Hello And welcome to this documentary COP 21 is great We will solve all problems together We will save planet Earth And that's going to be extraordinary In one week we will change it all Actually we've not been invited But I do really trust the industry the rulers as well as the industry to move forward together hand in hand A new era is opening They will all fly in very big planes to make determining decisions But not too determining though Yes, not too much You have to be realistic You can't disrupt the economy Of course We have to keep consuming all the time That's normal Yeah, don't exagerate They'll tell each other stuff told for the last 15 years to be implemented within 30 years It's going to be great! If all stakeholders do agree Of course Above all everyone should be happy It will be amazing! They're going to change it all But do you believe in it? All together! Let's do nonsense! Would it be possible to watch this documentary, please? Thanks! 2°C BEFORE THE END OF THE WORLD When the kettle whistles the water is hot Hi a rise of 2°C towards 2100 is the target we shouldn't exceed 2 little degrees higher than the first average temperatures measured in 1880 Except that between 1880 and 2012 global temperature increased by 0.85°C Yes, the change is now! So this leaves a credit of only 1.15°C And for once in terms of growth The rise in temperatures has been dazzling 60% of this rise in temperature since 1880 took place over the last 40 years Since 1875 the Arctic warmed up twice as fast as the rest of the globe With an increase of 1°C: life is unfair Each year the monthly temperature records are now beaten 3 times more often than if the climate would be stable Our dear 21st century already includes 13 of the 14 hottest years ever recorded In Australia, since 2013, the weather office even added a new colour this glowing purple now indicates temperatures over 50°C This hot flush deeply modified the way the planet is running There are spectacular data like the natural disasters increasing more than threefold since the 60's And there is also the daily data Between 1960 and 2013 wheat production has dropped by 2% and maize production by 1.2% Less food for a growing population could lead to some problems The rise in temperatures is also problematic for our energy supply In France, 61% of exploited fresh water is used to cool down our nuclear plants and when surface waters are warming up, nuclear plants too During the 2003 heatwave, 17 reactors had to slow down or stop: a 4GW power decrease 3.5% of the total French production capacity There was another heatwave in 2009 causing a 8 GW decrease in power this time But let's dive to cool down Between 1901 and 2010, the level of oceans raised by 20cm As for temperatures, this phenomenon is also accelerating When the average pace represented 1.7mm/year since the 1900's it almost dubbled between 1993 and 2010, to reach 3.2mm/year The planet can be a joker Imagine we would stop all greenhouse gaz emissions within 3 seconds 3, 2, 1, now! Well, the temperature rise on the planet would only start slowing down within 10 years... at least Because oceans, capturing most of the global warming, would continue to release a part of this warming they stored The temperature of deep waters could even keep on rising for centuries or even millennia And as water dilates when warming up the oceans level would continue to rise inexorably And don't count on forests to make the difference! The overabundance of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing them an overdose Since the mid-80's, in this big lung called the amazon rainforest their mortality would have increased by 1/3 More generally, between 1959 and 2012, the absorption rate of these carbon sinks that are oceans and forests, would have dropped by 1/3. Today, we can't avoid the environmental danger, as a hole in the road, We have to adapt and find other more passable ways Say 'Hello' to climate change, as it is here already As we don't really notice it on a daily basis, we're not directly affected at least I don't feel warmer than before, not a lot warmer, I shall say But it's not the 1st time I see such a thing Nicolas Hulot, Ushuaïa and that bullshit, we've known them forever it's just that time goes by... and we don't really notice a bigger change I feel I've heard the same message for 20 years, since I was born And I've noticed some differences in behaviours and all that but no real progress My parents were already aware of this before my birth! We know it but in the end, we don't really pay that much attention to it I've never felt warmer myself or something else or more storms, all that We hear a bit of everything but we don't know specific facts Specific facts... Practical facts... Palpable elements... Like the bark of these trees Or this woman's red jacket If we don't feel it in our comfortable western shoes then, who can feel the global warming? On the scale of the planet... ...we are only one species amongst millions What if, amongst those species, other inhabitants of the globe had stories about climate to tell us ? First, what needs to be said, is that climate has always changed Today, we know 2 million living species on Earth If they are here, it's thanks to changes in climate Otherwise, we would only have a handful of marine and continental species The problem is, climate is changing too rapidly. it's often said that in the seven major ecological plagues today, the only one upon which we cannot act anymore is climate change. It's on its way. We are intervening too late. CO2 that we have been emitting for the last 3 centuries is here. So, what we need, is to limit the damage now. The fact that climate is changing, the planet... She doesn't care that climate is changing! It's us, who have problems now on the planet It means that the main indicator of climate change, is the living. What does the living do? The mobile living - animals - react with migration. Now, we are in a room. If suddenly, things go wrong... it's too hot, too cold, smells bad... What do we do? We go away. That's what they do. Climate, and that is true in the sea and on earth, moves by about 200 kilometers (120 mi) every 10 years. Every 10 years, they need to be in the Northern hemisphere 200 km further North and in the Southern hemisphere, 200 km further south. So we have fabulous cases, like chickadees. In Southern France, they migrate to the North. The problem is, when they arrive where they breed... ... it's spring... ... and caterpillars haven't arrived yet. So we have huge mortality rates on baby chickadees. We also have inverse cases, where butterflies are there, caterpillars are there.... ... but the birds haven't arrived yet. A problem that is somewhat serious is to see the disconnection between preys and predators in relation to the changes in temperature. It's the case of the great emperor penguins, where the sea thermal fronts, being much further at large, make that the mother comes back a bit too late. You know that the mother eats aquatic fauna... ... keeps it in her stomach without digesting it ... ... and spits it back out upon arriving. And here, she comes back 3 days too late, or 4 days too late... Males, who were sitting on the eggs while waiting, are already gone. So mortality rates that can be horrifying! It's a matter of a few days in fact. And often, when we talk about temperatures that change, or climate that changes... Very small changes in temperature can have absolutely considerable effects. The question today, is to adapt to water scarcity, to terrible droughts that are associated with climate change, and to the varying temperature. So animals migrate. Plants migrate. It's obvious on flowers. The fructifying changes too: Fruits are not at the same periods anymore You pick up your plums in Agen, not at all like you used to Vine... harvest is not done the same way as before Vine is constrained by human activity. But it is clear that tomorrow, we will have vines further up North. Or, what we can distinctly see with climate change, is what we call phenology. It is that climate forces grape harvesters to start working one month earlier. And wine-growers estimate that for now, they'll be able to follow the system only by advancing the harvest date. One day, it won't work anymore... What will we do when we'll have to displace vines or change varieties? To find the Southern varieties that are best suited in those regions, where climate will have effectively changed. What we can observe very clearly today, is that those migrations are distinctly under way. It is very clear amongst birds, butterflies, that move well Amongst mammals too. And amongst fish, it is spectacular as well. It's Gould who used to say: “ in evolution, ... “... you have very long periods of time during which nothing much is happening. “... Because it does not change. “... And when it does change... it forces the living to react.” So the human kind is presently forcing the living to react. But it goes too fast, and because he destroys ecosystems bit by bit, our story might not end well. I think that we are not conscious of the fact... that the effects of climate change are under way now. We have a tendency to see very spectacular things. And in the end, what we see, what we measure, is that phenomena that goes completely unnoticed are happening right now. And they have effects on fauna, aquatic in particular Fishes are ectotherms: they are sensitive to outside temperature. And so, if temperature rises above a certain level, the animal will start to function a lot worse. Sea bass, in the Mediterranean, people know it by this name... ... well, as soon as it's above 17°C(63°F) ... during the larvae phase, the very young stages... we're going to have a much higher proportion of males. We get to 80% males. And thus the population will decrease as a result of the absence of females. And of course, the next generation will be impacted. I think those phenomena are more and more frequent and more and more intense. If people got conscious of the fact that this is happening right now, we know very well that even if we stop everything now not everything will revert back to how it used to be. So this awareness, in my opinion, is very important. Because a lot of people are not aware that everything is changing, now. Everything changes. The fact is before us. And what now? We seem so smart amongst those skeletons With a fierce look from the top of our pedestal At the peak of our evolution Our well made brains have produced a science that demonstrates our role in the current climate situation But our ears... Have they heard it well? We all know that there is climate change, global warming. But we don't know, we cannot quantify. There has always been phases in the world... ... and maybe we're heading towards something that's coming to us anyway That we might have accelerated... or I don't know! Temperature rises, but there is a direct relationship between human activity and this warming We need to look at what's natural We see that in the recent warming, We can only explain 1/10th of a degree from the variations of solar activity from the variations of volcanic activity Whereas what we observe, meaning two thirds of a degree, we can explain it fully from human activity. What happened in the 80's? Scientists ring the alarm bell. They say that if we continue to emit greenhouse effect gases, we would head towards, in the mid 2000's, global warming of several degrees, with dramatic consequences. We are still at this point. We still have basically the same message. It went fast between scientific results in the 80's IPCC in 1988, first report 1990, convention on climate in 1995 and during the third COP, decisions are taken by politicians. Where there's a problem, is that afterwards, we entered in the Bush Jr. era. “Had we joined the Kyoto protocol, “... it would have costed America many jobs “... it's one of those deals aiming “... to make you popular in European backyards. “... so you sign a treaty. “... but I think it will cost us way too much. “... air is much purer ever since I'm the President of the United States. “... I believe there's a better way to do things. “... I truly believe that in order to keep the comfort that we are used to, “... and also to protect the environment, “... we need to put money in new technologies.” The fact that the United States retired from the Kyoto protocol, or that they never really entered, was very harmful. Because it is almost too late for the 2°C objective. Global warming will have very important impacts. If nothing was done against global warming, we would have 4 to 5°C rises in temperature at the end of the century, and they would go on, up to 6 to 7°C by the end of the next century. And consequences in every domain: - acidification of oceans, - loss of coral reefs All those problems of climate extremes that would be at the root of many disasters: - climate refugees, - water scarcity, food security, - security too. We see very well that many tensions can rise from access to water, from a competition for access to water between countries. - problems of biodiversity, the loss of biodiversity would be worsen. - pollution as well, agricultural yields would decrease - natural ecosystems would be completely modified. Of course, some of the phenomena are irreversible... Like the rise of the oceans. Up to a meter by the end of the century. Maybe more later... So we clearly see that this 4-5°C warmer world would lead us to a world where all the indicators are in the red. Wherever we look, ourselves, animals, fauna, flora that is surrounding us... ... everything is there to tell us that it is a world we shouldn't be heading towards This objective of limiting global warming on the long term, that global warming linked to human activity should not exceed 2°C compared to preindustrial era, it is a real challenge. The problem now, is that between this assessment that is shared between the scientists and the political world, and action. Where it all goes wrong is how we put this into action. It's still possible, but it is rather late if we would like that in the long run we respect this 2°C objective. Like a lot of human civilizations, we are going towards our decline and now we clearly see that we are reaching the planet's capacity at the moment. There's going to be a time when enough will be enough... We're gonna end up "self-destructing ourselves" We went so far into evolution, into novelty and new things, that we went into something that we cannot control anymore and... We'd have to go back! We know that this system was not supposed to last And I don't think it's going to last very long. I don't know... I feel like we... we only look at the final causes. We're not looking a the origins. We're not trying to determine what's polluting the most and considering that, what we could do to reduce it the most. For hundreds of millions of years, underground, wood fossilizes to create coal. And billions of micro-organisms transform into gas or oil. A peaceful natural process. Cyclical. Imperturbable. Or almost... Up until the first human pickaxe hits, followed by an explosion, a drilling, and many other techniques. Here comes the fossil hunt. Nature long resisted. Until the 18th century, coal is expensive because mines are constantly flooded. But in 1712, it's the spark. British engineer Thomas Newcomen builds a machine that while burning coal, activates a pump allowing to dry mine galleries. He names this ancestor of the steam machine a prophetical name: the atmospheric engine. Welcome in a new era. The precious coal, now more accessible, becomes cheaper. Between 1794 and 1814, its production in France grows 3 times. Thanks to it, iron becomes steel, and when cast into rails, gives birth to the first railways. In England, steam from the locomotives propagates to boats from the British Navy, that comes back from India filled with cotton. Enough to feed the manufactures, freshly built. In the coal fumes, hand-weaving disappears. Machines are faster and more productive. Extraction of coal has opened the path. In the United States, from the mid 19th century, we start digging the ground to extract sulfur with a lot of water at very high temperature. And thanks to this sulfur, chemical industry gets access to the precious phosphates, allowing to create the first industrial fertilizers. Agricultural yields can finally skyrocket. Today, 80% of deforestation is directly linked to agriculture, destroying at the same time the pits capable of absorbing our carbonated excesses. But the trend is on. Factories grow like mushrooms, producing more and more goods that need to be flogged. And in order to oil the machine, banks provide another fuel: In the 1920's, consumer credit is created. By 1926, more than 30% of American households possess this costly invention that is the automobile. 2/3 are bought on a credit. World War 2 hammers overproduction home. In order to sustain the war effort, factories run at full throttle. Armies gobble considerable quantities of fossil energy. Between WW1 and WW2, energy consumption of the average American soldier is multiplied by 228. At the end of the war, volume of oil transported in American pipelines is multiplied by 5. Now that the infrastructure is there, to make them profitable, we'll have to find a replacement for war effort. Say hi to mass consumption. Hence, in the course of time, since the atmospheric engine, drilling tools got modernized, releasing torrents of new fossil fuels. Oil and gas that fuel today every second of our lives. Impossible to buy cherries in winter or cutting edge flat screen without container ships as big as 100-floor buildings. They roam across oceans pushed by generators powerful enough to power a city of 15 000 people. With fuel oil, obviously. Far from being a miracle solution, high-tech warms the climate more and more. 10 minutes of youtube video weigh 1 gram of CO2. Each google search, a few centigrams. It's few. But with globalization of those usages, digital infrastructure would produce today around 2% of greenhouse effect gases. As much as airlines, which cover the whole planet. Fossils end up even in our plates. Steaks, burgers, yogurts, make ruminants and their dairy products release 5.7 billion tons of CO2 equivalent every year Half of which coming from their farts' and burps' methane. And one quarter of which is due to pesticides used on the fields where their food grows. Today, more than 80% of the energy that makes our world go round still comes from coal, oil and gas. Since the beggining of the industrial revolution, 2/3 of those emmissions were made by a mere 90 companies. In the first ranks of which oil producers Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell. So... the myth stays. Those fossils spoil us with the dream of universal and affordable comfort. The discount labels are big enough to cover a reality that is as dark as an oil well. In 200 years, we've depleted almost all easily-reachable oil deposits. Oil magnates are attacking new reserves. But since they are more difficult to exploit, they are inevitably more energy intensive. In the 1950's, 1 barrel of oil of energy was needed to extract 50 barrels of crude oil. From now on, we need 12 times more ernergy to extract the same amount of oil from shale layers or tar sands. But thankfully, global warming, caused by our CO2 emissions, will enable us access to new wells, to continue emitting more and more. On the North Pole, with a 13.4% retreat of the ice layer every 10 years, the Arctic is being progressively transformed into a mundane ocean. And, a few hundred meters below this newly formed liquid stretch, geologists have already identified 400 hydrocarbure wells, holding around 40 billion oil barrels and more than 30 trillion cubic meters of gas. So, let's fill our tank up, shalln't we? Here's our whole comfort summarized into one paradox: We like this way of living that is eating Earth away. But how long will this moden comfort last? What might seem far away climate change, stories about birds, penguins or the melting of ice... But maybe consequences are already much closer than what we imagine... Today, we can define climate insecurity around 3 dimensions: the first dimension, is that climate change has an impact on availability of natural resouces and on territorial integrity. So it would lead to conflicts, tensions between States, and inside of States. The second dimension would be that climate change, every day, exacerbates the vulnerability of populations that are already in difficult situations. And in the end, puts into peril human security of those populations. The third dimension is that climate change also affects the environment and biodiversity. So climate insecurity is those 3 dimensions. (is that clear?) What happened in Nigeria, a multiplication of droughts, a decline of water availability that make populations that are extremely dependent on agriculture give up their means of subsistance and migrate. This created population centers that are very vulnerable and that can be easily ripped off politically. In the case of Nigeria, with Boko Haram, who could use those populations to strenghen his forces. The current migration crisis in Europe is an extremely indirect consequence of what happened in Syria, in terms of climate change. Indeed, there was this link of causality between climate change and drought. The drought then pushed populations to move ; what catalysed the conflict in Syria. The conflict in Syria is still the main cause of today's migrations in Europe. So the US army, and to some extent the British Ministry of Defense, are wondering on those centers of tension that we could model and identify in regards to climate change. There are two zones that are often mentioned for two very different questions On one hand, the Arctic, because the opening of Arctic waters already creates a form of tension between Russia and the United States. Here, it would be a classical conflict between States that seek to appropriate themselves resources. History of war for thousands of years. On the other hand would be Africa, that is often mentioned for human security issues, where the consequences of climate change on the populations' means of subsistance that would lead to both boost chronic political instability and political rip offs, among which terrorist groups. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon published an initial report in 2009 assuring that climate change is a catalyst for threats. In 2011, during his speech to the Security Council, he even affirms that not only is climate change a catalyst for threats, but also a threat to peace and to international security. So today, we have a gradual recognition, internationally, that climate change is a threat to peace and to security. In December 2015, in Paris, the world will have to meet with the faith of the planet. We will indeed host what is called the United Nations' Conference on Climate, i.e. COP21. The objective is simple: it's about resulting in a global agreement so that our planet stays livable. We know that if we do not act now, what is threatening us, is a catastrophic climate disruption with consequences in all domains. Our responsibility is historical, because we are the first generation to be really aware of the problem but we're also the last generation capable to take effective action. My role, as the President of this conference, in the name of France, will be to listen to every one and to promote a view shared by all countries, to reach a real commitment. Just as the UN's Secretary General says Mr Ban Ki-Moon, there is no plan B, because there is no planet B. Rallying of the whole France will thus be whole (sic) With Paris Climate 2015, France commits to servicing our future. Yes! France commits itself! Here is our answer as moden men. Unite the powerful of the world in Paris, under the watchful eye of our beautiful Eiffel Tower, flamboyant symbol of the industrial era. A 21st conference that, for sure, will succeed where the 20 previous ones failed. OK. Let's play along. Concretely, what is at stake at the COP21? The UN process, until now, produced a protocol called the Kyoto protocol, at the end of the 1990s, and that is still in place but that only covers 15% of global emissions anymore. The whole challenge of the Paris agreement and that's why this COP21 is specific and particular, we can even say, historical, is that we need to find the new international agreement on climate that will be universal. That will include every country, including those that are not yet covered by the Kyoto protocol. In the firsts ranks of which obviously, main emitters: China, the United States, India and Brazil The first financial element needed to succeed the COP21, is to honor the 2009 promise to the South that is transfer them 100 billion USD per year, starting in 2020. That is what's important, because it's the primary demand of the Southern countries, who say: "Wait, you want us to sign "...a new agreement, while we're still "...waiting for the 2009 one to be honored?" The second element is that in the end, the challenge is to incorporate climate into the rules of financing the global economy and into the operating rules of the finance sector. So we need not only an agreement but that agreement also needs to be financed... ..raising the question of the $100 billion to the Southern countries. And also that this agreement enable us to come back to what the scientists are expecting from us, i.e. to not go beyond 2°C of average global temperature increase. Today, we are on a 4°C trajectory, at least. The challenge is thus to go from 4°C down to 2°C only, that would already have consequences, but at least we limit climate disruption. At the time we're speaking, a few weeks from the COP21, we're halfway there. Because the combination of all national contributions that are already on the table, from the EU, the USA, Brazil, China, add up to around 1°C of control over global warming. So we're left with the remaining half, to go down from 3° to 2°C. And that's the whole challenge of the past weeks, that lead us to the final straight of the COP21, that is to find mechanisms that will make a return to 2°C credible. 2° is already a masquerade! So we're in climate change, we'll have to adapt and the only question is: will it be 3°C? Will it be 8°C? Do we turn it into a desert? Do we make an inhospitable planet or can we still live on it? - I think COP21 is a good thing, but I'm sure it will be a complete joke. - Yeah but look, you start off defeatist. F*** it! No but it's true! OK let's imagine it's a complete joke, but still, let's have a little hope that "maybe", you know. - The problem is that raising awareness takes years. And throwing an used battery in the trash takes 2 seconds. People don't give a s*** We'd need to put a financial burden, because... - That bothers me. - We put a price, price is purely financial, it takes into account production costs, all that. The price of things never takes into account the environmental cost. - Yeah, but it still bothers me that you always have the spectrum of merchandising that is there... - But we need a carrot! That's how we walk! We need a carrot. COP21 hasn't even started and everyone already knows that it won't work. There is a total disregard, maybe... I don't know why, but everyone knows, deep inside, that the COP21 won't change anything and that these discussions will lead nowhere. It might be best to jump into the core of the reactor. Just a round trip to observe the negotiations dance around climate. Direction Bönn, in Germany. A few weeks before the COP21, all negotiators meet there. It's the final straight. And what's at the end? A wall or a new world? So here, we're at the entrance of the conference center, in Bönn, where preliminary negotiations take place in preparation for Paris' COP. It's pretty much the last round of negotiations, where there are, I don't know how many people, several thousand people that are here to try to make everything ready for the COP in Paris. That there is a text that is as good as possible, that there are all the elements that are sufficiently advanced so that when leaders, ministers and official delegations arrive in Paris, most of the work is done. We need to get out of here with a text that makes sense to ministers and elected officials. And we are far, in fact, very very far, from being there. We have a text of around 30 pages. In which multiple options coexist. Many options go from do almost nothing to do something rather ambitious. It took I don't know how many reunions, I don't know how many contributions, to get to a text that 3 associations like ours could write in 2 hours on the side of a table. It's full of formulations that are as vague as possible. There is no direction, no commitment for countries. So we're here today with the beginning of a sentence that starts: "States will commit to", and then there are 15 possibilities that are in brackets, because as long as it is in brackets, it means it's not official, so we can continue to discuss on it. Is it "States should...", or "States shall..." or... There's always the diplomatic language of the verb that we use, the conjugation that we use. Is it conditional? Is it future, where it is really commiting We discuss, and then in the end we're still waiting for the next reunion that will solve it all. It's important to know that arbitrations are not there yet. States are supposed to negotiate day and night, during the 2.5 days to come. And they decided, actually, that in order to do it in peace, they needed to kick out the observers from conference rooms. We cannot attend those meetings on various elements of the agreement. It means that we cannot hear what is being said, what the different delegations exchange in the meeting rooms. It means that we don't have the information. So there's still a problem in terms of lack of transparency and transit of information. United Nations' negotiations have never been with fully open doors. There are always negotiations that are behind closed doors. Sometimes, a space of intimacy is required to finalize the agreements. We are still very far from that moment. We're still at the first reading of a text which is not yet the text of the negotiations. And we're already left out, which makes me think that rather than a question of making things advance quickly, there are a number of governments who are afraid that people learn the propositions that they'll put on the table. So much they are in disagreement with what the public expects from them. What I am sure of, is that COPs that have been existing for 25 years are not the answer to climate disruption. They are not the answer because it's been 25 years that we've tried and 25 years that we've failed. Unfortunately, we haven't invented anything better to face this complex challenge that is climate disruption. Because it affects everyone, all States of the planet must find solutions together. The issue is also that we have the feeling that the negotiations happening in those rooms and those buildings are often completely disconnected from what's going on in real life. The real world advances much faster than those negotiations. Many people are taking action, citizen, cities, companies, that are taking action. And here, we get the impression that nothing advances. That we are a bit soilless. That we are disconnected from all that. What? Is it already lost in advance? All this diplomatic energy would be spent for nothing? How do we reconnect those diplomats with us, citizens? There must be a chance to take in this ocean of failures. The COP is almost a miracle. Many interests are represented, many contradicting interests. Oil countries obviously have different interests to small, insular States, which also have an opinion much different than the one of developed countries. Nevertheless, we still managed to get, 20 years ago, the Convention on Climate. Which is a great thing, full of praiseworthy principles. And which, for the first time, made governments recognize that emissions must be lowered and that something serious must be done. "In my country, we remember the tobacco spokesmen who used to say that "... smoking was not harmful to health. To those who will oppose to our movement, "...we'll say: we will not be imposed that private interests prevail over the faith "... of all human kind." 5-6 years ago, we got to a point, with the Copenhagen Convention, where in the end, reality principles fell down on the head of the negotiators and leaders that told them "Where do you think you're going? "...Everything that you are negotiating "... can harm our growth, can harm our development." It reflects now in the mandates that countries give to their negotiators. The political cost of a lack of ambition, from States, is still very low. When government leaders came back home from the Copenhagen Convention, nobody was waiting for them at the airport to complain about their failure. So if the political cost of the lack of ambition doesn't change, if it doesn't grow, then we have a problem. We have a role to play to make the political costs weigh more and more in order that no government can come to a COP or a conference on climate with a mandate that is so little that it will harm the whole process. As a citizen, I could drive up the political cost of a failed COP ? Who else could, after all ? The negotiator's mandate for Bönn is defined by the women and the men leading us. But where does their own mandates come form ? Anyway, for the COP21, we must not trust states. We will have to trust citizens, petitions,... Today's politicians are seen as economic agents and business representatives. We can see it right now with all those abroad contracts negotiated by the French government. In fact, the industry urges them to match its interests and they keep satisfying companies and lobbies, so they can be left in peace. We have to, in my opinion... in any case, the citizens have to make that COP21 much more popular - By getting together, we could have more power to effectively urge the people in charge to write decrees, to make laws... That's putting pressure on them, that's it. Therefore, the more we'll understand the current deadlocks, the more we'll be able to act against them. Put some pressure. The financial mechanisms born from Kyoto's Protocol and from the current climatic negotiation system are right-to-pollute mechanisms. They are forms of leniency that big energy or steel companies are buying, allowing themselves to polluate at one place and to compensate at another. However, on the substance, the Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport, if it's built with these two runways, located on these swamps, it would be a concrete reality that no compensation could ever avoid. Being allowed to buy emission credits permitted Norway to keep drilling oil with offshore platforms. In essence, nothing changed. Norway treated itself to stay a fossil system, in a way. For now, seeing the states procrastinate proves that their proximity with large energy companies... The porosity between the political and the economic worlds is so important nowadays that for now, unless we see something unexpected or if we see the upsurging of a group of fresh individuals, that would bring some new messages... And that's still possible. The unexpected is still possible. With the present state of the stakeholder's game and of the rhetoric of negociations, we still have a long way to go. Hahahahaha ! This is how I looked like before. Wasn't that great, huh, owww ! And THAT is how I look like now ! This is better, huh ? Honestly I feel on top of the world ! Well, before, it was Kyoto Protocol. And that was really sh***y ! Americans didn't want to ratify it, Canadians even took off of it, Russians fabricated fake projects for the reduction of CO2 emissions... Haaaaaaaan ! Aya ! Ah ! A... Chinese and Indian people weren't even in it ! You can't imagine what a mess it was, huh ! Pfffff... Haaaaaaaan... How is it supposed to work ? But since that time, I've discovered COP21. Aaaaah ! First, it takes place in Paris. It's way better. Personally, I don't like sushis, so it's convenient. And then, Fabius presides over it ! Fabius... Pfffff ! Pfffffffffff ! That, alone, would make anyone f***ing dream, huh ! Hahahahahahaha ! In addition, the conference takes place in the Bourget, like the airport ! That's a bio airport. Those guys are coming with Airbus planes, powered by pigeon p***. Aaaaaah aaaaah ! Pfffff ! Aaaaah aaaaah ! Han hahaha ! That's in relation to Paris. See ? That's a good point ! Besides, they are travelling to the meeting rooms driving Renault Zoé COP21 limited edition... If I were the climate change, I would start to be a little scared, huh ! I would be scared s***less. OK, we don't really know what's going to happen because all this will be decided in the corridors... But wait ! It will be wooden corridors ! And that, well, is way cooler, huh ! COP 21 : It's really fun ! (and we are happy...) How do we live on this planet ? How can we not use it up entirely ? This issue is way bigger than a little week of international dialogue. The COP21 is but a element in the equation, it's necessary but not enough... What about we think beyond that ? As a collective ? Maybe then, we'll find answers for a much longer time... What's dramatic about environmental issues is that the obstacles we are facing today, cannot be seen with our senses. If it's the loss of half of our mammals birds, fishes between 1970 and 2010... I can't be aware of that ! If it's the fastening spurt of the biodiversity's attrition, I can't be aware of that ! Our senses don't tell us anything about the environmental issues. And that's probably one of the reasons why we don't react that much. We can act when we're facing an immediate danger, something we can perceive with our senses. Here, for the environment, this is not the case. If I weren't born, It wouldn't have made a difference. So how could I feel responsible ? If I didn't exist, the situation would be the same. That is the environmental trap. We have made obstacles that evolution did not got us ready to react. The cornerstone of the social contract is that everyone should peacefully produce as much as possible and then peacefully enjoy as much as possible the benefits of his own production. We were led to believe that the only way to achieve humanity, to develop it, was by consuming. And it worked very very well ! Nowadays, it doesn't work as well... When we discuss business, management, building, agriculture, well, it has an impact on the Earth system. Therefore, we can't separate questions anymore as we used to. We cannot separate society. We cannot separate nature. And we will have to do politics in a new way. Politics couldn't be about clashing everyone's little interests anymore. If we wanted our political structures to be able to handle this, they should be able to force the large multinational companies, especially the ones operating oil like the IPCC demands, to let 80% of accessible fossils underground. If we do that overnight, 30 000 billion actives will vanish. It's been 30 years, practically 4 decades since our political systems simplified the fonction of the state, to be a international business facilitator. How a international business facilitator is supposed to handle those climatic issues ? Look, while we pretend to negociate COP21 in Paris, to negociate climate change, meanwhile, we are doing everything to increase trading between both shores of the Atlantic, while it's in complete contradiction with the true fight against climate change. We will carry on. We will have obstacles. Heavier and heavier ones. Then, finally, the little minority among the society, the one who asks the real questions, it will end up making itself heard. And, in a wider manner, we will be forced to ask ourselves questions again. What does it mean to be a man ? What does it mean to live together ? What does justice mean ? We will be forced to ask ourselves these questions again. We had to produce, to change the world. Well, maybe we will have to learn to contemplate it again. Initiatives are multiplying. Some transitioning cities, ecovillages, ecologic fab-labs... So, there is plenty of players undertaking some experiences. There's even a sort of boiling nowadays. One of those trending values is a kind of voluntary sobriety. This is rather astounding ! But we can see there is a tidal wave, even though it is a minority, which is making people starting to see that we are on a pivotal position, that we are changing civilization, that we're going to slide... And that people caring about the old World are going to do everything they can so we can't succeed at changing this World. The video was good, but then, we don't really know what we can do at our scale... - For sure, the population needs to act because we are numerous. - But it's hard to change these habits. - It's not even about habits, it's about changing a society, changing a culture... - But if each and everyone of us starts to change a little detail, it's good, but it's hard. I'm trying to become a vegetarian, to use natural products... But it's complicated, it's expensive... You have to find where they are... To eat organic products, it's the same thing, you need to have money. We are on a system with gears, so it's hard to stop using your car, it's hard to change your habits because they are mandatory... - It's hard. A lot of things are discouraging when you want to start changing your way of life to be more in tune with nature. - You don't need to go extreme, but you could act according to... - Yep, but a lot of people think that you either do everything or nothing. So, a lot of people are saying : "Ah, you're only doing that ? It's useless. Do nothing, it's better." - And people saying that, well, they do.. - Well, they do nothing at all ! And beyond this, today's politics is ruled by 50 or 60 years-old people... Those people didn't grow up with all those thought, they think in other ways, they evolved and they took decisions in a world where there were no energy limitation. I understand. When I'll be 50, I won't be able to change the way I think or work. A lot of people let their ability to think ... we can do things in another way erode. Thank you ! We forgot we can do things in another way. Ah, hearing this makes me feel so good ! Like a cold shower after a hangover. Your head aches...but you start walking again. Ok. But why ? Why are our neurons so lazy when we try to change ? Why are we tired when something disrupts our habits, before we even started to act ? From what we know today, the man takes decisions with 2 systems. A, let's say, emotional system and a cognitive system. Knowing the emotional system is took over by what we call the basic ganglions and a number of other sub-cortical structures located under the cerebral cortex. This system interacts with another system one who is particularly developped in man, which is the cognitive system, located at the cerebral cortex level. The region particularly involved in decision-making is what we call the pre-frontal cortex. An effective and efficient decision-making process comes from the interaction of both of these systems. The emotional system is a fast system, it can be mobilized very quickly, and it allows to make "intuitive choices". And then, you have the cognitive system, which is rather slow, but who have anticipation abilities allowing to look to the future and to anticipate the consequences to make well thought-out choices. The climate topic is a field where both systems are sort of caught off guard. That makes that field pretty complicated for an individual to handle, considering his daily choices. The emotional experience of a global warming, thinking about the fact there's going to be a warming, let's say 4°C more, for example, We will say : "It's gonna get hotter...". Emotionally, we don't really have a very negative experience of that warming. In fact, that makes the ability to choose or to take decisions considering this climate issue hard for the casual person, like me, for exemple, or like you. The cognitive decision-making system, all the pre-frontal cortex, has very limited processing resources. Its goal is trying to make any behaviour as usual as possible. The cognitive system works to save energy Thus, our entire mental life is conceived to build as many habits as possible. So, when you go against a habit there's always a resistance, because our cerebral system always forces us to execute some habits rathen than consider changing. That doesn't mean we aren't able to change, of course, we are able to change. But it has a cogniive cost, a mental cost. It's very hard to make decisions if you don't have an emotional experience of the consequences of the decisions. So, we can say that, to avoid the disaster, we have to get a negative emotional experience. We have to get that emotional projection for this knowledge of the disaster happening to have an influence on our choices that we're making today. I don't take planes. I don't have Internet anymore, I don't have an iPhone, I don't have an iPad, I don't have a computer either. I traded my old radio for some endives. Bio endives. I don't like endives because it... Alright. At least, I eat local food. And I don't eat meat anymore. I don't eat eggs, I don't drink milk. Oh, that means I'm a vegan, I didn't get it... And I only eat dead plants ! Plants that died naturally, huh. Because I'm against plant abuse. No packaging too, huh. Hey ! I don't have any toilet, because of the grinder and the nuclear electricity. So I s*** in sawdust ! But I cut the trees myself. Because I heard that they are imported from far abroad, in diesel-eating container carriers...So OK ! I'm seeking them in the forest. By foot. Yeah, because I don't have a car. I don't have a scooter. I wanted to buy a bike, but they said they are made in Vietnam by these Chinese children and stuff.. I don't have shoes either. Soles are derived of oil. Thus...my feet hurt a little... But I don't apply anything on them because creams are tested on animals. Sometimes, I'm a little cold ! Let's say I don't have a heater... I don't have a TV either...So... I read all the books written by Pierre Rabhi. 6 times, huh... But only by day because I don't have electricity... It's imported from Germany now, because of coal-fired plants... I don't have a lamp anyway, so i don't care. In short, I've decided to act against climate change. I hope it will save the planet because I'm so f***ing bored ! I'm bored as hell right now. I'm f***ing fed up. That's it. Ok, time for me to go. It's snack time. You always can make yourself useful in some way, but is it still time ? We came too late after we did absolutely nothing. We are a bunch of couch potatoes and we won't move an inch ! Everyone should get a kick up their a** but that is comes down to themselves. We can't do it at someone else's place. You address consuming habits that are so rooted in the time that changing them, even with beautiful speeches will work for like, 5 days ? 10 days ? But the question is like : "Which choices do we really make ?" "What do we really choose ?" I know that, when I'm traveling, I ask myself questions about modes of transportation. How do we consume ? We laugh about it even when we eat : "Ah, you bought disposable cans today !" I'm trying to have a relevant consumer attitude and to try to buy products that respect the environment when they're made. I had access to many things in my life. And I've reduced everything ! To live as plainly as possible. In harmony with my idea of life. I also know that my alimentation, at my home and my parents' home, is changing and is getting more environmentally responsible and more organic. I reduced my meat consumption a lot compared to what my parents made me eat when I was 14 or 15. Personally, I think the youth is more... They do more efforts than us. For example, carsharing. That works perfectly. It's perfect. My children use carpool, they don't drive their cars to go somewhere. And I think it's a great effort. People of my age just aren't ready to do this, probably. So, this is possible. Some things are changing. Imperceptible, but already here. It just takes time. We have to learn to accept it. It's funny, it's like the climate crisis forced us to learn to learn again. To learn to ask ourselves some questions. To discuss. To look for answers. Perhaps that we can learn to change ? By definition, education trains the citizens of tomorrow. The climate change is going to happen over a century. We need to train right now the people that will soon contribute to resolve this issue. In the meantime, when you take action on the children, you indirectly act on their parents, their families... So, this produces a very powerful leverage. The point is, how to we encourage them to think these problem differently ? I think that we must re-think the education as a changeover. Nowadays, our education system is based on competition and the gradual selection of the best, so we form a little elite. We started this process on the 18th century. We made the French Revolution happen and we needed an elite. We beheaded the previous elite, so we had to form this one very quickly. This elite, based on competition, has its limit : In a world when there's always more and more shared and collective intelligence, where more and more people graduate, we are getting a generation where 60% of persons graduated from universities. So we can clearly see that we need another way to do things. Indeed, we go from a world of competition to a world of cooperation. If we want to prepare our children to the world of tomorrow, we need to prepare them to cooperate in order to fix the problems of today. Therefore, we need every form of intelligence and any form of perspective, so we can understand the complexity of the problems of today. Not some elites that could decide for all the other people... And if we simply say, for example : "Nobody knows everything, but everybody knows something, so it's benificial if we share our ideas.", we can see that we made some progress compared to : "I'm gonna grade you all, according to what you remembered about what I've said" At the time of Socrates, we already thought he was the wisest of all the Greeks. because he knew he didn't know. Thus, the teacher can easily be the wisest of all his class, because he knows what he doesn't know, and he even know part of what the students don't know. But, in the meantime, he also knows how to learn. He knows the critical mind, he knows that maieutics, this ability to guide the children in their intellectual explorations and to focus their individual intelligence and their collective one. However, nothing can prevent us to create a big school, a great university about the climatic and planetary stakes inviting every willing student to document their thoughts and their actions and to share them, so everytime one of them learns and innovate, another one could learn easier and innovate easier and to serve the planet. Aristotle defined 3 forms of knowledge : - épistémè, which became science - technè, which became technology - phronesis, summarized as the ethic of action. So, we can see that this ethic of action is necessary, both individually and collectively, even in a planetary level today. As our individual action could have consequences on the long run, that could have consequences on another scale of time, and on another scale of space, different of the one we use in order to think. I think that, if Aristotle was still around today, he would ask us to be even more careful abou the ethic of action, as we realize that it's not about our individual action and its impact on the collective that are immediate and right here, but about a long-term impact on the entire planet. There is a poem by T. S. Eliot that I like, where he said: "Where is the life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" Nowadays, we could add: "Where is the information we have lost in data?" We hear ever more about data. And the question is, if we reverse this poem by T. S. Eliot, how can we go from data to information, from information to knowledge, from knowledge to wisdom, and from wisdom to life? We all need data to understand climate. But we also all need to think about information, knowledge, wisdom and coexistence on this planet which is, in the end, our common vehicle for life in space. So we absolutely need to preserve our common planet and we need to effectively wonder about our values, then finally wonder: What is the meaning of all this? It is clear that wondering is not simply unique to human beings, but it is also ever more necessary. That is why we need to feed our children's abilities to wonder. Actually, we all have cognitive barriers. I have a picture of someone holding prison bars. And if you zoom out, you realize that he is actually in the middle of nature. But he's holding bars! If he let those bars, he could explore nature... But he is actually in a prison that is a mental barrier. And if we don't question our mental barriers, we'll remain in our prisons. To avoid imprisonment. To get on the road. To walk, to move, to take a hike. We need to move, in order to try to understand how other people do it differently. Here we are in Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Northern France), Loos-en-Gohelle, 6,647 inhabitants. How did this former mining city, whose waste rock dumps are UNESCO World Heritage Sites, become a pilot city of sustainable development? Nature has been destroyed. Water is heavily polluted by nitrate. The region has a disastrous reputation. So, for someone like me, who came just when the mine closed, it was like there had been plenty of wealth produced, but that went somewhere else. All we had left was the aftermath. A suffering population. A suffering land. We had to bring back our future. Actually, the guiding principle of the development of the city was to say: "We were the archetype of unsustainable and what not to do, so our city project is to learn from the past". Unless there's someone in here! Ah, yes... You can come, eh! 40% of the drinkable water used in France is used to flush the toilet... In Loos, we've been saving rainwater for more than 15 years, we can store it for 3 weeks, and thus we harly use drinkable water anymore for city services. So here we are in front of a slightly original apartment block, because it has been in 2001 the first social housing residence in France meeting High Environmental Quality standards. There, what's interesting about the church we're facing is that we had to restore the roof, so we did the entire southern face with solar roofing. There is a board showing the number of kilowatts produced, of tonnes of CO2 avoided, and the cumulative energy since the roofing was installed. And there, we have set up a symbolic vegetable garden. There, this is sage! There will be thyme, rosemary, here are strawberries 'four-seasons', and so, we install it early in the year, and then, the locals take after it. There, the town council has got back around 12 hectares it got under power. And so, as part of a call for projects to farmers in Loos-en-Gohelle, we are still around 15 of them. One of the main conditions was that the land would be allocated to organic farming. We are 5 organic farmers here in Loos. As I am a member of the town council, where environment and sustainable development are always put forward, of course, I go further in mind and at one point, we get into it! So, we are on the territory of Loos-en-Gohelle, and here is one of the first experimental fields at national and international level for use and performance of photovoltaic panels. Why wouldn't we be able to master energy production in what used to be the region that could master it for all of France? Well, our ambition is to be the region that masters all of these new renewable energies for France. And, here we are on a waste rock dump! It is made of all the non-combustible rocks that were raised from the bottom of the mine. So at first, waste rock dumps are just that! It's a mount of rocks. So here's a little mount... on a gigantic waste rock dump, in the end. And nowadays, these dumps have become sites geared towards sustainable development, which is totally original, not to say paradoxical, in the sense that this was at first an industrial site and these zones became the most biodiverse zones of the mining area. The richest in fauna and flora. And this year, there are always new species settling on these sites. We have experienced more than 100 years of mining. When the mines shut down, there have been serious consequences because the mining has caused damage. Social and economic damage, but also environmental damage. Anyway, in Loos, we're doing good because we try to do everything together. One of my sayings is: "participation without empowerment is a trap for idiots". I completely advocate what I call "participation of the inhabitants". I also say: "involved inhabitants". However, I disagree even more... Wait! I'm just going to say hello! Do you want to see my tomato? I sow, I harvest, and then I distribute. Tomatoes, celery, beetroot, parsley... And then, everyone can serve themselves as they want. It makes us think about the old times, when we were young; sharing comes back all the same. OK, I'm off! It is very important that everyone understand that we are all accountable for what we do. For our city, for our planet, in order to prevent climate change, for nature at large! We are seeing results. And it's very important to show that it's possible. That's the point of living in a town. In the mining area, we don't have the same resources as in Nice or Nanterre in the suburbs of Paris. So, if it is possible here, it is possible everywhere else. We just need to accept that it takes time. It took 20 years for Loos-en-Gohelle and its inhabitants to change. And it's still a daily fight ! The climatic question is not only about a story of science or thermometer. It's about us ! It's about how we choose to live together. If we only talk about the global warming as a physical phenomenon, we miss what makes the global warming a true disaster. and it's that the global warming reinforce the social inequities actually existing on the planet. In Bangladesh, you have some poor farmers who have been dispossessed of their lands these last years, in favor of big landowners. And that, whenever there is this stress added to the one created by the global warming which undermine the crops, with a drought creating a lack of crops for those poor farmers. Well those who don't have the resources are forced to sell their "meagre capital", in a second time, they even sometimes have to migrate, to move because they don't have any other resources. In a same situation, whenever you are in a case of a drought, which induce for example a lack of crops, the remaining resources are mutualized, the grain is distributed, in the end it helps to adapt to the stress caused by the global warming. From the United Nations Convention in Rio in 1992, the countries from the south quickly begun to ask for some economic compensations payed by the northern countries for the damages they suffer with the global warming. The countries from the North have always refused to pay those compensations. To adapt to the global warming means developing a Health Systems, developing School systems, building houses able to resist the severe weather, Create some public services to help in case of a catastrophe... Well, it is a lot of the elements, leading to what we used to call "development", that are going to allow a country to be a lot more resistant to the global warming than another. So it's possible to try to adapt by reducing the vulnerability. This reduction of the de vulnerability implies to give more powers. More democratic powers and more economic powers to the most vulnerable populations. But seeing the general state of the World, if we want to talk in an extremely global way, it's sadly more an exception than the rule. I'm a regular French, no more dumber, nor better than another. But sometimes, I'm wondering! Look, in a 100 years, what we have done to our planet, that's not by turning off the buildings the night or by putting 2 or 3 wind turbines all over that we are going to make things change. We have to be honest ! Look at "La Défense", it's lighted all day long. Unless that suddenly, the powerful guys, got a real awareness of the situation and shit their pants, a bit like Obama, because "ah, it's true that my country, get his ass beaten and it's maybe the fault of the global warming". Pfffff... We're not the problem, they are. To change the politic, it's up to us, and not to the politicians that are linked to the system. We have to change the system. we definitely need to change our software. Politicians, today, are completely in the pocket of the market economy. And with the great beliefs they still create: the invisible hand, the market economy should be regulated by itself, it find by itself an equilibrium point. The trickle-down ideology, when you put some money on the top, it eventually comes back below. All this poisonous ideology, that in fact prevent a lot of people to really think about it. It will come from the normal peoples. I really have the feeling that the politicians... If they're convinced that something must be done, but does they have the means to do it ? Does the economical issues aren't too important ? I think it's certainly the politicians, or these current politicians, that are going to make things change. It's true. If everybody gets involved we might succeed. I think one of the most important problem, is to work together... Granted, we are at the down of the pyramid. But, guys, we are still the 90% ! So if we show them, if we threaten them a little, at one moment they're gonna say "Ow shit" ! The quality of the environnement surrounding us, the odds of being directly hitten by a natural disaster, these are aspects of the environnemental crisis that are unequally distributed within the population. Consequently, this idea, pushed forward by the dominant ecological ideology, that all of humanity will indiscriminately suffer the effects of climate change is just wrong. Air pollution in the Paris area is often discussed. But where are measured the most important pollution peaks ? Systematically in Seine-Saint-Denis, which is the poorer county of metropolitan France, and which is also the county that proportionally host the largest share of recent immigrants. Depending on your social category, depending on the fact that you are a recent immigrant or not, you will suffer further effects from air pollution on your health and your organism. An argument regularly heard about climatic crisis is that institutions of representative democracy aren't adapted to solve this crisis. And the reason is that political representation is renewed every 4, 5, 6 or, in the best case, 7 years. Consequently, there is a sort of short-term thinking. Because of this renewal, politicians aren't encouraged to solve the issue of global warming, which is a long-term problem. Indeed, we will have to make representative democracies evolve, and bring them closer to the base. Manage to make forms of direct democracy emerge, which will lead individuals to organise themselves individually in order to establish resilient institutions in a context of mandatory adaptation to climate change. States have greatly the means to re-regulate international trade and to impose very strong constraints to polluting industries, provided they decide to do so. In short, the state is a very powerful institution, which, during the past decades a time sometimes referred to as neo-liberal, has willingly forsaken some of its prerogatives, as part of a power struggle with the industrialists, although unfavorable, but with an active role, consisting, not in disturbing, but in re-regulating in favor of the capitalism interests. The state could very well decide, under the pressure of civil society, to re-regulate, in favor, this time, of lower classes. It is definitely possible, and it has been done in the past. Between the time when universal suffrage was proclaimed, basically during the French Revolution, and the time it was widespread, basically after World War II, more than a century elapsed. More than a century of struggle. Feminist struggle. Struggle of the labor movement. Struggle of the civil rights movements. All around the world, including the United States, but also elsewhere. This energetic transition, we must get it. We must get it through struggles. The same way we got the extension of voting rights and their universalization. For this, lower classes can rely on existing struggle traditions. And I am sure they will in the years and decades to come. One thing we must realize is that the concerned industrial sectors are on the offensive in the context of the climatic crisis. So, the paradox is that the people mainly responsible of the climatic crisis, such as manufacturers, financiers, are the ones that, today, are trying to take advantage of the situation. It is necessary and imperative to cut the connections between, on one side, finance, polluting industrial sectors, and, on the other side, the State. In other words, we must get the State back We must re-democratize the State through a deep movement coming from below and it is through this radicalization and democratization process that solutions to global warming could be found. What a perambulation ! What a road we traveled in nearly 90 minutes. I am a little stunned... -Do I believe in it ? Yeah, I still believe in it. I'm Tunisian and the people took action to change the country's politics. It worked. Now, there are other problems, but it can be made ! -Me, I'm pretty optimistic about humanity. I think humans are... -Good by nature? -No, not good by nature, I don't think so. Seeing as we need frameworks to be good, otherwise we screw things up. All dictatorships fall at one point. There's no such thing as a dictatorship that would have started at the time of the Romans and that would still exist nowadays. It doesn't exist... Sooner or later, the thirst for liberty, for fraternity... It's impossible to muzzle a people. I deeply think that people will build their society, that we have nothing to offer them. We will do our best. I'm gonna say stupid things, it's gonna make people laugh. Messages of peace, messages of fraternity, messages about the urge to talk, to settle, to look at each other, to know that we are humans, before everything else, and also that this planet is an amazing capital. So we must preserve it. Indeed, it is OUR environment, not THE environment. This is where we live, where we do what we do. At some point, we will need to realize it and to take care of it. At the end of the day, one can be a political man or woman industrial or mere citizen, we are all at the same level. The level of the individual choice. There shall be no miraculous solutions. There shall be struggles. Because changing is a struggle. Against yourself, before everything else. But there may be common aspirations. They are already there. They could enable us to escape the deadlock.
This was a good watch, thanks for posting.