The London Oratory School Schola was established in 1996 as a means of prov… Read Full Bio ↴The London Oratory School Schola was established in 1996 as a means of providing Catholic boys from the age of seven with a rigorous choral education within the maintained (state school) system, something hitherto only available in the independent (private) system. The school's close association with the London Oratory Church places it in a strong, if not unique, position to provide this form of specialist education and to contribute to the development of traditional liturgical music. The partnership between the Oratory and the school provides ideal opportunities for the school to train boys within the context of a living tradition of catholic liturgy.
The London Oratory School ScholaThe Oratory Church is part of a dynamic liturgical and musical tradition which goes back to the sixteenth century when the first Oratory was established in Rome at the time of the Counter-Reformation. Both Palestrina and Victoria were closely associated with the Oratory and Philip Neri, its founder, and Victoria became an Oratorian. In particular, the Oratory in Europe has been closely associated with the development of polyphony and the chant. The Oratory in London has a reputation for maintaining this tradition and for providing some of the finest liturgy and liturgical music in Europe today.
The school has a strong musical tradition and for many years has been closely associated with liturgy and music of the Oratory Church. The Schola sings at the Saturday evening Mass at the Oratory every week in term time and at other Masses and services during and outside term, and in the School Chapel every weekday morning. In addition to the liturgical commitment, concert work and touring are a regular feature of the choristers' lives. The choir also features on film soundtracks, including the whole of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The choir recorded a CD of Christmas Carols, 'Songs of a Shepherd' in 2001, released on the Herald record label.
Choristers normally join the school at the age of seven and are selected by audition, examination and interview, although places may sometimes be available to boys who join the school, including the sixth form, later. Choristers rehearse at 8 o'clock every morning, as well as for an hour immediately before services. Boys are given individual voice training. The Schola is supported by lay clerks (professional singers), some of whom are members of the Oratory Choir. Choristers are fully involved in other aspects of the musical life of the school.
The choir's founding director was Michael McCarthy. After seven years, Michael McCarthy moved to the USA where he is director of music at Washington National Cathedral. His place as Director of the Schola was taken by Steven Grahl, who remained in post until February 2006. The current director is Lee Ward, who combines this work with his duties as Director of Music at The London Oratory School.
In 2006 the Schola marked its 10th anniversary with a spectacular concert at St. John's, Smith Square. A further important milestone was reached on February 9th 2007 when the choir launched the Schola Foundation, a charitable company designed to secure the future of the Schola for many years to come. The launch concert at the London Oratory church featured Haydn's Mass in Time of War and Karl Jenkins' The Armed Man: A Mass for Peace. This concert received a four star review from the British national newspaper, the Sunday Express.
The choir toured Rome in April and May 2007 where they sang in front of Pope Benedict XVI, and will again visit Rome in July of this year to sing in a concert for Live Earth. Further tours and recordings are planned for 2007 and 2008. The choir has also toured Paris, the East Coast of America and Neresheim in Germany in recent years.
The choir's Patrons are HRH Princess Michael of Kent, the actor Simon Callow and the composer James MacMillan (musician).
The London Oratory School ScholaThe Oratory Church is part of a dynamic liturgical and musical tradition which goes back to the sixteenth century when the first Oratory was established in Rome at the time of the Counter-Reformation. Both Palestrina and Victoria were closely associated with the Oratory and Philip Neri, its founder, and Victoria became an Oratorian. In particular, the Oratory in Europe has been closely associated with the development of polyphony and the chant. The Oratory in London has a reputation for maintaining this tradition and for providing some of the finest liturgy and liturgical music in Europe today.
The school has a strong musical tradition and for many years has been closely associated with liturgy and music of the Oratory Church. The Schola sings at the Saturday evening Mass at the Oratory every week in term time and at other Masses and services during and outside term, and in the School Chapel every weekday morning. In addition to the liturgical commitment, concert work and touring are a regular feature of the choristers' lives. The choir also features on film soundtracks, including the whole of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The choir recorded a CD of Christmas Carols, 'Songs of a Shepherd' in 2001, released on the Herald record label.
Choristers normally join the school at the age of seven and are selected by audition, examination and interview, although places may sometimes be available to boys who join the school, including the sixth form, later. Choristers rehearse at 8 o'clock every morning, as well as for an hour immediately before services. Boys are given individual voice training. The Schola is supported by lay clerks (professional singers), some of whom are members of the Oratory Choir. Choristers are fully involved in other aspects of the musical life of the school.
The choir's founding director was Michael McCarthy. After seven years, Michael McCarthy moved to the USA where he is director of music at Washington National Cathedral. His place as Director of the Schola was taken by Steven Grahl, who remained in post until February 2006. The current director is Lee Ward, who combines this work with his duties as Director of Music at The London Oratory School.
In 2006 the Schola marked its 10th anniversary with a spectacular concert at St. John's, Smith Square. A further important milestone was reached on February 9th 2007 when the choir launched the Schola Foundation, a charitable company designed to secure the future of the Schola for many years to come. The launch concert at the London Oratory church featured Haydn's Mass in Time of War and Karl Jenkins' The Armed Man: A Mass for Peace. This concert received a four star review from the British national newspaper, the Sunday Express.
The choir toured Rome in April and May 2007 where they sang in front of Pope Benedict XVI, and will again visit Rome in July of this year to sing in a concert for Live Earth. Further tours and recordings are planned for 2007 and 2008. The choir has also toured Paris, the East Coast of America and Neresheim in Germany in recent years.
The choir's Patrons are HRH Princess Michael of Kent, the actor Simon Callow and the composer James MacMillan (musician).
The End of All Things
London Oratory School Scholars Lyrics
We have lyrics for 'The End of All Things' by these artists:
Aubzagl I awake in spectral darkness Remove my fetters, my eyes adju…
Dr. Spookenstein All good ends All good ends All good ends Must come to a…
Howard Shore Sindarin Sin eriol natha túr [choir: 0.00-0.14] In úgarnen …
L.O.T.R. Choosing a, choosing The person that you want To share you l…
NoMeansNo You are here I am here Fear Bound in fear We are here I see…
Panic! Whether near or far I am always yours Any change in time …
Panic! at the Disco Whether near or far I am always yours Any change in time We…
Panic! at the Disco - Too Weird to Live Too Rare to Die! Whether near or far I am always yours Any change in time We…
Swarm 1000 feet are marching Pounding the ground behind I can see …
The Lord Of The Rings Soundtrack Singers& Orchestra You are the promised kiss of springtime That makes the lonel…
The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos
More Genres
No Artists Found
More Artists
Load All
No Albums Found
More Albums
Load All
No Tracks Found
Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Search results not found
Song not found
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
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?
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
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?
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
@Timothy Young 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?
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
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?
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
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?
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
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?
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
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?
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
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?
jw1994
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.
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
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?
jw1994
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.
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
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?
Torstein Rizandro Bakketun Kyte
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?
Dare to do. Motivation
Thank You So Much For Watching And STAAAY BLESSED :)
If You are interested in my book full of short stories it is available now !
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BPQYT3WH
https://www.amazon.in/dp/B0BPQYT3WH
The Other Keys
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
New Day Thank You
Who is this speaker?
Daniel BIckerstaffe
Do believe that jesus was'nt awake ? Soon time will tell.
David McCarter
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,
Edith Bannerman
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
muhammad jawad zahid
It takes immense intelligence, awareness and courage to be a comedian. Hence his speech has such great resonance
Your Future Wealth
'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.
What Would Roddy Piper Do?
To a degree I'm an outlier but my junkie parents kicked me out at 13 in 1997 😂
Grig Turcescu
And now imagine being the parent of the kid that needs to inhale that. How would that hit you?