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

@OtherKeys-369

Жыл бұрын

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

@hedwiggwalczak3204

Жыл бұрын

Who is this speaker?

@rahulv8882

Жыл бұрын

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

@TheEasytimer

Жыл бұрын

Do believe that jesus was'nt awake ? Soon time will tell.

@feameldo

Жыл бұрын

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.

@johnwong5317

Жыл бұрын

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.

@deborahgrantham7387

Жыл бұрын

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?

@johnbryan2414

Жыл бұрын

Lol ya that would do nothing but enfuriate them lol

@ericsimonson8540

Жыл бұрын

Yep, they use “climate change” as their rallying cry to fleece the normal people

@LucasGualbertoSilva

Жыл бұрын

“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.

@WhatwouldRoddyPiperdo

10 ай бұрын

To a degree I'm an outlier but my junkie parents kicked me out at 13 in 1997 😂

@grigturcescu6190

10 ай бұрын

And now imagine being the parent of the kid that needs to inhale that. How would that hit you?

@DarylMT

10 ай бұрын

@@grigturcescu6190 You don't have children obviously. Or brains. Constantin talks far more sense than the complainers like yourself.

@WhatwouldRoddyPiperdo

10 ай бұрын

@@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 😁

@sebastianwrites

10 ай бұрын

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."

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

@CurateHub

10 ай бұрын

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.

@RickMckee-nq4ni

10 ай бұрын

That sounds intriguing. Having a regular job isn't enough to sustain my needs. So how do one generate passive income?

@AndrianWiener

10 ай бұрын

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

10 ай бұрын

@@AndrianWiener That sounds great, but isn't it risky to invest in businesses or stocks as an armature without a professional supervision?

@AndrianWiener

10 ай бұрын

@@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

When I heard, "woke" and "wokeness" I considered not watching any further. I'm glad I stayed for the entire speech.

@TimYoung8

Жыл бұрын

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?

@russianmom8311

Жыл бұрын

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 💩

@judyscriven-mckinney-johns2119

10 ай бұрын

I felt the same way and i, too am glad that I listened to the end .

@jansobieski7470

10 ай бұрын

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...)

@fredfred2363

9 ай бұрын

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!

@gordonmills7798

Жыл бұрын

The reason those students sat quietly and listened to the speaker is that it happened at a Uk university instead of an American one:

@prosen8966

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@geoffreymills9932

Жыл бұрын

Don't be fooled, it wasn't in this country

@jirisvoboda1134

Жыл бұрын

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.

@mrs210

Жыл бұрын

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

Gave that speech without any notes. Just stood up there and spoke from his mind. Amazing.

@michaeldemus6666

11 ай бұрын

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.

@saltedllama2759

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

@JohnnyMaverik

10 ай бұрын

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.

@igorfilipovic6531

10 ай бұрын

​@@michaeldemus6666 i hope you are joking

@bernie.fitzpatrick7948

10 ай бұрын

@@igorfilipovic6531 lol 😂 my thoughts exactly!!

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!!

@paulkiefer5455

Жыл бұрын

There's no such thing as wokeness. It's stupid and it only exists in small right wingy minds.

@joybaker7664

Жыл бұрын

“Very rich and well-off” are key words. The rest of us aren’t woke

@wanderingIvy67

Жыл бұрын

They choose to live that way

@geoffwheadon4277

Жыл бұрын

Hear hear sir

@RafitoOoO

Жыл бұрын

They don't have issues in their lives so they need to invent

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

@irritatingindiana886

Жыл бұрын

The man is an idiot

@user-nt7cm2kd1h

2 ай бұрын

GET IT GRANDMA

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,

@edithbannerman4

7 ай бұрын

@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?

@elizabethvallie767

5 ай бұрын

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.

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.

This is what powerful words sound like 👑

@poopinlumpy

Жыл бұрын

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."

@vishmagiri8676

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for correcting me, I'll keep your wisdom😇

@ajm-wu6wd

Жыл бұрын

@@poopinlumpy very well said

@ludwigsamereier8204

Жыл бұрын

Powerful words indeed. Unfortunately the silly "music" trivializes their impact.

@malcolmwood5843

Жыл бұрын

Empty rhetoric.

I like the way he is educating not preaching or attacking. Brilliant talk.

@susancreaney1680

Жыл бұрын

He is not educating..pandering at best

@jw-ob1wv

Жыл бұрын

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.

@suhbro5928

Жыл бұрын

​@@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.

@qwerwerterytrtyutyuiyuiouiop

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@kennyc388

Жыл бұрын

This dude would be an amazing vacuum cleaner salesman.

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

@akashsinha2880

10 ай бұрын

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 ❓

@FASELverschiebung

10 ай бұрын

Fact 😅

@TonyNicholls-gi9le

10 ай бұрын

@@akashsinha2880 Please explain,

@kyleisaacson

10 ай бұрын

Facts? In the first couple of seconds he already is wrong about "woke" and its meaning!

@TonyNicholls-gi9le

10 ай бұрын

@@kyleisaacson you FOOL

It takes immense intelligence, awareness and courage to be a comedian. Hence his speech has such great resonance

Facts nailed He's practical about the present Salute to you brother Love from India ❤️🙏

@DD-ky9xi

Жыл бұрын

He's stupid

@rolexro5139

Жыл бұрын

But poor India did help and rescue poor people from Syria, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Sudan, Chechnya, Myanmar (Rohingya), China (Uyghur),yemen

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

@harshadevbarman

11 ай бұрын

​@@rizandro​ That is really a thought provoking insight, you've given me. Thanks a lot for sharing this👍👍

Absolute genius. I could speak for days and not say as much as he said in 7 minutes. I'm awestruck.

@nkemossai6593

Жыл бұрын

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.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

@dravidsukhu2380

10 ай бұрын

@@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

so honored to have listened to this speech. Facts over the emotions of a privileged few!

@BilingualBooks

6 ай бұрын

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.

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!!

A much needed motivation Right now...🤚 This needs to spread all over on a serious note

@Ihavenohandle....

Жыл бұрын

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.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

@Greatness13

10 ай бұрын

@@rizandro Absolutely love your dissection of this video. I actually learned a couple of things from your comment.

@BWanderers

10 ай бұрын

Serious as cancer my friend, as serious as that. R.

HE SPOKE THE UTTER TRUTH OF LIFE.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

@Remen-tj3ph

10 ай бұрын

@@rizandro Thanks for putting it my friend, you surely are not someone who get influenced by something just because everyone in the comments section is liking it. I loved what you said.

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.

@edithbannerman4

7 ай бұрын

@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?

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 .

@edithbannerman4

7 ай бұрын

@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?

Must be one of the best speeches give I have ever heard.100% right.

@mtlicq

Жыл бұрын

Almost! Its flaw was still considering C02 as a pollutant

@matshoglund4032

Жыл бұрын

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?

@mtlicq

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@elwynphillips3327

Жыл бұрын

@@mtlicq I totally agree with what he said.

@simonclarke2015

Жыл бұрын

@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.

@hummingbird399

Жыл бұрын

Yeah whats with the crap music spoiling this brilliant speech 🙄🙉

@sarahvawda-nn9si

Жыл бұрын

Yes the music is annoying

@bayouelton

Жыл бұрын

I thought the crap music enhanced it. Just like Greta's "How dare you." 🤣 🤣 🤣

@hummingbird399

Жыл бұрын

@@bayouelton only he makes more sense than Greta ever did.. did you actually listen to the speech?!

@rfcalm

10 ай бұрын

@@hummingbird399I don’t think you understood the comment. He is commenting on the ‘soundbite’ within this video of Greta saying ‘how dare you’.

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.

@Altonahh10

5 ай бұрын

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.

Probably one of the best speeches I have heard and listened too many times

Great. So true. Send it around the world. Everybody should hear that, specially the young folks

@jw-ob1wv

Жыл бұрын

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.

Wow,such wisdom, but only to those with open ears and minds

@punchline2529

Жыл бұрын

An open mind means, that you’re prepared to explore the possibility that you are dead wrong.

@axiomt5981

Жыл бұрын

Only to fools who don't understand logical fallacies.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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!!

WHAT A GREAT SPEECH!! GREAT MAN!!❤❤

This speech is a must in The Australian Education curriculum.

@wuwu6384

Жыл бұрын

a must in all the developed countries

@johnm7267

Жыл бұрын

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

@jimhealy4890

Жыл бұрын

And in every other western country's education system. Well said that man!

@sammij7863

Жыл бұрын

I was just thinking the same thing.

@davidstokes8441

Жыл бұрын

Amen to that.

Love u bro from india 🇮🇳 god bless u

Truly one of the greatest speeches ever. It ranks up there with Winston Churchill’s will “fight them on the beach speeches”

@richardbusch9471

10 ай бұрын

It ranks alongside Donald Trump's 19 July 2016 speech at Sun City’s Magnolia Hall speech in South Carolina.

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.

I salute you, sir! You’re telling the truth. You nailed it! Stay as the mouthpiece of TRUTH! A lot are backing you up!

He grabbed my attention and kept me there to full realization of the truth he spoke!

@TimYoung8

Жыл бұрын

Well you are easily brain washed.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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

11 ай бұрын

@@rizandro Can you summarize this - a short paragraph would be enough. No, I did not read it.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

@mohasat01

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

Intresting content. Is it still advisable to leave idle money in a saving account at an average interest rate of 0.95%? I want a better way to diversify my portfolio and with current inflation, cr'ypto gain taxes are no jokes. I would like to know the most efficient way to make money work for me without falling due to market fluctu_ations as we are in bear market. Any tips?

@philiphunter4133

11 ай бұрын

Accurately spoken, investing is really profitable nowadays and does not Involves physical labor

@garywright6507

11 ай бұрын

I have incurred so much losses investing on my own, I invest well on demo but I think the real market is manipulated. Can anyone help me out or tell me what I'm doing wrong?

@anitaperez6838

11 ай бұрын

​@Roy Fisher I think am blessed if not I wouldn't have met someone who is as spectacular as Ellis Gregory

@paulwhite7466

11 ай бұрын

​@Gabriel Corbin You don't need to be shoc_ked , ca'use am also a hu'ge bene_ficiary of Ellis Gregory. he helped me reco'ver what I lo'st tryi_ng to tra'de for myself

@antoniocruz6398

11 ай бұрын

Wo'w so nic'e, seeing people ta'lk about Ellis Gregory I ju'st ma'de my fi'rst with-drawal, tradi_ng with him. All thanks to my aunty who intro-duced him to me.

Very well done. Excellent. Stunning actually. Inspirational.

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.

This is the most needed message for the current generation and myself .we need to pass this message and PRESS THE BUTTON

@ajm-wu6wd

Жыл бұрын

I'll press it twice

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

Thank you Sir! This is the first time I have understood what Wokizm is. You are totally correct. Let’s stop being victims and start building the garden planet to sustain us all. Cheers, Mike

What a perfect speech from the start to the finish line. From what begins the raise to the rests of countries raised also. From the world circle of trust to the first world has built and to the countrys middle income economies. From what food to be and comes to dessert and the salad before the main dish to served right with all filled with healthy leaf and even cheeze made from milk fresh made of.

Thank GOD for hard work and common bloody sense 👍🙏 What a true and brilliant speech. Well done sir. I applaud you.

@zhallazhuzha5576

4 ай бұрын

Hello please can you tell me this speech is about what?

@toniwhy8415

2 ай бұрын

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...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.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

@vinvinvichii

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

@vinvinvichii

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

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😢

Outstanding speech. The first honest thing I’ve heard in a while.

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.

@mollycahalan1035

Жыл бұрын

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

@geoffroberts1608

Жыл бұрын

In other words

Beautiful. Watched the full debate tooo!

Best speech I’ve heard in a long, long, time. Only wish the woke generation would actually listen, understand, and start WORKING towards making the world a better place, instead of destroying everything they touch.

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!

Thank-you Konstantin! Very profound and succinct delivery- especially considering you had to wait, being the last speaker that night and so many of the issues you had already prepared to discuss were hijacked... Your speech is THE ONE, imho, that will be remembered the most! Everything was on point! 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

@irritatingindiana886

Жыл бұрын

He blames everything but big business. The man is an idiot.

@had3042

Жыл бұрын

are you from uk?

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

@socratesagain7822

2 ай бұрын

@@rizandro Thanks for elaborating and addressing the nonsensical main "arguments." I thought it was only me. Septic tanks now exist; as do PV cells and wind generators, etc. The malnourishment issue frosted me, too. Improper food distribution may be Capitalism's ultimate flaw. Invading entire countries in the global south, forcing them to produce cash crops for exportation by expropriating land from the locals and forcing them to work for slave wages to import food surely should be a topmost issue on everyone's mind. Kisin glosses over this major crime against humanity. Disgusting and disgraceful. Be well.

What a great video, thanks for sharing. There are two sides to every story, always another perspective. Blessings to you.

Thank you, Konstantin. Brilliant as usual. Much respect, from Reggio di Calabria 🇮🇹

Love this speech 4th time I have watched it now, and shared it with many .

Thank you sir……you said the PERFECT TRUTH……God bless you !!!

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've seen this speech several times now. I rewatched it because he makes very valid points in a way that's it's hard to argue againsst.

I’m not woke but this got me out of my own ‘ victim’ thinking Yass at last , I needed to hear this

im impressed by his story.... i usually dont write a comment but this man deserves it

I’m grateful I heard this speech! So apt to the times!

Amazing. Loved the presentation and the passion behind it. Lets do it, advance the world, dont be fooled into Wokenesss. Stop the complaining and be a positive influence that will make postive changes to the planet & all the peoples of the world.

Nail on the head! Innovation for clean energy is what people should be going to school for. STEM. Let's get these brilliant kids working towards a solution.

Truth, such a rare thing these days. Thank you so much, this video should be seen by everyone on Earth.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

He’s a very intelligent man. I love the way he’s speaking tonight.

@jw-ob1wv

Жыл бұрын

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.

@vinvinvichii

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

@jw-ob1wv

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

@marycull3607

10 ай бұрын

​@@jw-ob1wv I'm not good at accents. I know he is Russian but is he speaking from Canada UK or Australia. ?

Salute my brother , it's clean delivery with facts and statistics also with a human touch , thank you sir well done

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

@pakodanuniverselle2496

11 ай бұрын

@@rizandro you have a point my brother , in fact you have many points. i think this is the important thing, to open discussion in this area . i think one person see the big image we need to come together. thank you Mr. Rizandro

Beautiful. It's really something to listen to this having already realised the trap

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

Жыл бұрын

Who is he

@TNothingFree

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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 honestly hope this got through to some of these kids. Great speech and dead on.

@MartyMolloy

Жыл бұрын

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.

@jw-ob1wv

Жыл бұрын

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.

@madeleyinc

11 ай бұрын

​@@jw-ob1wvyou actually said the same thing he said in a more round about way.

@brittrugg2676

10 ай бұрын

@@jw-ob1wvstop talking about CRT. It’s not taught in school except for an elective in law school. Stop believing that bullshit lie.

I’ve kinda been thinking the same. I mean even if we did our part the whole world has to get on board not just an 1/8 of it. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

@The Importance of Honoring Obligations: Honoring obligations is a fundamental aspect of human interaction and societal cohesion. It entails fulfilling one's duties and responsibilities towards oneself, others, and the wider community. In art, artists have an obligation to express their innermost thoughts and emotions truthfully, while also considering the impact of their creations on the audience. Similarly, in Push Hands, practitioners have an obligation to maintain balance and harmony with their training partners, ensuring mutual growth and development. Kant's philosophy emphasizes the moral duty to honor obligations, as it is through fulfilling these obligations that individuals contribute to the overall moral fabric of society.

WHAT A BEAUTIFUL SPEECH, that man is brilliant.

Well articulated, well delivered with a splattering of humor bur without animosity; Perfect.

@captaintom6111

Жыл бұрын

He called his opponents "woke idiots" but sure, no animosity.

@windellmcspindell3652

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@moneymoney5431

Жыл бұрын

@@captaintom6111the truth can hurt

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

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

Amazing how fabulous...how completely...logic and common sense work! 👍

OMG ... I AM IN AWE 🇨🇦💖.I am glad I am part of the British Commonwealth, born, raised and live. 💖🇬🇧🇨🇦💖

@pauljohnson1664

Жыл бұрын

You are a bit more special than that. You are part of CANZUK. kzread.info/dash/bejne/hotmq9OcqanJmco.html

I wish there was no background music to this lecture, which was very well delivered! Thank you.

@ardimediprod.376

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/rH6Y06yuXZnAgNI.html

@christine8203

Жыл бұрын

@@ardimediprod.376 thank you!!!

Good talk, the excuses are real. The so called woke culture is essential for you to have this speech get it's momentum. Keep neglecting the issues, the earth will do it's best to re-align if we can't.

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!

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 !!! 😍😍😍

The world political scene needs more people like this gentleman, just facts, no bull and very convincing.

@TimYoung8

Жыл бұрын

The facts the quoted are actually wrong.

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

@@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?

@grandValo

10 ай бұрын

@@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.

@TimYoung8

10 ай бұрын

@@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.

@dariuszgaat5771

Ай бұрын

@@TimYoung8 You are really stupid.

I just envy people who could speak so eloquently. Great!

Absolutely Brilliant!... You deserve a standing ovation!!...👏👏👏

@zhallazhuzha5576

4 ай бұрын

Hello please can you tell me this speech is about what

His speech is refreshing

Thank you for speaking, my brother.. Thank you.. Respect from India..

The words I use when making the argument are "what does wokeness contribute to our society as a technologically advancing collective of human beings" the answer is usually something along the lines of acceptance and inclusion of all humans but I then ask the question again and specify the words "contribution" "technologically" "Advancing" The proceeding argument then turns to outright abuse and accusations of bigotry and intolerance Not sure where to go from there suggestions?

There is no doubt that he is right. We cannot reverse or maybe even slow down the industrial machine which is probably adding to the climate problem. What we can do and we are paying no attention to this is to prepare of a epoch of much more severe climatic conditions. Why are we not spending much more time and resources on this?

One of the best speeches ever. So much truth which we don’t have much of that anymore. 😂

What a bright person.. Wonderful... All young people should be hearing this ebety month st school👍

OUTSTANDING!!! DO NOT BE A VICTIM!! BE A LEADER THAT CHOOSES TO WORK & GROW & CREATE THAT WHICH WILL BRING PROSPERTY TO YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS & YOUR COUNTRY!! YOU HAVE ONE LIFE TO LIVE!! MAKE IT A GOOD ONE!!!😇

Absolutely great ! Raise the vibe indeed !!!

@rizandro

11 ай бұрын

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?

Eye opener video... Who is the speaker by the way?

That was an awesome speech we have to work🙏

That is exactly what I needed to hear 😮and I thought I was woke, not anymore. Very smart speech, thank you Constantin.

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.

It looks like someone tried to silence him near the beginning of the speech. I'm gob-smacked he wasn't shouted down and dragged off the stage (near the end too) "no thank you" . Powerful share this everywhere.

@scotthibbs

Жыл бұрын

I looked this up becuase I had the same reaction. The guy kept saying "point of information"... The speech was delivered at the Oxford Union Debate Club. Rules state that members can challenge a speaker at any time during the debate by raising a ‘point of information’, although it remains at the discretion of the individual speaker whether to accept an interjection.

I sit back and wait to see when the world will waken up and do what they don't want to do, which is to change! I don't want to sit back, I want to stand up with the people and change, but I fear I'll always be in the same position, sitting back, waiting to see when the world will waken up and do what they don't want to do!

👍 speech also major important. happy to hear thanks 🙏