Metta expresses her impression that the allegations of fascism were exaggerated and questions whether there is any justification for Putin’s aspiration to clear out the so-called Nazis. The conversation highlights various perspectives on contemporary issues and emphasizes the importance of understanding different viewpoints.

The participants discuss Buffy Sainte-Marie’s song, which reflects on soldiering and the systemic issues behind war. They mention how nationalistic attitudes perpetuate conflicts and how the current situation between the US, Russia, and NATO threatens to escalate into a nuclear war. Participants also discuss the ongoing debate in the Science for Peace community about the situation in Ukraine, NATO expansion, and the various factors contributing to the conflict.

Peter Brogden shares his experience in the army and mentions how the Vietnam era song by Buffy Sainte-Marie resonated with him. Glen Anderson adds that the song challenges the universal support for soldiers and emphasizes the need to break out of the soldiering mode and nationalistic militarism.

The conversation moves on to the issue of NATO and Russia, with Metta Spencer expressing her opinion that Putin’s actions in Ukraine are not due to the fear of NATO expansion, but rather his desire to recreate a great Russian Empire. Leda Raptis argues that the situation is more complicated, as both the West and Russia want to dominate the world. She points out the absurdity of wanting to eliminate a nuclear superpower like Russia and the dangers posed by nuclear weapons.

The International Criminal Court’s warrant for Putin’s arrest is mentioned, with participants noting the inconsistencies in international justice, as no similar action was taken against George Bush following the invasion of Iraq. The conversation highlights the complexity of international relations, the risks of nuclear war, and the need to re-evaluate nationalistic attitudes and actions.

The participants discuss international law, war criminals, and the role of the International Criminal Court. They mention that both the United States and Russia refuse to participate in the International Criminal Court, as they don’t want their own people to be held accountable.

The conversation then turns to instances where war criminals have been arrested in other countries, such as the case of General Pinochet, the dictator of Chile. Pinochet was arrested in Spain under the international law provision called “universal jurisdiction,” which allows for the arrest of war criminals anywhere in the world. However, Pinochet was eventually released due to various pressures.

Participants also discuss the case of a judge in British Columbia, Canada, who stated that if George W. Bush ever sets foot in the province, he would be arrested as a war criminal. This situation highlights the concept of universal jurisdiction and the complexities of holding powerful individuals accountable for their actions.

The conversation later shifts to the blame game and the struggle to maintain historical perspective on war crimes and criminal leadership. Participants emphasize the importance of supporting international law and the United Nations, while also acknowledging the lack of an independent foreign policy in some countries, such as Canada.

In conclusion, the participants express their concerns about the direction of the peace movement and the need to focus on supporting initiatives that promote demilitarization and accountability for war criminals worldwide. They highlight the complexities of international law and the challenges of holding powerful individuals and nations accountable for their actions.  

Metta Spencer raises the question of the effectiveness of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).The language in its reports are becoming more dire as time goes on. However, some argue that the IPCC is not calling attention to important factors that need to be addressed in order to mitigate climate change.

The fundamental problem is society’s addiction to oil, and the difficulty of breaking away from it. Oil’s high energy content, ease of transportation, and significant impact on global economies has made it difficult to move towards cleaner alternatives. Powerful oil companies have more influence than many governments, which further complicates the transition to renewable energy sources.

Despite the challenges, the IPCC is becoming more proactive in recommending solutions, such as the development of renewable energy technologies and new types of batteries. However, there is still much work to be done to overcome society’s dependence on oil and make a significant impact on mitigating climate change. They express frustration over the lack of specific solutions offered by the IPCC, which focuses mostly on emission reduction. The panel also addresses how the consequences of climate change are becoming more severe and how deniers are starting to change their tune.

There is a discussion of the IPCC’s shifting baseline, which they argue is deceptive. The original baseline for climate change was set at pre-industrial levels (1750), while the most recent reports use the average between 1850 and 1900. By changing the baseline, it makes it seem like the world is doing better in terms of climate change than it actually is.

Metta Spencer brings up the topic of solutions that remove carbon dioxide or involve direct cooling, like solar management. She invites a participant, Franz, to discuss his proposal involving iron salt aerosols and other aerosol techniques. He explains how these methods can help deplete methane and draw down CO2, particularly in the Arctic region. He also explains how black carbon, produced by combustion processes, absorbs solar radiation and heats up the surrounding air, drifting upwards into the stratosphere.

They discuss the potential of using black carbon mitigation to help reduce climate change. Kathrin Winkler highlights the importance of aerosols in affecting the climate and the need for funding and trials for such technologies, as they could scale up easily and are not very expensive.

The conversation then shifts to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Dr. James Three expresses his belief that climate change is a hoax created by the Bilderberg Group in the 1970s and is more concerned about wars in Europe, particularly the one in Ukraine, which he believes is fostered by the American military establishment. Kathrin Winkler and Metta Spencer challenge this view, pointing out Putin’s actions in the region and questioning the legitimacy of Dr. Three’s claims.

The group continues to discuss the war in Ukraine, with differing opinions on how it will end and who is responsible. Dr. Three claims that Putin has offered to stop the war if Zelensky agrees not to join NATO and stops persecuting Russian speakers in Ukraine. Kathrin Winkler, however, believes that Putin is trying to eliminate Ukraine as an entity and is responsible for the conflict. The conversation touches on controversial events such as the gas pipeline explosion, with participants acknowledging that the situation is muddy and influenced by the “fog of war.”

The conversation then shifts to Charles, who is working with victims of wars and psychological traumas in Croatia, Congo, and Liberia. He expresses his frustration about the lack of proper treatment and the potential for violence to erupt in these regions.

Alexey, a Russian living in Warsaw to avoid being mobilized to fight in Ukraine, joins the discussion. He shares his optimism about the situation in Russia, believing that by late June, there will be a significant change in favor of Ukraine. He cites a recent conversation between a Russian oligarch and a show business person who both spoke negatively about Putin as evidence of the elite growing tired of Putin’s rule.

Alexey speculates that a coup d’état might be on the horizon, possibly led by Patrushev, the former KGB agent and current head of the Security Council of Russia. However, the participants acknowledge that it is difficult to predict the exact details of such a coup.

Alexey mentions that Europe has not been frozen, China is not helping, the frontline is collapsing, the economy is collapsing, and the elite are not supportive of Putin, leading to the destruction of Putin’s power base. Metta Spencer agrees with this optimistic outlook but points out that most of the population still supports Putin. Alexey believes this will change once propaganda stops working. Richard Denton, however, is not as optimistic as Alexey and expresses concerns about Putin putting nuclear weapons in Belarus. He stresses the need for local work on divestment of nuclear weapons, promoting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and pushing for negotiations to end the war.

TRANSCRIPT

The following transcript has been machine generated using “otter.ai.” Prior to using information from the transcript, please watch the video to catch any obvious errors.

Metta Spencer  00:00

“This is a machine-generated transcript, so it may contain errors. Do not cite it without checking for yourself by watching the video and catching any obvious errors.”  On the last Sunday of every month Project Save the World hosts a global townhall for activists everywhere in the world who get together and talk about their various concerns. And we are now about to watch the show that’s produced on Sunday, March 26 2023. The global town hall, hello friends.

Franz Oeste  00:28

Hi Metta. Hi everyone!

Glen Anderson  00:30

Hi!

Peter Wadhams  00:31

Hi.

Metta Spencer  00:33

Hello, hello, hello, good to see you all, and you’re all waiting for me here in my waiting room when I opened it.

Peter Wadhams  00:43

I’m wondering how you are because you were ill?

Metta Spencer  00:48

Well, I was ill, and I’m home and I’m feeling better. So I think, you know, I’m on the mend I have, I have new ailments, but I have a conquered the previous one. So I’m onto fresh batch of concerns. So anyway, they’re all manageable, and I’m sitting with compression stockings on my feet.

Peter Wadhams  01:15

That’s what I wear as well.

Metta Spencer  01:19

So it’s, I suppose some other people have experienced compression stockings. It’s a good day here. And this looks beautiful outside. So let’s have a good job get together. Here, I see that Franz Oeste, and Peter Wadhams are with me. And both of them have been very engaged in a series of talks that I have been doing with the Canadian Pugwash group, where we’re inviting Pugwashins ins to listen in on conversations about particular about a series of four possible ways of addressing climate change. And both Peter and Franz have been working on ways of getting I think you’re especially concerned about the methane in the in the Arctic and well around the world, because methane emissions are so bad, that we’ve had several conversations already about the idea. And Franz has a way of spraying not only iron, but there are other kinds of things that I think can be can be sprayed. And maybe we’ll get to talk a little bit about that, that there’ll be a complete about that one day soon. So and the beauty of working with Peter Wadhams is not only Peter is so cooperative and helpful, I can call on him to anytime seems to be ready to do things. leading expert on the Arctic sea, and on the problems that we have to deal with about the methane in the Arctic. Yeah, we have a newcomer here, Alastair Farrugia,I have not met so why don’t we start with a few people who are newcomers. And Alastair tell us who you are and how you happened to find us.

Alastair Farrugia  03:29

So I, yeah, I’m in Malta, in the Mediterranean. You have been a member of different NGOs.

Metta Spencer  03:39

Where are you Alaistair?

Alastair Farrugia  03:42

In Malta, in the Mediterranean, a small island.

Metta Spencer  03:47

In the Mediterranean? And what is it you’re saying? You’re concerned most about?

Alastair Farrugia  03:54

But personally, I guess, climate change and social justice?

Metta Spencer  04:00

Well, look, if you if you have something you’d like to share with us, you can do it now or you can chime in later as as you prefer.

Alastair Farrugia  04:12

But nothing so nothing on the activism side, really. I have offered some I have opted some NGO, and then just admin work administration.

Metta Spencer  04:23

Okay, okay. Well, we’ll be glad to hear more as you can. Now, a couple of other newcomers. Leda Raptus. Tell us about what’s on your mind.

Leda Raptis  04:33

Of course, my interests in the peace movement is like just about everybody else this time is mainly about Ukraine, but also the environment and also just about everything I have read about or in this…

Kathrin Winkler  04:46

I’ll just don’t I’ll put my name is Kathrin Winkler Hi, how are you?

Metta Spencer  04:50

Hello Kathrin, It’s good to see you again. Kathrin. Yes and where is Glen Anderson. Glen, let’s turn your microphone on.

Glen Anderson  05:01

Yeah, I’m I’m near Olympia Washington, 60 miles south of Seattle. I keep working on peace, justice, human rights, climate, everything else. And I put in the chat a link to my March TV program, which anybody anywhere can watch online, I make the connections between nuclear weapons in the context of overall US foreign policy, how we got stuck in this stupid, suicidal, cruel path, and how to get unstuck. So it’s a one hour TV program. And then you can either watch the video, or and or read the transcript, which I’ve fleshed out with some additional information. But anyway, there’s Smart Insights there, we need to not feel overwhelmed and powerless. We need to empower ourselves and solve the problems. And part of that means getting the big money out of politics, that the weapons manufacturers and other corrupting influences fund the campaigns that people in Congress, and and they, they they’re stuck in that corrupt path.

Metta Spencer  06:15

I should say that I put the chat up after I’ve edited the show and put it online, which may take me a couple of days. Not sure. And, and then you can go to the website tosavethe world.ca and check the talk shows. And you will see this, the recording, the edited recording of our conversation here. And I’ll put the chat up then, so people can find you that way.

Peter Brogden  06:47

I’m spending quite a bit of time watching and reading the debates that have been going on within science of peace on everybody’s views, or people’s views on the Ukraine situation. And all like there’s an awful lot of language and people are looking at, did they mean that? Or did they mean something else. And it’s just not very clear at all. They fall back usually on them. The words of the song, Universal Soldier,.

Metta Spencer  07:23

Universal Soldier?

Peter Brogden  07:24

It would be so simple. If we didn’t have so much interest put into soldiering, we wouldn’t be having the interest we have in war.

Metta Spencer  07:34

Tell us give us a little summary, if you will here about the conversations that you’ve been listening to.

Peter Brogden  07:40

Okay. A lot of it a lot of it seems to be on is it real, that the US and the CIA, and NATO, were all keeping going with the, all the frictional effects that they had been working on up to the to 2014 uprising was more startling then, and they’ve never stopped it. And how real were these actions? Did they really work as badly as some people say? Or did they not on economic sanctions.

Metta Spencer  08:18

What kind of actions? What were they being accused of here?

Peter Brogden  08:22

But the fascist groups in Ukraine were really being supported and prodded to make sure they were truly active in keeping fighting all the time, with the Donbas garrison’s and the rest of it. In the, in the eastern part of Ukraine, and that never quietened down. It’s generally not being reported on so people weren’t aware of it, and all sorts of interpretation that was really being bad and who wasn’t. And I can’t say I’ve read all of these articles and sorted out my own opinion, but they just seem to be so many different views.

Metta Spencer  09:10

Then I certainly feel left out, because I had the general impression that the whole allegation about fascism was vastly overdrawn. And that if anything, there were a lot more fascists in Russia than per capita than in Ukraine, however, you could find some everywhere I suppose. We have a few in Canada. Are you? Are you saying that there are people seriously thinking that, that there’s any basis for thinking that the the aspiration of Putin to clear out all these so called Nazis had any, any justification?

Peter Brogden  09:59

Let’s see, when I’m listening just with no comment about that song. I was reminded of it fairly recently because we actually had a showing of Buffy Sainte-Marie’s latest movie. And there were all sorts of things in that movie really showing how are instances suppression of Buffy Sainte-Marie’s, performances in the US and things like this, that are all of those are just things that got passed over. And it’s, it’s a sad review of how much the press were following all the repression actions that will pass [inaudible].

Metta Spencer  10:41

Listen, other people please join in because I cannot interact on this topic. It’s just so weird.

Peter Brogden  10:47

It’s a very old song.

Metta Spencer  10:48

Yeah.

Peter Brogden  10:49

Originally put to words and just the words that, Buffy Sainte-Marie has chosen in that song, To me seem to be gifted, that we’ve chosen the clarity and thinking about the whole situation of people being being soldiers. And I guess that was all part of my own confusions. When I was in that, in that era of just graduating with a physics degree, did I want to spend my time then working on nuclear weapons, which I’d have to do for some six years until I was old enough to get out of it. And or, do I go into two years of army life, which I knew quite a bit about, because I’d been in a cadet force and the Territorial Army on my way up to, through university. So that didn’t seem a threat. It turned out that the army life was very pleasant. It went from really one Munich, Octoberfest to the next, if you can believe it. That was what I remember. It was working, as it impacts by the by MI6 of all places, so I claim that I was once employed by MI6.

Metta Spencer  12:13

Oh, man, I think this is fascinating that I absolutely can’t imagine what it has to do with a debate in Science for peace.  Well, somebody helped me with this, I don’t.

Glen Anderson  12:27

In the chat, I put a link to Buffy Sainte-Marie’s song. She wrote it basically, during the Vietnam era. And I, I actually quoted part of it in my application for conscientious objector in 1962, 1972. And her the song is about how the universal mania for soldiering causes people in each nation, each segment, each sector to feel like they are, they have a right to be a soldier because they’re protecting their own homeland. And that is a systemic problem that keeps wars going. And she says, We have to get rid of war and get rid of that universal support for soldiers. There’s a quotation from President John Kennedy who said that we’re going to continue to heavy wars, until conscientious objectors are respected as much as soldiers are, we need to break out of that soldiering mode. And out of this mania for national defense, that actually is not defense. It threatens to destroy us. And, and Biden and the US Congress are, are pushing us into a nuclear war along with Putin and his people, because each side says All we got to defend ourselves with nuclear weapons, and that is suicide. So we need to break out of that nationalistic and militarism.

Metta Spencer  13:55

It has something to do with not just soldiering, but with nuclear war.

Glen Anderson  13:59

Nuclear and nationalism.

Metta Spencer  14:02

Well Nationalism, I’ve seen, l nationalism I see as an issue. Okay. Thank you. Well, um…

Peter Brogden  14:10

Thank you for clarifying my muddled thoughts.

Glen Anderson  14:15

Your thoughts are clear, but it’s just a different perspective. And I actually use her a few of her words it half a century ago.

Peter Brogden  14:28

Like concert concert, I remember hearing them then but I was aware.

Glen Anderson  14:33

Yeah, yeah, I still have the record album.

Metta Spencer  14:36

Why is this debate going on in Science for peace? That is what I was just trying to imagine. What as substantive policy issues are they working on? I mean, I think we can all certainly say that soldiering is a problematic profession, but is at best, but what are you saying that there’s a big discussion about policy in In this conversation that you’ve been listening in or watching Peter?

Peter Brogden  15:06

Well, Jeffrey Sachs has made quite a long essay or presentation about his views on a whole Ukrainian situation. And all sorts of people are coming up with comments about, is this real? Or is it not real, or there’s some other way of looking at things. And I can only say it looks to me several different ways of trying to look at the same things and just reading them different ways, as Glenn was trying to point out in this talk, where. And there’s been going on for about three weeks now, and I’ve been in the middle of all sorts of other things, not really been able to pay enough attention to decide whether I can join in or not.

Metta Spencer  15:52

Excuse me, Hello, Barbara Birkett you’ve got your hand up. It’s good to hear see you. What’s on your mind?

Barbara Birkett  15:59

I was just going to, I also looked at the Science for peace website today, really, for the first, well on this subject for the first time, and the I think it started because somebody was commenting on a statement of support for Ukraine, that Science for peace had made. And other people were feeling that that NATO had as much or more to blame for their move eastward, as Russia had for moving west. And so this is generating much conversation and zillions of references to our various articles, which I must confess, I haven’t had time to read, either.

Metta Spencer  17:00

Well, of course, there’s conversations going on over here now. Excuse me back. Whether or not the real motivation behind Putin’s move was because he really, really, really feared that NATO was going to attack and that he really feels that he’s defending his country in a way that has to be done. So, you know, we all we all have our different interpretations as to what his motivations are. I myself, believe that certainly NATO should not have expanded when they did. But on the other hand, I fully understand why the countries that wanted to join NATO did so because they really had every sound reason to be afraid of Russia. So I can understand that they were clamoring to get into NATO. Even much more, that was the response. That was the cause. But it’s more than, than the notion that he was, that the West was trying to recruit them into NATO, because Clinton shouldn’t have allowed them in but, and Yeltsin protested more. But on the other hand, I fully understand that they had grounds for being afraid of Russia, and seems to have been well founded. And I absolutely don’t believe for one split second, that the real reason that, that Putin attacked Russia, Ukraine was that he had, he felt he really had to stop NATO expansion. I am totally convinced and that it was because he has this grandiose notion of wanting to create, recreate a great Russian Empire. And he made that very clear in a speech that he gave so I think, you know, his motivation is just absolutely not, you know, the attributing it to the stupid move of the West and we should have disbanded NATO and gone over to the OSCE that’s my opinion, but that’s absolutely not the reason it happened. So now I have expressed my opinion and I invite anybody to reply because if we’re going to have this conversation without it. Hello Leda, yes, what’s your view?

Leda Raptis  19:34

Oh, it my turn. Oh, Okay.

Metta Spencer  19:37

The hand is up. Okay.

Leda Raptis  19:38

Yeah. Anyway, about the issue of NATO and whether quit the one wants to take you here many times the Russians want to dominate the world. But as far as this is concerned, I think the pot is calling the kettle black. It is the same thing as the Western coalition wanting to expand the I mean, Biden,  I don’t know if he’s getting old or something, but I’m old too. But he says that we have to eliminate Russia.

Metta Spencer  20:09

This is?

Leda Raptis  20:11

Biden. Joe Biden, the President of the US.

Metta Spencer  20:14

Eliminate Russia?

Leda Raptis  20:16

Yeah. Many times. I don’t know if he’s likely to work in nuclear superpower, you know, you think you can eliminate it like this. And then just yesterday, I heard that. They, I mean, Putin said he’s about to put nuclear weapons on.

Metta Spencer  20:38

Belarus?

Leda Raptis  20:39

Belarus, Yeah. North of Ukraine. So I mean, it’s kind of not just in insanity, something crazy. And of course, the bigger argument of the Eastern Bloc, is that the Americans are the first ones to actually use not one but two nuclear bombs in Second World War, which cannot be ignored. Of course, now, there are many others that have nuclear weapons. But it can say that the Russians are bad and others are good. I mean, it’s insane. When they see that they want in all seriousness, he says that to journalists that I wanted to Putin, they’re gonna do much good.

Metta Spencer  21:25

In nine countries with nuclear weapons, and not one of them will sign the Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. So yeah, you I don’t know how we are going to apportion credibility or, yeah, they’re not one of them will do so.

Leda Raptis  21:42

And then there is another thing that I think is kind of laughable. The, the International Criminal criminal court said that the same day, a warrant for the arrest of Putin, your bad, bad, bad. But then I just heard that others said something similar to Bush, George Bush 20 years ago, I think it’s the anniversary today, they invaded Iraq, with very, very flimsy kind of excuses. That didn’t even stand. You cannot begin now, you know, because I mean, nobody is going to be left up. Because if Putin is bad. And they see that after only one year of war with about. After Iraq, starting the Iraq War.

Glen Anderson  22:29

Yeah, both, both Russia and the United States governments refuse to participate in the International Criminal Court.

Leda Raptis  22:38

Yeah, exactly.

Glen Anderson  22:39

Because, we don’t want our own people be held accountable. And there’s in British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada, there’s a judge who is on the record saying if George W. Bush ever set’s foot in British Columbia, he will be arrested as a war criminal based on what he’s done. And George W. Bush knows that he doesn’t go there. There are other war criminals in various countries who cannot go to certain countries, in Chile, the dictator that the US imposed upon them, General Pinochet, he sneaked to Spain, and a Spanish judge arrested him for the crimes that Pinochet had committed under in Chile. And this is under a part of international law called universal jurisdiction, where there’s an element of international law where any war criminal can be arrested anywhere in the world, where other judicial authorities respect international law. So there are a lot of people besides a number of US war criminals that cannot set foot in certain other countries.

Leda Raptis  23:53

Yeah, but you see these, it goes all over the news, in in Canada, at least, saying that as if my God, he’s bad, bad, bad. Thank you for something. But I mean, very few people that seem to realize…

Metta Spencer  24:10

You don’t think he is bad?

Leda Raptis  24:12

No, no, no. I’m not saying that.  Of course he is, invasion of Ukraine, was out of the question, I don’t think anybody would ever support the invasion of Ukraine, and all of the bombings and all of the disasters that…

Metta Spencer  24:26

There are a lot of Russians that do?

Leda Raptis  24:28

Yeah, yeah, of course. But to say that you’re gonna go and arrest him. or that you’re going to eliminate Russia is kind of, you know absurd. And Russia as a country has existed. Well, can we say that? The Russian Federation I mean, as a country, Russia has existed since the time so for Peter the Great and even before in the Greeks showed them how to read and write.

Metta Spencer  24:57

Whatever else you can’t do eliminate a quarter of the world’s globe. Peter Wadhams.

Peter Wadhams  25:02

Yeah. I seldom give credit to Britain for anything. But I think they deserve a little bit. Because it was in Britain that Pinochet was arrested. I can’t remember the exact circumstances, but he [inaudible] he was arrested, and, but held for quite a while until the various pressures exerted caused him to be released. And but the person who was responsible for arresting him was , was the British foreign secretary at the time. So So Britain does deserve a bit of credit. But I did let it go. Unfortunately, after that.

Metta Spencer  25:50

That Pinochet thing I’d forgotten. Can you refresh our memory on how that went? I really don’t remember.

Peter Wadhams  26:06

Buffy Sainte-Marie, that was I think she was actually Canadian.

Glen Anderson  26:11

Yeah, yeah.

Peter Wadhams  26:14

In the end, she she got very sad what happened in the world and committed suicide. So it was sad because she was great [inaudible].

Glen Anderson  26:24

I did put a link in the chat about the arrest of Pinochet in Spain. And I don’t know if there was actually in in Britain also. But he certainly was arrested in Spain for his war crimes.

Metta Spencer  26:39

Was he actually put into was he incarcerated and held or what happened?

Glen Anderson  26:44

I don’t remember the details, but, but it made some news when he was arrested. And it was this international law provision called universal jurisdiction. That happened. Now we’ll be covering that in my April tv program I have. I’m interviewing an expert guest on international courts, and war crimes. So that’ll be on my blog, in April. And on TV locally, here.

Metta Spencer  27:13

Was one of them…

Alastair Farrugia  27:15

If I remember,it was a Spanish judge who issued the warrant for arrest. But physically he was in Britain. I think he went there for medical treatments. And the Brits arrested him and the Spanish tried to get him extradited from Britain to Spain. And unfortunately, that didn’t go through for medical reasons, you know, they said, well he was old

Metta Spencer  27:37

Well did they release him or what happened?

Alastair Farrugia  27:39

Yes, yes. They said he was too old, you know, too, to be tried or to or to fly to Spain, but was okay to go back to [inaudible-background noise].

Metta Spencer  27:50

And he went back home?

Alastair Farrugia  27:51

Yes, yes.

Metta Spencer  27:54

Okay, well, that’s, that’s interesting. I had forgotten that. Yes. I think we have Paul Beckwith joining us. Hello, Paul.

Paul Beckwith  28:03

Hi You were just talking about _____, were are you? Well, we’re

Metta Spencer  28:06

Well we’re talking about who’s to blame for what, of course, this is the kind of thing that starts with Ukraine. And then we go through an ancient history until the cows come home. Anyway. Nice to see you. And would you like to chime in on this? Or would you want to…

Paul Beckwith  28:27

No, I’ll just listen for a few minutes? Because I’m, I’m not. I just joined. So I don’t know what to chime in on, apart from somebody going home?

Metta Spencer  28:39

Kathrin, what’s on your thoughts?

Kathrin Winkler  28:42

Thank you I just wanted to comment, and I’m, I’m wanting to apologize if my internet is unstable. I want to thank Leda for her comments, because I think, and I want to comment on what Glenn said, this has been a very organic conversation of very interesting. And what I see is, is, is kind of dis, dis, dispersing a lot of energy in the peace movement is the blame game and knowing who’s right and who isn’t right. We’re kind of distracted from it. And we are not able to keep the historic perspective of the criminals who are who have assumed leadership in many different places. So I think that may be more of a focus of how we can support for example, in one of your shows, you said the dissidents, the deserters or is the mother is in in Russia, and in the Ukraine. So where can we place her energy and this war will not end between Zelensky’s decision it will be between Biden and Putin. But I also want to refer to Glenn’s comments about the international court and international law and the need to support UN, the UN in these actions, but Canada would never, ever do it. Or Bush, we don’t have an independent foreign policy, let alone a feminist policy. And there would be nothing that we would take independently against a former war monger in the US or a president warmonger were in their pockets. That’s my comment.

Glen Anderson  30:19

It’s one judge in British Columbia who did that.

Kathrin Winkler  30:22

No, I understood that.

Glen Anderson  30:23

Not the whole Canadian government.

Kathrin Winkler  30:25

No, I understood that. But a judge would not. Well, whether he would or not, again, it’s the I’m right, and you’re wrong. And that’s not the route I wanted to take or think is useful. But more to the point that we do not have any independence in terms of our actions, or our I’m really interesting, interested in demilitarizing in Canada, and it seems to be problematic.

Metta Spencer  30:49

Thank you, during the war in Iraq, did the International Criminal I don’t think it existed throughout that period. But did the the World Court or the ICJ ever reached the decision that the invasion of Iraq was a war crime? I, clearly the ICC has decided that Putin’s action is a war crime. In fact, I think that’s a whole different thing that what the basis for their charging him is, I think, flimsy one and not not credible. But at any rate, I’m glad they charged him. But on the other hand, he is now officially a war criminal in and should and and this notion of your universal jurisdiction would apply to him. Would that have been the case, factually, during the Iraq War had, let’s say, if George W. Bush went to Vancouver assemblies, and somebody arrested him? Is there really any legal basis in international law for that? And I think that’s a factual question and not a matter of whether we like the man who agreed with his values. You may know the answer to that. To my knowledge, they never I don’t think the ICJ ever reached a judgment. But even the ICJ had reached a judgment early in the war against Ukraine, when they told Putin to stop right now and don’t move another inch into or whatever into Ukraine. Go, go away, while we check this out. And of course, he ignored that. So that clearly, is a violation of an international law that should have been obeyed. And that, I suppose, might have been enough to have made that determination that he was a war criminal. But it’s a factual question that I don’t have an answer to. Okay. Anybody else on this?

Paul Beckwith  33:00

We missed our chance in Ottawa because Biden was here for the last couple of days, so we could have arrested him and until they turned in Bush, right. He could have been a proxy to, you know, anyway. Yeah, I don’t, I don’t think, you know, Bush has to worry about visiting Canada, like, I don’t think it would ever nothing would ever be done for a US President. I mean, it’s hard enough to get charges against Trump, as we’re seeing right? Although that may still come. Soon. But anyway, I’m just, I’m just listening. I’m fascinated. I don’t really, if you talk about climate, I can chime in.

Metta Spencer  33:46

I want everybody to know, Paul Beckwith. Because it’s nice it’s so nice that you’re with us. And Paul is, is based in Ottawa, and he knows more about the climate than just about anybody in Canada, I think. And maybe, quite literally, and he makes wonderful videos, like once a week or so. How many 1000 videos have you made over the years? Paul?

Paul Beckwith  34:11

I don’t know. I don’t really count them but probably, probably several 1000 I guess. Yeah. So makes me tired just to think about it, you know?

Metta Spencer  34:21

Yeah. And, and he’s pretty good at explaining if you don’t know, things like, you know, flutter atmospheric rivers or all these other other things he can be can bring you up to date. So I recommend that you watch his shows now and then it’s really valuable. And, uh, you know, he’s been with with Peter Wadhams and and with friends on shows that I have done, and we’ll be doing another one. So why don’t you tell us what, what, what we should be paying the most attention to because I believe this is the week when we have had another report from the IPCC. And I’ll tell you, here’s what is on my mind about that. I had a, a letter, I intercepted one of his listserv things, a commentary by a guy who was complaining that the IPCC does not pay proper attention to a number of the factors that really need to be addressed. And that the IPCC is just leading us in down a dark alley instead of, of recommending the kinds of changes that really needed, need to be made now. So I asked him, if he, if he’d just tinker with that letter to the editor, and I publish it and Peace Magazine because we go to press within a week. But he said no, [inaudible] and he couldn’t begin to cover it with one little letter to the editor. So is this a chance for you to explain what you think he might have meant and whether you agree with him?

Paul Beckwith  36:03

Well, the the the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they do report big massive report extracted every seven years. So they just they’ve just they over the last few years, they’ve released the working group, one, two, and three reports. One is on the physical basis, two is an adaptation, mostly three mitigation. And then they also released some special reports, one on land, use one on the cryosphere and another one on weather, you know, it’s possible, they still have this view, at least officially that there’s still chance for 1.5 degrees Celsius, or even two degrees Celsius. So anyway, this report that just came out is they call it the synthesis report. So on Monday, they released I believe, a 36, page summary. And then just yesterday, or day before they released and 86 page, longer version, they call it the longer version, but the full report is still to be come out. And I think that’s a massive report. I don’t know if it’s correct. I’ve heard it’s many 1000s of pages, but I don’t know. But anyway, the language is becoming much more dire. And, you know, the media has been, has picked it up. I mean, the also the UN had a water conference in New York City at the UN headquarters last Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, which was attended by some friends of mine. Lots of I mean, water is a huge issue by itself. So so there is the language is becoming much more dire. I mean, on you know, we know, we know, Europe’s in this massive drought, which is worrying a lot of people there,

Alberto Portugheis  38:01

I can see you there but I cannot speak and so to speak, what do I have to do?

Metta Spencer  38:06

Hello Alberto. Maybe you want to? You shouldn’t be muted. It looks like you are you would take Do you want to speak to what Peter Paul Beckwith is addressing?

Alberto Portugheis  38:22

Yes, yes. Yeah. Okay.

Metta Spencer  38:24

Okay,chime in then.

Alberto Portugheis  38:24

So what I what I would you know, very much what I do is I have a London…

Metta Spencer  38:37

No, I have not introduced you, Alberto  please tell us introduce yourself.

Alberto Portugheis  38:43

Yeah. So, I work for at the abolition of militarism worldwide because I don’t so no matter from which perspective I looked at war and peace, I cannot see how the war industry could ever create peace. The war industry exists exclusively for creating war. And politicians have no alternative than to organize wars, even your own Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau said in an interview, that his choice was between dead people in Yemen or unemployed Canadians, and as the Prime Minister of Canada, his first duty was to watch over Canadians having their jobs secured. And this is the same for Britain, for America for everywhere. We have here in the UK 180,000 people working in the war industry, and the only way the owners of those companies can pay the employees is if government organizes the export sale of what we produce, and there is no way you can guarantee of sale if you don’t organize wars in the world. And we use secret agents, we use people from us, we use every possible agent to promote the sale. And if countries don’t sell, but don’t organize wars, then the sales stop. And this is something that politicians cannot avoid. So, to me, we have to help politicians stop lying to us. They always speak of peace, peace, please. But they are lying to us because they are behind our backs organizing wars. We saw very well  in Russia in Ukraine war was organized very, very carefully by both Zelensky and Putin with the help with the West. Very, very obvious help with President Biden meeting individually first Zelensky then Putin in deciding on when to start the war, who will shoot the first shot. And of course, it was agreed that Putin will be the first and play the bad boy who invades Ukraine, but it was all arranged. Like Like, I’m a witness of the horrible war between my country, Argentina, in the UK, I know very well, how it was all negotiated between the countries. And the end, people had to die simply because the two governments wanted to go ahead with this war. And so to me,…

Metta Spencer  42:00

Yes, but sir. How are you going to defend people from being bombed? What are you going to do? How are you going to defend people?

Alberto Portugheis  42:14

We have to we have to find, I have to find

Metta Spencer  42:20

Everybody in the world wants peace. It theoretically, the question is how you get it, and have anything like a condition of living in which people can tolerate each other and get along. And, you know, being attacked you really unless you have some sort of international government, which can protect people, then, you know, I myself would certainly not I’m a full time peace activist. But I cannot imagine how to protect people when your country is being invaded, without at the moment given, given the reality of a lack of international governance, a lack of any way of stopping an aggressor while he’s in the act. Right now, we cannot possibly stop Putin. So, you know, it’s it’s all very well and good to say that it’s not fight. But you what, if you stop fighting, what would happen? Right now, what would happen? I mean, we know what would happen,

Alberto Portugheis  43:31

That it is absolutely impossible. If there is an abolition of militarism, universal for any country to invade you. Do you have the case? For instance, Costa Rica, has has abolished the armed forces 75 years ago, and all the civil wars in the world with Nicaragua stopped forever, because Nicaragua cannot attack them if they don’t have air forces to defend themselves. The war cannot take place. They roost but Franklin Delano Roosevelt said it always all. All wars in the world are negotiated. There is not one single war that happens by accident. If a war happens, he is splendid. It means that the fighting sides have agreed to the fight, otherwise there would not be a fight. And this is why my first book is called The Game of War. Because I always compare that with sports. Because if you have for instance, here in London, we have, let’s say the team called Chelsea and one team called Fulham and the Chelsea wants to play a game against Fulham…

Metta Spencer  44:53

You are saying that every country in history that was attacked that was had agreed to be attacked, that they are as guilty as the country that attacked them. That’s the implication what you’re saying is, it’s a sham game. They’re only playing at it, that they’ve got that the attacker is no worse than the people he attacked, and the attacked people have agreed to be attacked. That’s just absurd, frankly.

Paul Beckwith  45:21

Yes it’s absurd. I agree. It’s absurd. This is your opinion. Right? You’re stating it. Thank you. But most people here I don’t think would agree with that. I mean, why would the Ukraine agree to get attacked and have their cities destroyed? That’s absurd.

Alberto Portugheis  45:37

Because it is business, business Zelensky is making a lot of money, and it means of making a lot of money.

Paul Beckwith  45:44

No, it just doesn’t make sense.

Franz Oeste  45:47

No, no, no that’s nonsense.

Paul Beckwith  45:49

Yeah. Utter nonsense. Anyway, can we were talking about climate change,

Metta Spencer  45:55

Yes, I would like to go back and have hear from you a little more, Paul, about what’s wrong with the IPCC? What are they skipping, that we should be paying attention to? And they’re not calling our attention to?

Paul Beckwith  46:09

Well, I think the I, there, they are changing over time. I mean, more and more people within the organization of the IPC is wrecking PCs, IPCC, you know, it’s mostly scientists who put together the report. A lot of stuff has been taken out in the past, because you need the so called consensus, but the language in the reports is getting much more closer to reality. It’s not there yet, but it is getting much closer to reality. And they’ve always been reluctant, that organization to make recommendations on on what should be done, but I even see that sort of changing. So the latest long version of the report, the 86 pages, there’s lots of there’s good information there on renewables, new types of battery technologies, etc, etc. But, I mean, the fun, the fundamental root of the problem is that our society is still completely addicted to oil. And, you know, we just haven’t been able to get rid of that addiction. And there’s very good reason why we’re addicted to oil, of course, I mean, why are we so hooked on oil, because the energy content of a barrel of oil is huge compared to the energy output that a person can do in a day’s work, you know, manual labor is it’s a hit, it would take one person about 11 years, if you believe Nate Hagens numbers, he wrote a report on the super super organism recently, which is very good sort of assessment. And, you know, he’s arguing that the, you know, when one person working a day’s work, manual labor would take 11 years to match the energy output of one barrel of oil. So, you know, we’re just, it’s, it’s easy to transport, it’s in liquid form, you know, we’ve been in pain out of the ground in gushes, you know, initially, so we started our societies to be based on it. And, you know, our whole society is completely intricately linked to oil and the, you know, oil, of course, companies and people are the richest in the world, and they actually have more power than a lot of governments right now. So they’re, they’re continuing, you know, they’re continuing the expansion of, you know, of oil production, what were over 100 million barrels a day, something like that, you know, the, the new find in the new development that bush just approved bush that Biden just approved in Alaska, called the willow project on the North Slope, you know, that’s only supposed to produce about 600 million barrels of oil, which is about six days of global oil supply. You know, those numbers all add up. So, so this is a it is very difficult to get get rid of oil. So the, you know, the oil companies kind of deflected things saying, Well, it’s the consumers the problem, you know, each individual needs to change their light bulbs and do this and that trying to avoid any responsibility. But, you know, it’s coming to, you know, a crunch. I mean, we’re heading to a global food shortage, I think, clearly, global water shortage, freshwater shortage that the the UN Conference on water said that we’ll have a 40% deficit of fresh water by in the next seven years, by 2030. So, you know, it’s coming to a crux and I don’t think our society is capable of shifting over until we actually have the collapse. So we need to look and see what’s going to happen when the whole system, you know, breaks down. I mean, we got kind of a glimpse of that with the pandemic, you know, is To help people respond in a crisis, they go out and they buy toilet paper, for example, there’s all these crazy things that are being done as people start to panic. So the only thing we can do in my opinion for climate is, you know, we have to, I mean, what I like to say, I always say the same thing, let’s let’s, the US military budget is about 800 billion a year, this year. Okay, three, the three or four top billionaires in the world could pull their money and basically pay for the US military budget. They have that type of money. So you know that we need to put that money and those engineers and people that are in the Indus military industrial complex, we need to put those people to fighting climate change. If we don’t do that, then we’re having a collapse very, very soon. I think it’s pretty obvious.

Metta Spencer  50:54

Okay, All right, yeah. Kathrin, are you on the same topic, Kathrin?

Kathrin Winkler  51:01

How about I ask my question, and then you decide you could just mute me if I’m in the wrong. No, it is. Yeah, I’m joking. I actually want to also say, maybe that’s what Alberto was saying, and what Peter was saying, but with a question if that’s okay. I think it is the military industrial complex, and the economy of war that just keeps generating the the industry itself. And, and it is a bit of a sacred cow. If I, if I can use that term. In terms of climate activism. We don’t want to address that, it’s too overwhelming. But the extraction industry, the oil industry, the military industry, it’s it is, I think, the biggest the biggest, the stumbling block to climate justice. And, Peter, you’ve mentioned at the end of what you said, as of transforming and redirecting those scientists towards a common goal. How would you see that happening? If war is the industry that motivates them instead of climate?

Metta Spencer  52:07

You’re speaking to Paul? Yeah.

Kathrin Winkler  52:08

Yeah, sorry, was it Paul? Oh, Peter, and Paul, I think I got

Paul Beckwith  52:14

Well, lets let Peter talk.

Kathrin Winkler  52:17

No, no, Paul and Rob one pay the other whoever decides go ahead?

Paul Beckwith  52:22

Maybe Peter can answer that question for me.

Peter Wadhams  52:24

Yes, I think the IPCC your, your remarks about them are [inaudible] and it’s a big barrier to actually taking the sort of serious climate action that we have to take we’ll be forced to take is the fact that IPCC has always been fairly complacent about climate change. And they’ve gotten less complacent recently, but still, even though they now we hear blood curdling messages. They don’t mean anything. And that’s, that’s what I find very frustrating that IPCC used to say, unless we do X, Y, and Z, we’re doomed and we have to, this is our last chance this is this is our this is it on and this is something that Guterres specializes in blood curdling curdling dramatic statements. But when you analyze their blood, his blood curdling statements, that we, we have to do something now or thats it or we are finished.  He never actually says what it is we have to do. And it’s always we must do it. Now we must get like, unfortunately, Greta Thunberg. We have to we have to do it. Now we have to do solve it solve the problem. How do we solve it? What do we do? He never says?

Metta Spencer  54:11

Well, isn’t their whole focus still on emission reduction, and nothing involving actual removal of co2 or, or direct cooling by a solar management, for example?

Peter Wadhams  54:30

He doesn’t say what you, you have to do, but is that it’s carbon dioxide removal? Because that’s the, the kind of mantra of IPCC. And that’s it, we have to reduce our emissions. Thats

Paul Beckwith  54:50

Yeah. And the other thing that’s happening with the IPCC is they do all this modeling. And, you know, they try to figure out pathways to say keeping 1.5, which is utterly impossible at this point, we’ll probably pass it in a few years when we if we have a super El Nino and are keeping under two degrees, and there’s all these emission scenarios. But now they’ve gotten to the point where where they they realize in the model show there, they say, Okay, we’re gonna have we’re going to overshoot our targets, and then we’ll have to do something after that to bring them back down to below those targets. So, you know, they’re acknowledging, basically, you know, 1.5, impossible in the modeling, yet, they’re still talking about this quite a bit, the 1.5 number, you know, they’re saying, Okay, well, we’ll overshoot it, maybe to two degrees, and then try to get down to 1.5. You know, and then in a few years, though, they do the same thing with two degrees, that they have to write something in their reports, right. So this is what they’re starting to do. The other thing is that they shifted the baseline. And this is a very crucial point, which a lot of people overlook is when the first number of 1.5 and two degrees was mentioned, by the IPCC. And in the report, it was relative to the baseline, they called pre industrial. And that was 1750, the year 1750. But if you know, the most recent reports, the baseline is the average between 1850 and 1900. Right, that’s the new baseline. So if you look at the offset from those two baselines, it’s about point two or point three degrees Celsius. So they’re saying now, we’re 1.1. Actually, if you talk about 2022, we’re 1.2 degrees Celsius above their their latest baseline, the 1850 to 1900, average. But what they’ve done is they’ve taken the average from of the temperature from 2011 to 2020. That’s the the they’re comparing that average, to the 1850 to 1900, average, and they come up with the 1.1 number. So what they’re doing is instead of taking a given year, they take a range of years, of course 2011 was cooler, and every other year since then has been warmer, warmer, warmer. Right. So when they take the the the average, right, it’s like taking the 2015 temperature, roughly.

Metta Spencer  57:31

I don’t get the implication. Is this somehow kind of deceptive, then?

Paul Beckwith  57:36

Yeah, well, it is. I think it is they haven’t. So basically, if you take the original pre industrial year 1750. Right, in 2022, we’re about one, we’re almost at 1.5 above that. already.

Metta Spencer  57:56

So you make it looks like we’re doing a little better than…

Paul Beckwith  58:02

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I love the analogy. Here’s the analogy. Okay. So let’s say you want to save gas in your car. So instead of, you know, always go to the gas station when the tanks half empty, right? And then it looks like you’re paying less for gas. Right? Whenever you run your car down to half a tank, go fill it up, it’s cheaper. Right? And it looks like you’re it looks like you’re doing much better than you actually are. Right? That’s exactly what they’re doing by shifting the baseline _____they’ve shifted the baseline from an empty tank to say half a tank.

Peter Wadhams  58:42

Well, it’s, it’s, it is an exception, because I think I went to the figures for a start point of 1900. And they did come to 1.5. Now, we clearly Panic was set in with IPCC because they would desperately like to be able to say we still have a chance of making keep making the 1.5 if everybody holds together.

Paul Beckwith  59:19

Yeah, I mean, what’s happening now is that the consequences are getting much too severe for people to not recognize the general public you know, many people are being personally affected. And they’re gonna be asking for solutions and things and they’re gonna leave you know, the powers that be no choice and the powers that be I’m sure they’re surprised at how quickly things have been moving along.

Metta Spencer  59:44

I was reading something the other day saying that it isn’t really that we’re going to switch into which is what we know we’ll say well, okay, now we really have to do it guys. But but rather that the guys who have been deniers all along and say don’t worry about it,  it’s nothing problematic when they finally see that we’ve already passed 1.5 or something, if they switch into Doomsday, and to the extent of saying it’s too late, we can’t do anything. So eat, drink and be merry, because tomorrow you die. No, we will not. It was still…

Paul Beckwith  1:00:18

Yeah, well, the deniers are also changing their tune, once again, they’re actually being against some of the solutions, like they’re against wind turbines, for example. They’re against solar, you know, they come up with greens, as well as killed birds or whatever, you know, it’s noisy, whatever, whatever. Use an eyesore, you know.

Metta Spencer  1:00:40

What I worry about is simply not getting interested in or promoting the things that actually do remove carbon or, or directly, Franz, Franz, you are sitting quietly listening to other people mix it up here, but you have a proposal that actually is I think, can be extremely useful should be taken seriously. And as far as I know, nobody is taking it seriously. So I you know, friends, why don’t you tell us a little bit what what you are all about you and some of your friends like, I think Peter Fiekowsky sometimes is engaged in iron salt aerosol, and you are using other similar aerosol measures. mentioned that a little bit, if you will.

Franz Oeste  1:01:34

Yes, it is a method to deplete methane in the air and also a little bit to draw the co2 down. And especially, you know, from the Arctic, you’re the Arctic region is rather full of black carbon in the winter time, especially. And we hope to come against these things by, for instance. ICER that’s name for iron three chloride. But in the Arctic, you can’t take our three chloride because it’s colored substance. So, you will take instead titanium deoxide. And how does it function? We learned this from nature, because it has been used during the classical times. The ice cores which has been drawn from Greenland and Antarctica, they could extract the atmosphere from the air bubbles in these ice cores and also analyze and they found that every time when it was very dusty, that the co2 had been down and the methane also had been.

Metta Spencer  1:03:57

Okay now,air brings used to bring dust into the Arctic. And this cools the Arctic.

Franz Oeste  1:04:07

The dust, made a chemical reaction, this is you know, the phytoplankton is a sea surface, it produces dimethylsulfide you can shorten it DMS. This DMS oxidizes in the atmosphere producing sulphuric acid. As this sort of ferric acid reacts with with the haze of sea salt, which is acts as a aerosol above the sea and produces HCL gaseous HCL This HCl, hydrochloric acid, yes, the same what we have in our stomach was in gaseous form. So, the dust particles, you know, we know these dust particles from the [inaudible], which settled as a sediment on other countries and in the sea yet on by these dust storms in the in the glacial time. And these dust particles they contain a little bit iron. Therefore, they have a brown or yellow color. And this iron reacts with the HCl with the with this acid just above and produces around three chloride. And this orange trichloride has the sensibility to the sunshine and sunshine, it’s the iron three goes into iron two.

Metta Spencer  1:06:22

____ is much, much more adept at understanding the chemistry than I am. But I think I understand what the logic is. You got these dust particles, they come and they chemically basically they get they knock out the methane, methane into water and co2 right? They also some of the iron follows the ocean and it feeds the phytoplankton. And the phytoplankton can then feed the fish which we need, they can also change they capture the co2 phytoplankton like any co2, and some of that foster that in the ocean. So we’re sequestering some of this, iron falls in the ocean, it basically sequestered a lot of co2 from the ocean. It also while it’s still in the air, it knocks out the methane which is something like 30 times as bad.

Franz Oeste  1:07:21

And that’s a very short story now you made a very short story from that.

Metta Spencer  1:07:27

That’s what I think. I think that’s about as much as I can absorb now it. Have I got it is that pretty much the way it works?  Now that because all that irons going to fall in the snow and it’s going to chalk the snow darker color, which makes them absorb temperature. So, we want to use something like titanium which is white and that won’t do it

Franz Oeste  1:07:56

Is it makes the same reaction like ironn with methane.

Metta Spencer  1:08:00

Yeah, okay.

Franz Oeste  1:08:03

But now comes the main thing, which I which is especially good for the Arctic and this is the black carbon.  You know black carbon is spread by every combustion process, you make black carbon from shape engines from power works from you know, when when you burn methane from from gas pipes in the oil industry, as you’ll see always is black carbon. So, carbon is see the these are very fine particles and they are absolutely black they absorb any solar radiation which is absorbed by them. Therefore, the black carbon becomes warm, it heats up these particulates eat up to up to 50 degrees above the temperature of their surrounding air. Okay, and therefore, they heat the surrounding air and they drifting upwards with the surrounding air, every particle and they’re drifting up into the stratosphere but on its way to the stratosphere, they take up all the things the organics and the HCl and h b r and h UD from the atmosphere and also the the acids because they have a very good absorption they have big affinity to these particles when they come into the stratosphere they desorb these things and the halogens: chlorine ,bromine and {inaudible – perhaps iodine] they are very aggressive against the ozone the ozone layer in the stratosphere.

Metta Spencer  1:10:59

So, okay now what’s the? What’s the story here? We’ve got

Franz Oeste  1:11:08

The story, I’m not I’m not adding to the story. I must tell it to the end okay you know the ozone layer you know the Montreal Protocol from 87′ it’s long ago then the ingredients which produce the the ozone layer depletion have been forbidden and so on. But until today the ozone hole comes every year and has nearly not become healed in any way. It is not become better.

Metta Spencer  1:12:06

Oh, I thought it had.

Franz Oeste  1:12:08

No, I come to the to the next point. Did you know that the so called the brewer Dobson. Movement of the air through the stratosphere. It comes up at the equator and goes down at the pole. It takes all these these carbon, this black carbon brings it to the Arctic which it gathers on its way. And in the Arctic, this air goes down and especially in the winter time in the Arctic is dark. And they the black carbon has no anymore any up draft from sunshine. Yeah. So it goes down and you know, especially in winter time if the the Arctic case is contains much more black carbon is when it’s summertime.

Metta Spencer  1:13:34

Okay.

Franz Oeste  1:13:34

It’s well known. So, added colors the snow of Greenland and of the other ice and snow surface is a gray, grayish. And so even in summertime, this makes How do you call it the the…

Metta Spencer  1:14:07

The albedo effect?

Franz Oeste  1:14:11

I look for the for the for the word.

Metta Spencer  1:14:17

Paul, do you know the word he wants?

Franz Oeste  1:14:21

Maybe. Paul Beckwith can help me?

Paul Beckwith  1:14:25

Well, I think the,the the black carbon, which deposits in the snow in the winter of course. Some of it’s covered up with snowfall. But in the summer as the surfaces melt it’s much grayer and higher. Yes, the darker surface so it increases the melt rates of the ice in the summertime because the reflectance yeah.

Franz Oeste  1:14:52

Because reflectance is and soot heats also additional surface from the sun.

Paul Beckwith  1:15:01

Yes.

Metta Spencer  1:15:03

I see what you’re driving. So, carbon is bad for the ozone is it a major factor?

Franz Oeste  1:15:14

Our receipt to stop this, when we put our ToA or ISA aerosol into their titanium, titanium or iron both it it does both, they react with the surface of the of the black carbon and make it hydrophilic you know black carbon when it is hydrophobic? Because it contains black carbon is extremely hydrophobic.

Metta Spencer  1:16:03

Hydrophobic in this in this case, hydrophobic means aversion to water doesn’t it?

Franz Oeste  1:16:09

It repels water.

Metta Spencer  1:16:12

So, what are we saying here?

Paul Beckwith  1:16:14

So hydrophilic is attracting water he’s so he’s saying the black carbon affinity for water completely reverses it.

Franz Oeste  1:16:21

Right? We’ve had the oxidized surface, the oxidizes surface of the black carbon. That’s make it hydrophilic.

Metta Spencer  1:16:31

I just want to know where we’re going with this argument? What? What is it the general upshot of all this? What happens as a result of this black carbon that we have to worry about?

Franz Oeste  1:16:42

Black carbon makes clouds and falls as rain into the sea and doesn’t go into the stratosphere. That’s it.

Metta Spencer  1:16:51

And you want it to go into the stratosphere?

Franz Oeste  1:16:54

No, it shouldn’t go into the stratosphere because it makes it ozone layer damaged.

Metta Spencer  1:17:01

Yeah. Right.

Franz Oeste  1:17:02

This makes the Arctic gray.

Metta Spencer  1:17:04

We want it to fall in the ocean.

Franz Oeste  1:17:06

Yes.

Metta Spencer  1:17:09

And so you have a technology that’s going to capture black carbon and make it fall where you want it to go.

Franz Oeste  1:17:14

That’s that’s ISA [inaudible]

Metta Spencer  1:17:18

That’s what we’re driving it is that right? We want it what  Take that carbon and put it in the ocean instead of up in the stratosphere?

Franz Oeste  1:17:22

It oxidizes. Yes.

Metta Spencer  1:17:29

And that’s gonna save our ass beautiful. 

Peter Wadhams  1:17:32

[Inaudible unclear transmission] chemical which is what life is [inaudible]. Then the last melt it’s been warmed up by the warmer temperatures. When it melts, the water it goes away the water disappears in melt and goes down into the ocean and in the form of water for [inaudible] acid and so the carbon is going into the ocean but the ice is melting. So you’re getting so the carbon is staying with it is the water that’s melting it’s going in relation to carbon stays behind so the black ice because it’s absorbing more the [inaudible]  gets we’ve got all of the the particles in it and the water is gone waters is disappearing into the waterfalls somewhere so that

Metta Spencer  1:19:13

Can everybody hear Peter as better than I can, I’m not I’m not getting your little cloudy Peter in your sound. It might be my hearing though is anybody else having problems with Peter? Sorry.

Peter Wadhams  1:19:38

When you’re where you’re walking around on [inaudible] with black ice [inaudible]

Franz Oeste  1:19:58

We, we I try to touch the the black carbon.

Metta Spencer  1:20:07

I’m also having trouble following the argument here. I don’t share what whether Peters disagreeing with what Franz has said or not, and I’m not quite sure how to get clarity. You can probably be you can help me get clear about what I’m missing here. Because I couldn’t understand everything Peter said. What’s your dispute is, is there a dispute?

Peter Wadhams  1:20:35

No dispute, I just think you can just think of it in a simpler way. If you’re if, if you’re referring purely to some, which is when the the blackness still there, what the ice is the actual ice is type, and this is melting and disappeared. So you’re even seeing an increasingly dark, gooey, muddy surface on the [inaudible].

Franz Oeste  1:21:08

I, I think Peter had not any problems was my explanation.

Metta Spencer  1:21:21

Okay. It’s all my fault. But I want to make sure everybody can follow this. And when I can’t follow something, it often means somebody else has trouble too. So I want to make sure that does everybody kind of follow what we’ve been discussing here and understand what Franz has, I think is, everybody sees that Franz is onto something important? That can be very helpful. That I think has not been as widely recognized as a potential intervention to help reduce climate change. But I kind of like to make it as clear as possible, what that amounts to and why it would work. Peter, you think that it would work? That his his method is something worth thinking about and spend implementing.

Peter Wadhams  1:22:13

Experiments that look good? And I think that’s giving me a mechanism that’s valid for how, how these processes go on? So the thing that I was mentioning or somebody? In summer, it’s more simple.

Metta Spencer  1:22:34

Paul, do you have anything to say about this? And then we’ll move on to get no,

Paul Beckwith  1:22:39

No, am  I muted? I know, I agree with it. I mean, we know. You know, we know that the aerosols are a huge part of switching the climate between the Ice Age, you know, from colder periods to warmer periods. It’s a huge impact. Because as it gets colder and dries out, you get more aerosols, etc. Right. So the aerosol concentrations in the air do change significantly, naturally. So we’re just trying to use that effect to, you know, to, to mitigate climate change a bit. So yeah, I mean, it’s a very promising idea, just like all these other things that you need some funding, it needs some trials, some, you know, some some deployment in some areas and try it. And then because it’s it is something that can scale up quite easily. I think. It’s not super expensive.

Metta Spencer  1:23:36

We can we can put on a show in the next couple of weeks focusing on some of these concerns. I guess we better move on.

Paul Beckwith  1:23:46

Yeah, I mean, I mean, can’t you get get some billionaires on the show? Metta and then we can?

Franz Oeste  1:23:54

I would, I would be very glad. Yeah.

Metta Spencer  1:23:58

I hope to but I don’t know any. Do you have any billionaires? Let me know. I’ll reach out to them. Well, now we have a whole bunch of other newcomers here. And some that I recognize from long time ago, but I see Rose, I see Richard Denton, I see Bill Leikam. I see Dr. James Thring whom I have not met before. So let me say hello to Dr. Things. Oh, and also Charles Tauber, who’s a regular. Doctor Thring tell us a bit about yourself and what your interests are?

Dr. James Thring  1:24:30

I joined mainly because I thought the discussion was going to be about war and how to stop it. I mean, didn’t climate change as well, but unfortunately, I have the opposite view to most of your participants. I think it’s a hoax. Because it was tried in the 70s by the Bilderberg Group, in a different context. They published a book called, what was it called,  sorry, [inaudible]that was that that was based on rather false information. And it was also connected with the middle east of the oil supplies. It was really a plot, I believe. So what was this? What was the argument of the book?

Paul Beckwith  1:25:27

Was the book, cake Fight Club of Rome, right?

Dr. James Thring  1:25:31

Yes.

Paul Beckwith  1:25:32

1972. The argument was that we’re running out of all of our resources. The reason why they were wrong is because of the Green Revolution, which increased food yields, they thought we were gonna run out of food as quickly as anything else, you know, minerals and any raw materials.

Dr. James Thring  1:25:49

Yeah, that was part of it. But the general thing was driven by pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. But the graphs and the data and the modeling are all disproved as being rather simplistic, and not based on any data. And I think it’s not. Anyway, that’s one thing I’m interested in. I’m more concerned really about the wars in Europe, fostered by American military establishment, and its lobbyists in fundraising. I would take that you will be addressing that.

Paul Beckwith  1:26:29

Okay, so my question is, you know, Putin, Putin invaded, he started the war he took over Crimea in 2014 How come everybody’s blaming the US like, for what Putin has done?

Dr. James Thring  1:26:42

Well, the Putin was actually responding to American moves of NATO, towards the Russian border.

Paul Beckwith  1:26:51

Yeah, that’s what he says. That’s what Putin is saying. Right?

Dr. James Thring  1:26:55

Yes. Well, it’s. Yeah, the point is that the Americans were funding that change from the status quo, to joining you’re joining NATO, and becoming inverted commerce, independent state. Now, what was happening as a result of that was from about 2010 onwards, a new the neo nazi’s, well no there were neo nazi’s in the Ukraine, to feel much more emboldened about attacking the Russian speakers in the Donbas, and that those attacks have been little reported in the mainstream, what I call orchestrated media. We’ve seen them on the  social media as it were, and let it that is what oded Putin to come in and try to detain, them from those groups. That’s why he went in. And that’s why he called it a special operation. It wasn’t meant to be an attack on the whole country. It wasn’t meant to be a war.

Metta Spencer  1:28:09

Laughter.

Dr. James Thring  1:28:09

You laugh, but it’s, not funny.

Paul Beckwith  1:28:11

Well, well, he went, I mean, he very quickly attached attack to capital, right, he No he didn’t, he was going to attack capital, but he backed off. Now you have to get your facts straight. You’re really laughing because you filled up with the stuff from the mainstream media. Okay, so. So let’s ask, let’s kind of switch a bit. So how, how do you think this war is going to end? I think I think Putin is going to run out of soldiers. And it’ll just peter out. No, Putin has offered to stop the war. If the other side’s Zelensky would be prepared to not join NATO, and not actually, Russian [inaudible], in the Donbas. They won’t agree to that. They refuse to put they put it in their constitution now and they refuse to take it out. That’s the solution. So in effect, Zelensky is prosecuting the war on behalf of the Americans because they want that kind of activity going on all around Russia. Not just in Ukraine. It’s been…

Metta Spencer  1:29:31

Well friends, do we want to pursue this?

Paul Beckwith  1:29:38

Well, we all have very different opinions. I mean, some of the opinions here I they should actually contact Putin in Russia and try to get some funding to propagate their opinions more right? And others of us think that Putin is just the evil one who’s who’s actually shipping Ukrainian children. to Russian families like he is trying to eliminate Ukraine as an entity?

Dr. James Thring  1:30:06

Well, let me give you, …

Paul Beckwith  1:30:07

He’s the one that went into Crimea in 2014, or whatever, because they want a nice, warm place for Russian oligarchs to go for vacations, etc.

Dr. James Thring  1:30:17

If you know your history and Crimea has been Russian for hundreds of years, they were only trying to get it back. Anyway, if you want a clear example of how the whole issue has been muddied and distorted look at the gas pipeline explosion.

Paul Beckwith  1:30:37

Right.

Dr. James Thring  1:30:38

That was caused by an American initiative carried out by the Norwegians.

Paul Beckwith  1:30:44

According to Yeah, Seymour Hersh has written about that.

Dr. James Thring  1:30:47

That’s right, Thank you, thank you.

Paul Beckwith  1:30:49

But I think it’s still controversial, right? I mean, very muddy, the fog of war if you’d like to.

Dr. James Thring  1:30:58

Okay, but but the point I’m trying to make is that the West, particularly here in the UK, we are blaming Putin, for the rise in gas prices. And we I asked him, the Americans have been instrumental in stopping the supply of gas which would have pushed the price down.

Metta Spencer  1:31:17

That this is this forum, this town hall kind of conversation is one in which we really can be serious and have a good discussion of credible arguments. And a few only once have I excluded anybody. Somebody was trying to promote some kind of snake oil remedy for COVID and insisted on promoting this and interrupting other kinds of conversations in order to to put forward absurd ideas, and, and anti scientific ideas that really had been already disproved. So when when, you know, when the conversation devolves into something that I can’t see as productive or credible or even taken to be taken seriously, then the question is, as a moderator, where do I go? Do I say we want to continue this conversation? I think some of the the arguments that are being put forward here are simply not worth listening to, frankly. So I just as soon change the subject. If you think that I’m being high handed. Yes. Peter Brogdon. I’d like your opinion, I do value your opinion.

Peter Brogden  1:32:55

I see Charles Tauber is sort of waiting in the wings. And usually, he has some very interesting topics to come up with. And I would certainly welcome to change to hearing what he has to say about the present situation.

Metta Spencer  1:33:16

I agree. Hello, Charles, bring us up to date. You’re in Boca via Croatia, and you’re doing very important work with people who have been victims of wars and psychological traumas resulting from this.

Charles David Tauber  1:33:31

Yes, and we’re hearing quite a bit from Congo now. Which is absolutely horrible as to what’s going on, because from what I’m hearing, the amount of military and paramilitary stuff is increasing rather than decreasing. Some of our clients are the NGOs with which we’re working with whom we’re working, are going quite crazy. Also, it seems that parents are throwing their kids out onto the street, because they can’t afford to feed them. And they can’t keep them together and the kids are forming gangs and all kinds of things. So it’s a pretty awful situation in Congo. We’re also seeing in Liberia, the children of the former combatants of the Civil War, are taking lots of drugs. And we’re working with a drug rehab program there. I just heard by the way that we’re going to have a group in Ukraine or of people working in states who are working in Ukraine. I see Alexey is here.

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:34:48

Nice to see you.

Charles David Tauber  1:34:50

Yeah. And that said here.And where also we’re working now. Yeah, this is something If anybody knows anybody in Turkey or Syria, please contact me. I’m just about to send a note out to people I know because I would love to do some work with those people do training of trainers. I think it’s vital because I don’t think there’s any capacity whatsoever. And, yeah, we’re kind of going crazy also here, because, as I’ve said before, here, 30 years after the end of the wars here, in the eastern, in the Western Balkans. When I go into the restaurants in the evening, people are getting drunk and not getting treatment, they’re only getting lots and lots of drugs, and they’re solving nothing. And it’s, it’s gonna blow up. Sooner or later, it’s going to blow up. And I’ve been here since 95. So I think I know a little bit about what I’m talking. So we’re working all over the place.

Metta Spencer  1:36:08

Charles, when you say it’s gonna blow up, that you know that that sounds like there needs to be something more than psychotherapy involved. We’ve got somebody new, …

Charles David Tauber  1:36:21

Oh definitely.

Metta Spencer  1:36:22

A political maneuver of some kind, at a macro level what what is what, what to do?

Charles David Tauber  1:36:33

Get rid of the politicians.What was the line from the guy in the in the Frenchman in the 70s? Just be Marxist, John who got Groucho. And he said, anybody who would like to have me as a beneficiary, as a constituent, I don’t want to be part of it. That sort of thing. Sorry, to go in that to be that cynical. But yeah, what can I say?

Metta Spencer  1:37:14

To somebody who’s quite serious about it sounds like, because if you, you know, when you foresee that there’s going to be some sort of uprising or outbreak of violence, that’s the time to sort of blow the whistle and say, Come do something fast. And the UN should be able to be alerted to a hotspot that is in danger of blowing up or something so that we could, you know, what we needed some kind of, you know, intervention and rapid reaction force with social workers and healthcare workers and therapists and, and general, political practitioners, if you will.

Charles David Tauber  1:37:56

Metta we need that all  over the world.

Metta Spencer  1:38:01

You bet.

Charles David Tauber  1:38:02

And I’m extremely frustrated, because I see it. I know what to do. It’s all long term stuff. You’re not going to solve these things overnight. But I don’t know how. And I’ve said this here before, I don’t know how many times people have said to me, you’re the first person who’s actually listened to me. You’re the first person who’s letting me work things out. What we’re doing is we’re creating spaces. Every week, we have in, I think about 15 or 20, places, something like that. We’re just online. And we say okay, come and my for the first line of every session is okay. What’s happened last since we last met, and what do you want to talk about tonight? And the pressure comes off. And they solve the problems for many, many times themselves. And we give the benefit of our experience. Over the course of many, many, well, I’ve bhaeen doing this since 19

Metta Spencer  1:39:18

Your you’re talking about the distress of individuals about some painful memory or something. ,

Charles David Tauber  1:39:24

I hate to say it, but there’s the transmission. And this

Metta Spencer  1:39:28

Well I know but it’s

Charles David Tauber  1:39:29

Political process…

Metta Spencer  1:39:30

The problem is some political one right now where you’ve got to have some decision made. I mean, you know, clearly what’s going on, for example, in France is a political decision. They’re having a big fight about what age people should retire at. And so that is a thing that you can’t sign up. That’s a political decision. But what I hear you saying there’s there’s got to be violence in Croatia, and it has some current political issue. Right or not?

Charles David Tauber  1:40:03

Both, both it’s it’s not, it’s not a simple issue of one or the other. One of the reasons that this is happening is that people are so upset because of the wars of the Second World War and of the wars of the 90s. And that they are extremely tense. They are getting drunk every day, every night. They are fighting, there is domestic violence, there is inter communal violence. And a lot of this is caused by the leftovers of the trauma, not the leftovers, because of the trauma is still existing in their heads. And it’s never been solved. [Inaudible and video is not on speaker to watch speech]. And yeah, what can I say? If you solved a lot of the traumas, you would solve a lot of the political problems. If you empower people to take control of their own lives, then they would then a lot of this political stuff could be solved. I believe that I know the people here, they live in my street. Alright.

Metta Spencer  1:41:20

We should have that conversation sometime. But you know, we only have 10 minutes left.

Charles David Tauber  1:41:24

I know. We should have this, It’s a longer discussion.

Metta Spencer  1:41:27

So it is, let’s come back to it. Absolutely. But you know, we Alexey has joined us and I was missing Alexeiy Alexey is my favorite person in the world.

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:41:44

Thank you so much.

Metta Spencer  1:41:46

Alexi is in Warsaw. He’s a Russian who had to flee from Russia, in order to keep from being mobilized and sent to kill Ukrainians. So please bring us up to date on hows, how’s life in Warsaw? And what do you see going on in your home country dear?

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:42:04

Well, I’m sorry, for having joined so late. I had to work until some 20 minutes ago. Yeah, I’m helping a Polish man to run a hotel. So he’s, he trusts me. He knows he can rely on me. So we had some late guests today. And I had to and I had to really receive them. And I’m sorry, I wasn’t able to join you that late..

Metta Spencer  1:42:35

Bring us up to date. What’s the story? What’s happening?

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:42:38

So as far as the development’s, I’ve kind of I’ve kind of gotten distance from it. So yesterday, it was half a year since I had left Moscow. So and then kind of my reminiscences, my impressions are gotten a bit dim. But from what I read, from the news that I get from conversations with my friends, I’m getting more and more optimistic. Oh, and my bet. My bet is that during this spring, astronomical spring, so between the end of March and the end of June, we’ll see some change, definitely. The tide, the tide will change. That’s my strong feeling. Because one situation on the front is getting more and more in favor of Ukraine. So it means that Ukraine will liberate its territory. The attempt of Putin to court is Xi Jinping, the leader of China has not been successful. Obviously, you could tell. And this means that he doesn’t. He’s not able to count on any any kind of support from China. Which means that the war, my son might soon be over. That’s my strong feeling right now. I think April, May or June, will show us some good surprises. I’m optimistic about that. We can meet at a town hall at the town hall in in late June. And okay, if I’m wrong, I’ll get my beating.

Metta Spencer  1:44:32

Okay, what scenario Do you imagine? Because I can’t imagine Putin saying, Okay, I messed up, guys. The war’s over, everybody can come home and behave. I don’t think that’s the way it’s going to end what will happen instead?

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:44:52

Or the last night I was listening to a conversation between one oligarch and one show business person. And they use the expressions far from literary expressions about Putin. All of both are loyal. Like they make the appearance of most loyal persons in the world. But the the, you could recognize their voices. And they were using the worst of words about Putin, which, which kind of shows that the elite is just fed up with that. And I think that I’m expecting kind of a stalemate on the front, a Russian retreat, probably. And on that backdrop, there will be a certain coup d’etat, I think so that’s my take,

Metta Spencer  1:45:47

okay, who’s gonna who’s gonna do it, there’s going to be, I would think if there’s going to be a coup d’etat it would be someone like Prigozhin taking over.

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:45:58

There may be a guy named Patrushev, he’s also a former KGB guy. His sons is kind of viewed like as, as an heir apparent to the throne, a kind of successor to Putin. But Putin is lingering with designating a successor, which makes kind of the Father the Son kind of angry at Putin,

Metta Spencer  1:46:24

I have never heard of this name before, Patrushev tell us more.

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:46:28

Patrushev, Because really, he’s the only guy who can do this, who can make a coup d’etat and I doubt I doubt if he can really continue to push his line, he will, I think he will negotiate he will negotiate peace, He will not be able to stabilize the the very imbalanced, very fragile situation in the country. And positive he will not be able to stay in power for a long time, it will be like, ice, it will be like a mess for a while.

Metta Spencer  1:47:08

Let’s just well now because well, how come I never heard of him.

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:47:13

He’s kind of the head of the Security Council of Russia. It’s like a figure. It’s more or less a figurehead. But…

Metta Spencer  1:47:24

What would he do? And what does he stand for? Does anybody know what position he would take? If there’s, you know, you he Putin could be overthrown by the right or the left? I mean, even right and left doesn’t mean anything. But you know, from hardliners or, or people who want peace. And I don’t know which way it would go. What, who’s this bloke anyhow?

Paul Beckwith  1:47:48

Well, I think it’s gonna be a surprise. Metta. I mean, we talk too much about certainty of one guy doing the overthrowing you know, enough people do it’ll get back to Putin, those people will be often some Gulag in Siberia. Right. And that will nix the coup d’etat from them. Right. So they are on Ansible. Really, you know, just wait and see what happens. You know, what you’re hearing from Alexey is sort of overall impressions, you know, details. Details are impossible. I think

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:48:17

It is possible, but the feeling is quite strong.

Paul Beckwith  1:48:20

Yeah, strong emotion and often feelings. There’s something behind them. Right.

Metta Spencer  1:48:24

But you think that Alexey is acting as if he thinks this, this Patrushev would be a wonderful thing that will…

Paul Beckwith  1:48:34

Well put yourself in his situation Metta? I mean, he’s had to leave his country to avoid going to battle right? I mean, you know, put yourself in his in his shoes.

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:48:46

There is some wishful,, wishful thinking to it. But

Paul Beckwith  1:48:50

There is a lot of hope and emotion in this, but it’s sort of scuttled by just sort of the background news is talking to friends, you can’t put your finger on it. The way your brain works is you hear all this information and you try to put some story behind it. And that’s what he’s telling us. So to ask him more details about who and how would it happen and stuff those questions are, aren’t really relevant. I I don’t think.

Metta Spencer  1:49:14

I think whether Patrushevis a good guy or a bad guy is very relevant. Very interesting.

Paul Beckwith  1:49:22

Yeah. Yeah. But

Peter Brogden  1:49:25

Here’s a suggestion if I can put it forward and we have a sweepstake.

Metta Spencer  1:49:30

Good idea.

Paul Beckwith  1:49:32

Yeah. Something happens as well, you know, in the West, right, so,

Metta Spencer  1:49:39

Okay, it’s just I’m taking heart from Alexey’s optimistic point of view, because he has not always been optimistic sounding. In fact, I think this first time I’ve heard you say anything so upbeat about what you expect to have happen. And so I’m delighted to hear to some kind of, you know,..

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:50:04

Europe has not Europe has not been freezing in this state was just overthrown. China is not helping. The frontline is kind of collapsing. There is no, like the economy is collapsing, the elite is not supportive of him. So, all the five, all the five beds of Putin have been kind of destroyed by now.

Metta Spencer  1:50:34

?5% of the rest of the population still thinks he’s the cat’s meow.

Alexey Prokhorenko  1:50:41

Well, that will change once the television stops working. The propaganda stops working, that’s gonna change overnight. They’re gonna be surprised that they have thought that way. In a week, in a week, they’ll be surprised. Did I say that? Did so did I support Putin really it can’t be true?

Metta Spencer  1:51:05

Well, we’ve, we’ve come to the end. And I said hello to some people who said anything to Richard Denton, Richard Denton, I’m gonna give you 20 seconds, because we got to end this somehow. And it’s, and that should at least give you 20 seconds to say hi.

Richard Denton  1:51:23

Thank you very much. I’m not quite as optimistic. As Alexey, I still think that there’s a risk now, with Putin saying that he’s putting nuclear weapons in Belarus. And think that, again, we need to work locally, on divestment of nuclear weapons, we need to work locally on getting our own cities and councils to promote the Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, and to try to end this war. And I’m hoping that Oregon, various organizations can again, push, the powers that be into a negotiation, it’s going to have to end up as a negotiation, one way or another at the end. And the sooner that happens to me, the better.

Metta Spencer  1:52:21

Thank you. And that dove was just about to land on your shoulder. So give it a good kiss for me. And I’m gonna say goodbye to everybody. Time to end now I’ll see you in another lesson. In the meantime, you want to check in on a website tosavetheworld, not ca. And I’ll put this show up as soon as I get it edited. But in the meantime, have a good time. And we will see you next week. Next time. We’ll find out the end of the results of Alexey’s predictions. So thank you all. Take care. Thank you. Bye