It is important to really think about what we mean by climate. There are a lot of interpretations of what the climate movement or what the climate battle is about. When you think about the climate, many images can come. It is the stratosphere or it is polar bears or it is numbers and targets and CO2 molecules. The problem with all these interpretations is that it takes the political side of the discussion of the debate. The climate debates right now, the climate crisis, it is a consequence of a system, of an economic system that has put the planet into a level which is not possible to continue. When we add the term justice to the climate debates, then we are looking at a different aspect of it. There is not any longer about targets or levels of CO2, but it is about what are the implications on the ground of the climate policies for the people that are being affected by these policies. The main policy that is being implemented for the climate debates is carbon markets. Carbon markets are supposed to be part of the climate battle. They are supposed to be fighting for making the climate better or less polluted. But in reality, what we see after more than 15 years of debating about this mechanism is that emissions are rising, so it is doing nothing for the climate. And on top of that, it is allowing a system that it is a problem that the system continues and expands. So more extraction is allowed, and these destructive industries can also claim to be neutral or green or whatever they want to call themselves, because they say that they compensate their pollution by doing a project somewhere else. And this puts another layer of power in this debate, because where they put these projects are mostly in southern countries and are mostly on indigenous peoples and small persons communities, which are confronted with, let's say, monoculture plantations or hydroelectric projects, large scale or windmills, but in a large scale. So therefore, there is a lot of land and territories being taken over for doing these projects that are only compensating in theory these companies for keeping on polluting. So it's a system that targets the people that are least responsible of the climate crisis, and it's doing nothing to the actors that are supposedly, that are the cause of the climate crisis. So more fossil fuel is allowed and much more dispossession on the local level. We need to talk about the climate debate in the framework of what are the climate policies doing in reality. The problem of talking about numbers and targets and percentages of reductions in, in, so technocratic way is that we forget about what this means and how these targets are supposed to be achieved. So it doesn't matter for some people that there is monoculture plantations implemented somewhere in Brazil or in Indonesia, because this will absorb you to in theory, and then the climate is better. But we are not thinking or there is a silence on what happens on the ground when implemented these monoculture plantations or these large scale hydroelectric dam. And also what happens in the other site where these extraction companies can keep on extracting, can keep on making their polluting activities. So it only increases the system and it doesn't take at all the concept of justice. There is a lot of the, suppose, climate movement that says that they are battling for the climate. And I think it is really important that we understand that climate change, the climate crisis, is being used as a way to push through a lot of policies that are actually increasing the crisis and are making the extractive system to go further. There is a lot of, for example, big NGOs, conservation NGOs that are supposed to be part of the climate movement that think themselves as part of the climate movement, but at the end are reinforcing these sort of policies. I'm talking about, for example, carbon offsets or a mechanism called red, which is reducing emissions from the first station and forest degradation, which is basically a mechanism that will take forest as only CO2 reservoirs. So the focus of these whole policies are about CO2. There is no more discussion about power, there is no more discussion about why, what is the reason and the real cause of the crisis. This is put, push aside, and what is being talked about is about molecules of CO2. So therefore, it doesn't matter if it's someone a culture plantation or a forest for the UN, for FAO and for corporations, this is the same because they both absorb CO2. So there is a lack of understanding or there is a lack of telling actually what is the real problem, what are the real actors. We are targeting, we are pushing indigenous peoples and small scale farmers to be the, as if they would be the problem, as if they would be the ones causing the forestation and therefore climate change. Red is mostly on all the documents at the southern countries portraying these actors as the problem of climate change, but nobody's talking how much fossil fuels and these large scale projects are actually the main causes of the forestation and therefore climate change. So we put a lot of burden on the ones that are the least responsible of the climate crisis and we allow the ones that are responsible to keep on doing it and not only to keep on doing it but actually to expand their activities because they can claim to be neutral, they can claim to be green. So it is what they call green capitalism or the green economy which is just a new phase and a mask for keep on doing the same thing but with different discourses and with different mechanisms. So before it was in the name of the development, in the name of eradicating poverty, now it is in the name of climate, it's in the name of eradicating pollution. But as we saw with poverty, it didn't, it was not eradicated, it was expanded and we see the same thing happening with climate change. So let's not forget that the struggles on climate need a justice perspective, need to understand, we need to understand that it's a consequence of a system. Once we understand this, we can portray a bit better who are our allies, what are we fighting for and who do we want to fight it with. So that we separate our self a bit from talking about the climate crisis and the climate struggles in terms of numbers or in terms of targets for countries but actually on changing the same structures, the same system that are pushing the real causes of the crisis. I think that for people that are struggling on decisions on climate here in Europe or in northern countries, it is important that we try to radicalize our solidarity. It is not enough to think that we have to stop for example certain power plant here in Europe, which is very important, but we need to think that most of the energy being used in Europe is being imported from elsewhere. So we need to really think of okay, we stopped this power station here, but we also need to stop power stations somewhere else, and in order to do that, then we have to change the system. So what is the alternative, right? That is the critical kind of question that is being asked all the time and the pushed movements a bit in a scary position. And I think we have to be very safe and very secure on saying that there are many alternatives already out there, that there are existing and are strong enough, that they have survived many ways of imposition and domination, and they are still struggling to survive. So capitalism is just one alternative. It is the Germanic one, but it is one alternative. And media and governments always try to push movements to think within this one alternative. And if you don't say an answer that is within this one framework, for them it is not an alternative, if it is not feasible, if you are too radical or whatever, but we should not be scared to say no, we have to escape from this framework and we have to see and support, strongly support, these other alternatives that are being confronted now because of the climate policies.