This went out on Monday, when I yes today, IPCC report, who are saying that basically we have 12 years, we have a dozen years, for global warming to be kept at 1.5 degrees C. And it could go to two degrees without significant social political economic transformation. Now they're already pricing in one and a half degrees warming. The reason for that is that there is a lag between higher concentrations of greenhouse gases primarily CO2 but not just CO2 come at the oxide. There is a lag between higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere which we already have and warming. So they're saying simply by virtue of the concentrations we already have, there'll be further warming. We just don't know how much. They're saying here a degree plus, a degree sends a grade plus. But we can still stop two degrees C. Now here's the thing. I actually think this is a very conservative study. I thought the IPCC was already pricing in two degrees warming. So I mean it's very sensationalist. People have been jumping on it. But I think most kind of really well informed people on climate change are already saying it'll be a miracle if we keep two degrees warming. So I don't quite really get why this is a huge, I mean maybe the fact it's so huge, but token to the fact that not that many people are that well informed about it. And the big thing is if we go to beyond two degrees, which seems very likely, I would argue probable, if we go beyond two degrees, if we've got a three degrees, what we'll likely see is a sequence of feedbacks. So at three degrees the Amazon rainforest becomes a desert, right? It actually disappears. And of course the Amazon rainforest doesn't just produce lots of oxygen. It also consumes lots of CO2. It's a great what they call a carbon sink. That would clearly have massive global effects. If we go to three degrees, the Amazon rainforest disappears. That pushes us to four degrees. And at four degrees we have perma throstin in Siberia. Meltz, this allows huge concentrations of methane to be emitted into the atmosphere. Methane's not good, it's another greenhouse gas. And this would push us to five. At five degrees, the seas become warmer. They will receive getting warmer right now. They would get so warm that not only would they be too acidic for most life to exist, but actually huge concentrations of what's called methane hydrate would be released from the oceans. And that would push us to six degrees. And at six degrees, we don't really know what the world will look like. It will clearly look very different. But the reality is, most of the planet at six degrees will either be desert or underwater. And agriculture on a scale needed for human survival will only be possible around the poles, North and South Pole. And you think, well, OK, well, humans can still live, right? Well no, because we think there will be such a high level of methane in the atmosphere that basically anything with lungs won't be out of breath. Now this isn't happening next week. This isn't happening next year. It may not even happen for several millennia. But the reality is, if we don't choose to decarbonize our economies within a generation, that is highly, highly possible. It's highly possible. So the question is, what kind of political action is necessary to stop that from happening? Because we're not talking about vineyards being able to grow in Britain. We're not talking about being able to take a holiday in Cornwall and thinking you're in Magaloof. We are talking about the extermination of large swathes of life on this planet. That includes our own species. That includes our own species. Because climate change isn't just an issue of warming, rising sea levels. It also means, for instance, things like the Melcium Glacier Water. Glaciers in around India or China and Central Asia, they give clean drinking water to several billion people. Without those glaciers, those people can't drink water, right? Pretty big deal. With climate change, you'll see the climbing crop yields pretty much everywhere from the United States to Africa to the Middle East, even Southern Europe. This is the precise moment, particularly in Africa, where populations are exploding. The Africa could have lower crop yields because of climate change to announce in 2050, while its population doubles. That's clearly not politically manageable. So climate change is not just an ecological crisis. It's clearly also a political geopolitical social economic crisis, which demands solutions I would argue on a civilisation of scale.