live in prosperity! Wokeness is not a solution
Do you think only SPEAKING against wokeness will help, without act? How many people of color did you beat yesterday to help fight wokeness, not simply speak against it? Did you at least donate to some ultra right party?
He expresses exactly what I believe....thank you
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
@geoffmcmahon, what do you believe? You believe in the shit about Asia? How pathetic is the British now. Especially China. You believe in this guy who has never been to China and Asia? Did you go search hard about us?
THAT..... was Powerful!
I don’t think it’s that say poor people don’t care about climate change. It’s just not a priority. Staying alive and having opportunities to prosper is more important. As such those who consume most of the worlds resources are responsible for finding a solution for cleaner emissions. The worlds natural resources are finite, end of.
I am glad to be a member of the woke brigade, specifically the indigenous peoples woke brigade who have been guardians of the land since time immemorial.
THANK YOU!!!
Thank GOD for hard work and common bloody sense 👍🙏 What a true and brilliant speech. Well done sir. I applaud you.
Hello please can you tell me this speech is about what?
You has million kid has no food and city is getting bankrupt
For Eastern large country please go there and see
People have enough food.
has the technology to build new and clean energy and cheap.
is doing for the climate change more than the west.
The west is using other countries made items, to cut out the pollution, so if the west is using the poor countries made, you are part of the pollution
One the most inspiring and truth filled speeches I've heard in my lifetime !! ❤❤
Wonderful speech 👏👏👏👏
Wow!!!!! That was very, very well put Sir, you are one of the smartest people I have ever listened to, you are a 1000% right of what you said, you make me proud and believe that there are still caring and correct ideals of what needs to be done to these woke brainwashed people in this world, I SALUTE YOU SIR
If you like his tone and tempameter and the meaning of the words behind his postulates your gonna abso do backflips for Asha Logos calm well mannered extreme thought ambrosia. Give it try head on over to his channel... I haven't since highschool when cornel a stanford and Princeton and a harvard Proffesor said f education for profit inc and came to do some grassroots critical thinking skills enhancement at my highschool for poly sci, english, us history, us government, us before 1860, us after 1860 and classical lit in our pretty cool rotating rosecrution period system and forward thinking quarter system. Not since then have I been so impressed with well worded thought provoking statements of discernment... Not even my college days and various lectures attended and audited at the best unis and institutions in the world... This guy is plumb wonderful and refreshing... As so is Asha Logos... Bloody Brilliant man...
I guess you haven't heard about Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell - check them out...
The speech which every politician in the world should listen to.
Thank you, Konstantin. Brilliant as usual.
Much respect, from Reggio di Calabria 🇮🇹
Thumbs up 👍
Thank God for sending that man to give that speech!!!
Think people need to analyze the speech a little more deeply.
He asks for people to think rationally yet many of his strongest arguments are delibaretely constructed in such a way as to give an emotional response. Emotional engagement is a good strategy to change people`s minds, but it doesn`t mean his arguments are sound. Hitler did get many emotional responses, it doesn`t mean he was right about what he was saying. His first argument about the non-difference of Britain is silly. Britain are among a list of countries with a significant cultural and political impact on other countries, not only through the Commonwealth but generally. Other countries that are strong polluters like the Nordic countries have strong ties to Britain, so a change in Britain would influence these countries. It`s a silly contradiction when he later said technology must be the solution. If new technology can be spread across the world and solve things, why can`t ideas and policies? We already have the Sustainable Goals of the UN that shows it`s possible.
The sustainable goals deals with social and economic issues as well as the environment. By definition, working sustainably means taking care of people and the environment but also economical growth. It can be easier and more likely to make a significant impact for poor people by working sustainably. Norwegian town Stavanger for example recently decided to make all public transport free for everyone. Now that helps the poorest people a lot, it helps the environment by making more people use public transport and it`s economically sound as it creates greater equality and equity. Equity was very important in the latest climate negotiations to allow poorer countries to improve their standard of living whilst richer countries need to change their living standard.
The toilet story is silly. It seems to imply the need for a sewage system in every house around the world, but many live in places where sewage systems can not be maintained. The technology for better options are already available, it just needs to be more accessible and it will be far cheaper than a sewage system.
There is more than enough food in the world, but it is not distributed equally. Britain are among the culprits along with many other nations where a lot of food is thrown away. Better distribution are amongst the things needed here, not just the money to buy food.
Xi Jinping, again China could work more sustainably. Distribute food for affordable prices, avoid the rising prices of houses and other things in some regions. Not working on the climate is just gonna make people poorer. Many cities are already heavily polluted and more polution is gonna make people sick, unable to work, a burden on the medical institutions and unable to contribute towards their own life or the country.
Story about his son, again a retorical tool to win the audience. Button metaphor another tool to oversimplify things to make it easier for the audience to pick sides. Humour used sporadically as another rhetorical tool.
The technology he is talking about is far away from reality, is unlikely to arrive in time and even then, building new technology to solve issues with technology means even more emissions to create this technology in order to use it, which only makes things worse. The best technology is already present in threes and plants. It`s a system that works very well and will solve the climate change problem. The only issue is whether we will be here to witness it or not.
His issues with protests is odd. It is a fundamental right and one of the most important tools the individual have to influence politics and rulers. The countries that doesn`t allow protests are normally not countries you want to be in. According to Maslow`s pyramid, once people achieve their basic needs like food and shelter, they will move on to other needs and living in a free, democratic and tolerant country might be one of them.
His generation and those preceding it are the ones that created the issue with climate change. Why does he assume they now suddenly know what to do? We listen to young people`s music, art, films and voices, why should they not matter when talking about politics, especially when the politics concern the people most likely to face the consequences?
Lack of action towards climate change is not gonna make people richer, it will just create new ways of making them poor. You`re poor and you built yourself a makeshift house? How about some more floods, storms, hurricanes and other weather phenomena to destroy it? You`re a farmer? How about some drought, landslides or floods to give you a challenge?
Essentially, what Mr. Kisin suggests is very similar to the Four Stage-plan from Yes Minister:
In Stage 1. Nothing is going to happen.
In Stage 2. Something maybe gonna happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Stage 3. Maybe we should do something about it, but there is nothing we can do.
Stage 4. Maybe there was something we could have done, but it`s too late now.
His speech is great, delivery good, rhetorical tools used well, but if you look closer, what he actually says is silly and oversimplified to the point of being a useless addition to the debate on climate change. Him cutting off anyone wanting to comment means he get to use the opportunity to make what could have been a debate into an convincing monologue where no one is allowed to point out the flaws of his reasoning.
By the way, what`s the worst thing that`s gonna happen if we work against climate change? The seas get cleaner and healthier? The air cleaner and fresher? Animal and plant life richer?
Brilliant speech. Well said mate.👏👏👏👏👏👏
Yes, but even RUclips censored some of that speech. To be so spot on and not be able to hear that speech in its entirety is the travesty of censorship in media
RUclips did not censor the speech, it was "edited" by the poster