Wednesday, it's the 15th of April. I don't think taxes are due today. So that's kind of a good thing, I think, but don't hold me to that. I'm just repeating what I've heard. I'm Susan Lee Parks. I've been doing this show for 11 years, mostly in the lobby of the public theater and also in theater places around the world where I spend time with the audiences, helping them, encouraging them along the journey of their creative process. And this is how it works. Well, just a little thing. First, thank you to the public theater who's been helping me bring this to life for the past 11 years. And also thank you to HowlRound, who's come on in the past few years to help us livestream and certainly has come on to help us create this beautiful online community in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, which everyone should know is called COVID-19 because it came to light in 2019 and not because it was number 19, which someone said recently in a position of power. Anyway, this is how it works. Basically, we work for 20 minutes and you can write or do whatever, write on whatever you want, write on whatever project you want, or do any kind of work that you are interested in working on. Work for 20 minutes, creating the action of the show together, and then for the time remaining, about 40 minutes, sometimes a little longer. Hope someone's okay. We, I answer questions about your work and your creative process. What we do have time for is plenty of time to get into conversations about your process, but we don't have the bandwidth for in this format. What we don't have the bandwidth in this format is for me to offer specific critiques about something that you have worked on or written. Okay, so just in, as long as we talk about process, we'll be able to keep the conversation that's gonna be helpful to everybody. Anything else, Amber? Tell her. Oh, I have things. Hello, everyone. If you would like to ask a question during the questions portion and you're inside the Zoom, please click the raise your hand button. It should be in the participant tab. That's more than likely on the bottom of your screen if you're on a computer or laptop. If you're on an iPad, it's more than likely at the top of the screen.  You'll be able to ask questions via the public theaters Twitter and Instagram. You can also ask questions via the Watch Me Work Twitter which is at Watch Me Work SLP. Be sure to use the hashtag HowlRound. That's H-O-W-L-R-O-U-N-D. And that's it. I know your spiel so well that I can pretty much almost perfectly time it out. Okay, I had to grab my guitar because today I'm gonna be working on, I'm gonna mute, of course. Okay, so we got our timers and here we go. All right, I thought that was right. Was that right, Amber? That is right. Okay, are you keeping time also? I am, I don't do it as high. I should lift it up. You should lift it up. You gotta get it in the frame, as they say, in the business. Keeping the frame, okay, yeah. Okay, so that was 20 minutes of some work time and now we're gonna, for about the next 40 minutes or so, entertain some questions. Who's got a question? All right, it looks like we have a question from Ms. Vita. Hey, Vita. Hey, how you been doing? Good, good. Thank you. How have you been doing? So far, so good. Yeah, and we never got the story about your eyeglasses, which I really would love to hear sometime. Okay. Yeah, you were gonna tell us and it never happened. Okay, but I'm writing because I'm writing this, I'm writing a few things at once and so I'm so relieved to know that I'm not the only person who does that, but one of the projects is really big because it involves, it's larger than I tend to write. I tend to try to keep things small with a protagonist and antagonist. Maybe it happens in a day. I sort of try to keep it under control. This is an event that actually happened. It's really serious. It's one of those. And I have my protagonist and my antagonist. So I have a lot of it sorted out, but there's so much information and there's so many people. And I'm not gonna do it where you could recognize who they are. I try very hard not to do that, but I don't wanna leave some of this out. Clearly I'm gonna have to have a few different stories. I've eliminated some big people. I just said I just can't do this much, but I'm just wondering like, how do I maintain control over it if it's not my usual thing? Like I feel like it's like the water level is like all the way up here, even though I know what I wanna say and what they look like and the whole thing. So, well, so you're growing. We talk about, it's a time of growth. I mean, sometimes it's, we do the same kind of thing over and over and over and there's a comfort in that. And sometimes when we branch out and do something that's different, right? It can be like unsettling and weird and feel odd, right? And kind of feel maybe more difficult than something we do often and with great ease. So congratulations on trying something that's different. It's really great.  You know what I mean? You know, there are, there are, think of all the thing plays and all about the Revolutionary War, for example.  You know what I mean? Yeah. Like you just decide, you know, I wanna focus on, you know, the character of who is this? Jane, you know, here she is. I know she's actually humidifier for her guitar, but it's okay for right now she'll be Jane. We're gonna focus on Jane and it's gonna be her story.  He's so great, but he really doesn't have anything really to do with Jane's story at all. So we might put Lucius on the side there and say, you know, maybe next time around or maybe we'll tell a story next time all about you. Cause right now it's Jane's story. You see what I mean? Or you find a way that Lucius is going to somehow impact somehow, whether it's directly, you know, their friends or they know each other or whatever or parallel metaphorically, he's working on, you know, this level and she's working on this level. You can see my props here. You know what, but do you see what I mean? Yeah, yeah, I do see what you mean. I just think, I guess there's also this struggle with like, well, in reality, these people were really important in the real, you know what I mean? Like I've made up a lot of stuff. I, in fact, I made up a whole part of it that is not what actually, you know, I did a lot of that work, but I'm just wondering what you do when you feel this obligation, like, oh, well, I should really, I really have to, I mean, in order for it to get really dark and for these things to happen that way, then I have to tell this part of it in that part. So do you just do it anyway? And then take it out. What different things? Number one, in reality, it really happened that way.  You're creating a piece, I think, right? You're creating a piece.  And they say, it's got to happen this way in my play because it happened that way in life. Well, okay, well, then that's limiting. But if you want to do it that way, that's cool. In reality, you put reality aside and you focus on the story that you want to tell, which means that as you're doing, you invent, you know, and you practice the cool thing, discrimination, which is not the discrimination that makes those of us with any sense want to vomit and holler. It's the discrimination to know what you should leave in and to know what you should leave out. Uh-uh, pumpkin, I'm talking. Oh, hi. Hello. Hi, hi. Hi, hi. Aw, so cute. Yes, oh yes. We make him cute in this family. Okay, goodbye. Yeah. But you see what I mean? What to leave in and what to leave out. What belongs in your story and what doesn't. And if a character is necessary, if Lucia's character, he's necessary because he's gonna take it to that disturbing place that the story has to go to, then that would make him necessary to the story, Vita. It's, you know what I mean? Right, right, right, right. Then he's necessary. But if Sandy over here is someone interesting, that, you know, okay, Sandy, maybe next time. Your story is gonna magnetize the elements to it, okay? Ah, yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vita. All right, next we have Sahar. Sorry, there. Hi, yeah, I'm here. Hi. How are you? I'm good. I'm fine, Sahar. I love your background there. That's pretty cool. Thank you. That's not my house. Oh, darn, all right. That's in Cuba. Oh, cool. Hi. So my question is, how do you know when you're done? I've been working on two plays and pre-pandemic. I enlisted my students to read them. So we did a few readings. And my question every time was, is it done? And I just, I don't know. And I was wondering like, how do you know when you're done? And then what do you do if you are? Good questions. Good questions, Sahar. Now, done would look like, I mean, that's good. That's what I really wanted to know. If you're done, would you wanna send it out? And is that kind of what you're feeling? What would you like it to look like? What would you like your next step after writing and rewriting and rewriting and rewriting to be? I mean, I would love to see it come to life. Sure. Yeah, so send it out for there to be more readings. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. So when you had your students read it for you? Yeah. Uh-huh, uh-huh. So you teach at a college or a school? Yeah, I teach at Columbia. And you had your students read it? And how did that feel when they read it? Oh, it felt really great to finally hear it outside of my head. Right. That felt really great. It was also, I mean, every reading, I felt like I heard something else that I wanted to work more on. Right. And when I came to the end of both pieces, like one reading, I was like, yeah, I'm satisfied with this ending. But I think during another reading, like two of the readers were like, well, maybe you could end it like this or you could end it like this or what happens if they were to do this? And then I started thinking like, oh, maybe it's not finished. So I went back and forth. I felt like sometimes I was like, yeah, this is the end. And it's not like, it's not going to be resolved in any way. And I don't wanna resolve it. And then I started thinking, oh, but there are more possibilities. Yes, I could write this scene to end it. So that's how I felt. Like I had like different feelings every time. Right.  I mean, it's great to get feedback, especially from people who want you to succeed and all that. But at the same time, you wanna know for sure for yourself. Otherwise, anybody with an idea is gonna, you wanna be the strong flame in the windy city. You see, you know what I'm saying?  Oh, okay, okay, maybe it should. You wanna know for yourself.  And that should feel, you should give that the work, the spirit, a feeling of safety or it should feel sure that when it talks to you, you're gonna hold, you're gonna have the back, you're gonna have your plays back in a way.   You see what I mean? It's kind of like dating or being married or being in a committed relationship. You know what I'm saying? You walk down the street with your SO, right?  Oh, look at that. Oh, wow, ooh, wow, ooh, right?  So you understand what your play needs. So you need to have more conversations with your play. Okay. Okay, and decide this is the end. I like it. Okay. I'm good. Moving on.   So there's lots of, you know, workshop notes, rounds of notes and all that that will keep happening until the thing is maybe produced or filmed or whatever. But you have to decide. So you've got an ending, stick to it. This is what I like. I like this ending. Yeah. I mean, think of any play, think of Hamlet. Do you know Hamlet? I mean, not personally, but you know Hamlet. Oh, it could have, you know what? He could have gotten married to Ophelia. Why does she have to drown? Now that really bothers me that she had to drown. Drown herself. I mean, gee, what does that say about her, right? I mean, she should have gone and, you know, I mean, women these days are heads of really important countries that are doing very well in response to the coronavirus. Why couldn't she have been the prime minister of Denmark, right? I mean, that would have been an interesting ending. You see what I mean? And you go, yeah. Yeah, it could have been, actually, maybe I'll change it. Instead of saying, no, for my play, Ophelia drowns herself. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah.  Yes. What does it say in that play? One of the screw your courage to the sticking post.  Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Sahar. I think next we have question from George. Hi. Hi, George. Hi, George. How you doing? All right. Thanks for taking my question. I appreciate it. Oh, we appreciate you. Well, thank you. Mine is about the process of actually getting the work done. I find that with a lot of my full length plays, I never start to write until I know the beginning. I know the ending. Okay. And I know two to three critical moments that happen along the story arc. Okay. But the rest of it, a lot of times is there for me to fill in to see which way the characters go. And hopefully everything stays the way I planned it. It almost always does. But I'm just wondering if that's something that's common. Have you dealt with that sort of thing where you've got a few points in the play that are the play to you and you have to fill out that arc? Sure. Well, I think more importantly, George, how does that work for you? Do you enjoy your writing process that way? I love it, but it's a little terrifying sometimes. Terrifying because you don't know everything or terrifying because why? It's terrifying because I don't know everything. I've always started with my last full length. I tried to map out, I tried to do an outline of where I was going. Because it's a process other people have encouraged me to do. And I figured, okay, I'll give it a shot on this one. Normally I don't. For me, a lot of the joy is looking at what a character has just put on the page and going, oh, that's interesting. I didn't know he or she was thinking that. So, okay, let's run with this. To me, it's epiphanies and discoveries. And like I said, sometimes it's a little terrifying because I will labor over a beat or a scene for sometimes a couple of months. Trying to figure out a way to genuinely and organically make this thing work. So, I think so far. Yeah, I think it's, I think, I think regardless of the process, I think that's what we all do. You know, we're all laboring over beats, sometimes for long times, making something work genuinely and organically. There are many ways to do that though. Just like there's many ways to look if you're human. You know what I'm saying? We're all genuinely and organically being people here. We just look really different. People's processes look really different. I talk a lot about outlining when people are often stuck and they're scared to commit to a story point. Doesn't sound like you have that problem. You know, you find your story points and that is your outline. Some outlines have three beats, beginning, middle, and end. That's an outline. To me, some outlines have 23 beats. Some outlines are detailed, some are not, but there's still a lot of discovery. So I think, I mean, it sounds like your process works great for you. It sounds fun. It sounds like you're getting a lot of work done. If you wanted to change up and do something else, go for it, but if not, you know, keep going. Like you're doing, I wouldn't change. It sounds like you're having a good time. I love it. It's the most guilty pleasure I've ever had in my life is just getting into one of these things. I live it. I breathe it. I do nothing else for, you know, a year sometimes. That sounds great. It sounds great. No, it sounds like you've got your method and you should stick to it.  It's all good, right? Yeah. Thank you. Okay, cool. Thanks. Thanks, George. All right. Like next we have a question from Phoebe. Hi. Hi, thank you for taking my question. I'm wondering specifically about how to make your work unprecious. Like I'm finally working on a play that I've been threatening to start for like years and years. And I think what's held me back on it for so long is that I love the idea so much. And I already have like such profound affection for the characters that if it turns out anything other than exactly how I'm imagining it or like how excited about them, I'll be like crushed, you know. Oh wow. Oh wow. It's like, it's like dating again. Everything's like dating.  Oh my God. Right, it's because I really, and if it, and I don't wanna get involved because if it's not, then I'll just be in a puddle on the sidewalk where we first kiss. Yeah, so I think that's on like getting past that. So what do you think? What do you think you have to do, Phoebe? I mean, I think I just have to do it. Yeah, because there's no other way to know. And I mean, quite honest, I might think of the world, Phoebe. Right, I mean, think of the world. Sorry, I just heard myself say that sounds nuts. But think of the world. I mean, whoever, whatever created the world probably didn't turn out like they thought, you know. America, think of America, Phoebe. You know, right, right, right. So there's a lot of disappointment involved in creation. I mean, I'm a parent. You think when my kid is, he's wonderful. Sometimes he didn't really feel, you know, right? You kind of have to dive in, you know. Any relationship, any act of creation involves a huge amount of courage, perseverance, effort. You know, you gotta work, you gotta put a lot of time into it.  Yeah. And that's part of being a real artist instead of a control freak, masquerading as an artist. Those of us who, again, the catch and release thing, the spirit sends something to you, you do your best work and you let it go. Because if it's a play, it's a play, right, Phoebe? Okay, great. So it's a play, which means the spirit sends it to you. You're gonna do your work with it. You're gonna let it go. Who are you gonna let it go to? Actors, right? I mean, I'm guessing. And a director maybe and producers and costume designers and all those awesome people who are gonna do different things. Or if your play gets done in different cities or whatever or on different platforms, they're gonna do different things. And you're gonna have to be flexible because you're an artist and we roll with it, right? If you're a control freak, you're gonna, well, try to control every moment, which is not really, I don't know. It's a different way of creating. There's plenty of artists do that. Samuel Beckett, right? One of his plays done a certain way. Edward Albee. They want them cast a certain way. They want the actors to look a certain way. They did that, you know. I follow, you know, God. You know, which means you create it and hope for the best and, you know, go on to the next world that you're creating, which is probably why there are many worlds because they haven't really turned out so great. Well, you know what I'm saying. Yes. So do your best work. Do your best work and let it go and go on to the next thing. Great. Okay, but by doing the work, you have a chance of getting it the way you want it. By not doing it, you don't have a chance. Yeah, thank you so much. You're welcome so much. Good question. Thank you. Thanks, Phoebe. We don't have any questions at the moment. I love not having questions. Oh, never mind. We have a question from Ms. Crystal. All right. Crystal, are you New Jersey? Hi. Hey, Crystal, how are you? How you doing? I'm good, I'm good. I've been working with the things that you told me about as far as trying to build this story. And I have 20 different plots and I have characters, but it's weird because I still see like, I don't see the faces of my characters and I still don't feel like I have a strong enough plot. Like I still struggle with having a beginning and a middle and an end or just something to just start writing a story. I still feel like I'm in handwriting mode of trying to figure people out, trying to figure stuff out, but it doesn't feel like the answers are coming. I can't hear anything. Does that make sense? Yes, yes, I hear you. So you've done like you're 20, what tell me, tell me what you've done.  The dumb ideas are any of them interesting to you? You don't have to tell me what they are, but are there some on that list that are interesting? They're like, they're like, they don't like call at me, but there are a couple that are like, okay, I guess this is something that's possible. Wait, can you do 20 more? Can you do three more? You see what I mean? Just keep throwing stuff at the wall. See what's interesting. That's one thing. Number two, you don't need to see your characters' faces to write your play. Sometimes it's better that you don't because the face will be inhabited by, if you're fortunate, thousands of faces. You see what I mean? Yeah. Think of any play, think of again, of Hamlet. I know we're using Hamlet to death today, but Hamlet, how many thousands of thousands of people have played Hamlet, you know? Right. So they might have, Shakespeare might have had a face in mind when he wrote the play, but it's not necessary to write the play. You do have to hear the voice and I'm trying to get you to hear the voice, which means you haven't yet struck water.  Divining rod? You don't know what a divining rod is. Oh, look it up after we're done. Knee, you know, it's a stick. I can't show you. It's a stick shaped like a V. Yeah, I don't have a V anyway. It's a stick and it's used to find water. Okay. You haven't yet found where the water is yet, maybe. Right. So that the sound of the story is more interesting than the sound of you telling yourself that the story is not interesting, right? You wanna capture your imagination. So you haven't, maybe you haven't found it yet, you know? Write a few more.  It could be your story. Think of some possible endings, maybe, to go along with them, you know?  It could be fun. Okay. Okay. Yeah, that's interesting because I feel like I've always had a face or something, a loud voice or...  So what I'm saying is faces aren't necessary to write. That's all I'm saying. If you're looking for a loud voice, I'm trying to help you find a loud voice, a voice that's louder than yours. Yeah, louder than yours, telling yourself that your ideas aren't good enough.  None of these are interesting. That's the loudest voice in your head. I want to help you find a voice of a character or a story that's louder than that voice that says none of these ideas are good enough. You see what I'm saying? Yeah, I do. Okay. Okay. Keep digging. It's like you're digging for an underground river. Keep digging. Dig mini-holes. Dig around the yard. Make a mess. Get lost. Get confused. I'm definitely confused. Good, good, that's okay. That's okay. Get lost. What better things do you have to do today? Right? That's true. Okay. Yeah. Keep working at it. I will. Okay. I know you will. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thanks, Crystal. All right. Next, we have a question from Terri. Terri, are you there? Maybe. I'm here. Hey, Terri. Hi. I was trying not to be all aggressive and try to be on every day, but I'm glad I got a chance to ask another question. Thank you. Thank you. So I am not a playwright yet, but I write stories that involve a number of characters. And I'm trying to learn how to effectively transition through dialogue, move through dialogue. So for example, if it was a play, then everybody, you're gonna have different people saying the character's part. But when I'm writing this story, I've just seen them to be struggling. I have a small writing group and we meet a couple of times a month. And one of the things that has been recurring is I kind of got confused in the story as to who was speaking. So any suggestions? Right. You got it. Okay. You got confused in the story. Are you writing or in a play that you're writing? In a story. Right. So eventually I would like to turn some of my stories, I think that they could be play material. No, no, no, we write all things. We write all kinds of things. I certainly write across genres. So I've written a novel, I've written all kinds of things. But for me, it's always, for me, it's similar across genres, meaning two points make a line. We talked about this a little while ago in geometry. One of the rules in geometry, two points make a line. This point and this point are gonna create a line between them. And with character, it's the same thing. Right? So two points make a line of dialogue. Where the character is, where she wants to go can help you figure out what she wants to say. Okay? Now, because characters in plays and short stories and novels are going different places and want different things, their lines of dialogue might have different textures. Also, they're coming from different places, right? If you have a mom who's in Walmart looking for an elbow macaroni because she wants to find elbow macaroni and you have a single guy in Walmart looking for love, right? Because he wants some love, right? Okay, he wants to hold somebody's hand. Yeah. Well, you're gonna sound different, right? Yes. Okay, okay, and that's what I'm saying. So because they want different things, they've come from different places, they're hoping to go to different places, right? Okay, so just drill down and get more specific with your characters. And that can help you hear them focus on what they want. Remember, two points make a line. Remember where the character is and what she wants and write out of that desire, okay? Okay, thank you. Yeah, sure, and it should work for anything. It's work for me in screenplays, teleplays, novels. What else is there? Plays, you know, it works in a lot of different medium. Okay, thank you so much. Thanks, Terry. All right, looks like we have a question from Carol. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, and you've got your video working. Got a little thing? Okay, I'm so glad I was able to do this. I'm working on something right now. It's the story that I've worked on from time to time. Whenever I'm finished with the project, this one is right there tapping me on the shoulder saying, write me. And it's a wonderful story based on my great uncle. And when I tell his story to people, it's amazing. And when I start to write it on paper, I can't quite find the viewpoint, I guess. Is it a one-man show, him telling the story? Is it him telling me the story? Is it me trying to figure it out? And I'll write it. It keeps coming back periodically for many, many years. So I know I want to write it, but I'm kind of stuck in, at the moment, I wrote the story out as if he was telling it to me. And it started to come out for some reason, to get it free, it came out in rhyming at times. I don't know what that's all about, that's new. Anyway. That's fun, that's like fun. But Carol, so you said, is it a one-man show?  That's possible too. Right, so why do you write a short story? Sure, why do you feel like you haven't found the way in? What is feeling wrong about? I think it's because I'm wanting it to be a show, a play. Oh, okay. And I hear it as, and I can see it that way, when I see, when I can see it, but when it becomes too much telling and not enough action, then I'm thinking maybe it's not a play.   So there are lots of different ways to make a play. It can be a long, it can be a, you know, 50-page monologue if you want. You know, I mean, that would work. It just has to be satisfying to you. Uh-huh.  It just has to be alive and full of, you know. But wouldn't it be so much telling? And what would the person be doing? Well, that's your job, Carol. I know, I'm not asking you. I'm not asking Carol. No, Carol. Carol, he's gonna be, I mean, sure. And you know, I always say, what is he doing aside from talking? Right, exactly. Or maybe a different way to frame it is, what does he want, Carol? What does he want?  What else does he want? He wants to tell the story because then it will affect some change. Right, it will affect others. He wants it to affect other people's life. Okay, okay. Or he wants to figure something out maybe. And by telling the story, he's gonna figure something out.  Maybe you can give him a series of activities, actual activities, physical activities to do on stage, which are, which people make it exciting. But also the narrative has to have a drive. Yes. You know what I mean? Even Ulysses, you know, James Joyce's Ulysses is a novel, granted, but it has a drive. Even though, whoa, all over the place, it's got a narrative drive. You know? Right. And that's what rivets the reader and the writer too, I think. It magnetizes the energy, as we were talking earlier, you know? You want to magnetize, we were talking to Vita, magnetize that energy through desire is a great way to magnetize the energy. What does the character want? What's he, why is he talking? You've been at cocktail parties, Carol, where people just talk and talk and talk.  You don't want your character to be like that. No, no. He desperately wants to explain something or figure something out or, right? Right. Hey, so just dig around and find out what he wants. Yeah, just keep digging and listening. The voice is there, it's coming. It's coming, eventually it's going to... No, you always find it, Carol. You're going to find it. Oh, thank you anyway. Thank you always for doing this and it's so nice to see you and good luck going through all this. Yeah, you too. We're right down the street. Family. Yeah. And miss you. Likewise. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks so much. Thanks, Carol. It's 6-0-1. It is, it is 6-0-1. We'll definitely do this tomorrow. We'll be back. Yes. Just a reminder, everyone, you can sign up to be in each day Zoom class at publictheater.org by 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time each day. We will email the link out between 3 and 4 30 p.m. Thank you and see you all tomorrow.


A mysterious traveller. This is the mysterious traveller, inviting you to join me on another journey into the realm of strange and terrifying. I hope you will enjoy the trip, and it will thrill you a little and cheer you a little. So settle back, get a good grip on your nerves, and be comfortable. Who do you care? Where are we going? We're going to join Walter Kavett, as he takes a little excursion into crime. Like all the stories, murder goes free. Late one-fourth meeting, seven years ago, as I was walking along one of the main streets of a large city, I was stopped by an elderly man who seemed unusually agitated. Pardon me, sir. May I speak with you for a moment? Of course. Here. Perhaps this will help. Oh, please, please. It isn't money I want. I just want someone to listen to me. No one is interested in seeing justice done. No one. Well, I should be glad to see what you have to say. You will listen to my story? Yes. I want to confess something that's on my conscience. I've confessed a hundred times, several thousand times, yet no one will believe me. You must help me make the believe. It all began that day in my office, when Martin, my son, came in to see me. Hello, Dad. All right. Oh, Martin. I'm glad you're here. I want to talk to you. Oh? Sounds like I've done something you don't approve of, Dad. Did you read the gossip column in this morning's Daily Legend? Oh. Oh, that. Why haven't you told me about this woman Diana Withers? Well, I'm sorry, Dad. I just didn't think it was important. You've always told me about your other friends.  No, of course not. Why should I be? Martin, you know as well as I do that her reputation is, well, spectacular to put it kindly. Well, the story's about her all lies. I'm not taken in by gossip, Martin. I happen to know that this winter's woman is just playing no good. Dad, I won't have you talking about her like that. Martin, you don't love this woman, do you? Yes. Yes, I do. Martin, you must give her up. Dad, I'm old enough to make my own decision. And she'll see what she's doing to you. She's just a predatory gold digger. Dad, stop talking about her like that. All right, son. That's the way you feel about it. You'd better go. All right. Goodbye, Dad. Oh, Martin. Oh, he's starting. Oh, perhaps that's... Come in. It's you, Norman. Hello, Walter. Put the metal in Martin. I guess that's him in the reception room. He appeared to be quite upset. We've got a quarrel. It's the first one we've ever had. We've got about that bit of gossip in this morning's Daily Ledger. Yes. Imagine Martin's name linked with that, but Martin will be all right. He'll get over it. Oh, no, he won't. I can't stand by and watch him ruin his life. I've got to do something. I wouldn't if I were you, Walter. You've got to let Martin make his own decisions. He's no child.  You expect me to watch the only person who means anything to me? Get hurt? No, I suppose you won't. What are you going to do? I'm going to have a talk with that woman, Diana Winters. Oh, good evening. Are you Miss Winters? Yes. Would you come in? Thank you. My name is Wally Cabot. Wally Cabot? I see. And I have a word in private with you. Really? I have a guess, Mr. Cabot. Well, it will only take a few minutes. Well, all right. Time to play. Thank you. No, I'll bother us in here. I hardly know how to begin, Miss Winters. And let's be frank, Mr. Cabot, and save ourselves time. You can come here to ask me to give up your son, haven't you? Yes. Well, then you may as well know that you're wasting your time. I love Martin, and I won't give him up. I know better. Since we're being so frank, I'll get to the point. How much do you want to let Martin go? Are you insinuating what I said? Well, now come, Miss Winters. There's no need to put on an act for me. How much? Well, Mr. Cabot, you know, you're far more interesting than your son. Shall we say, um, a hundred thousand? A hundred thousand? Yes, a hundred thousand. You love your son. Surely he's worth it. I haven't anything like that amount of money. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you believe for a moment that Martin has any money? Oh, no, no. But he will inherit a quarter of a million dollars in his mother's estate in a few months. Oh, so you know about that? Yes, of course. What other reason would you have for leading Martin on? None that I can think of. What if I were to tell Martin about our conversation? You wouldn't believe you. You can't do this to him. I'm afraid I must be getting back to my guest, Mr. Cabot. No, wait, please. Please listen to me. Martin is everything I have. If I had the money, I'd gladly give it to you. But I haven't it. Oh, don't do that.  Please leave this one.  Don't get out of here. I'll have my friends throw you out. I'm warning you.  He's trying to bribe her to give me up. Is that true? Yes, Martin, it is. You did that after I told you I loved him? Yes, because I know she doesn't love you. And why weren't you able to buy her off? Because she wanted $100,000. You're lying. She never asked you for one cent. Have you ever known me to lie to you? Dad, I told you I was fully capable of making my own decisions in my minutes. Mauer Gore asked Diana to marry me. Can't you accept it? You're going to marry her? Yes. There's a few days. So you're going to ruin your life for a cheap gold digger? Dad, I told you not to speak about it like that. You feel differently. Diana and I will be happy to see you. Get out. Get out of here! All right, all right, I will. After all these years and everything I've tried to do for him. Well, Walter, were you able to do anything right? No.  But what can you do? If there's no bride, there can be no wedding. If there's no bride? Walter, you don't mean you... Why not? You think of anyone who deserves less to live? You're mad! For years, my hobby has been the study of famous murders. I've studied hundreds of cases closely. In each case, I was able to pick out the flaw that presented it from being a perfect crime. And then one day I began to work out a perfect crime for myself. What are you saying? I was merely doing it for fun, just as some men do crossword puzzles. Norman, I did hit up on a way to commit a perfect murder. And now I have a motive. You must stop talking like that, Walter. There's no such thing as a perfect crime. You're wrong, Norman. And I'm going to prove it. Walter, can't you see that what you want to do is insane? It's far better than Martin married that woman than for you to become a murderer. No! If Martin were to marry that woman, that would be the end for both of us. At least this way I can be certain that his life will be ruined. And that's all that counts. But, police woman, they'll never catch me. Never. Can you tell me the name of this horrible place? There ain't nothing horrible about Valley Springs, stranger. 1,142 people think it's a nighty-tine village. I've never seen an uglier place. What do people live here for? Well, I'm warning you, Mr. You'd better stop insulting this village or I'll run you in on the village council. Oh, so you're going to get rough, eh? It won't take me. I'll learn you to push it all around. You're under arrest for drunkenness and disorderly conduct. You and me are going to see George Hutchins, justice to peace.  He attempted to attack me. And that's when I arrested him. Hmm, did right, Pete. What you got to say to the charges, Mr. What's your name? I'm not going to tell you.  Mm-hmm. George is drunkenness, disorderly conduct. How do you pay it, stranger? Give me your other jewelry. Well, stranger, since you're Mickey Gilles, I'll only find you $20. What if I don't want to pay? Well, I'm afraid in that case you'll just spend the night in jail. I won't be intimidated. I'm not going to pay my fine and you can't make me. Pete? Looks like you'll have to lock him up tonight. Take him away. Now you can see what the inside of our jail looks like. Good. It still ain't too late to pay your fine. Don't you want to pay it and sleep in a nice, soft bed? No, I'd like it here. Which of the two cells is mine? Well, if you think so, I'm on the right hand. I don't sleep in the other. I got to guard you. Go ahead, get in so I can lock the door. Justice, you say, constable? Now, I don't want to hear anything out the other morning. Now, there's enough trouble sleeping in here without you bothering me. I'd be so quite comfortable you'll leave the norm here. We dream. Well, everything's easy now. Easy now, easy. I knew this whole place would be perfect for my plan. Now, if only the door doesn't creak as I open it. Now to get to the car and drive to the city for the most important part of the plan. Who's there? Perhaps if I turn on the lights this winter. You? Yes, Martin's father. What do you mean by breaking into my apartment? What do you want? What do I want? You remember what I said to you the other night? What you said? I knew it. And I'll refresh your memory.  You wouldn't dare. Oh, but I wouldn't.  I don't think I will, Miss Smithers. Why are you laughing at me like that? You're not trying to frighten me, aren't you? I tried to reason with you, but you wouldn't listen. You should have.  Stay away from me. Stay away from me, do you mean it? If no, you were shutting the door. I locked it when I came in and I have the keys. Please. Please listen to me. You'll do anything you want.  I'll go away. You had your chance.  Don't touch me.  I'll just turn her wristwatch back to 12 and stop it. The exact time I was being arrested in Bowie Spring, my son is free. Free. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Wake up, wake up. I want another drink. Wake up, will you? Wake up. What's all this noise about? Oh, my back. Hey, what's the idea waiting me up? Why, it's not even dawn yet. I want another drink and I'll take it straight. Oh, go sleep. You hear? It's four o'clock and he ain't getting out of here until late in the morning. He's got four hours yet. I don't want to hear any more out here. Oh. So consumable, anything to oblige a gentleman. Four hours more. That spoke to me at four o'clock in the morning in my cell. Now I was very drunk. Oh, a perfect crime. Everything's worked out exactly as I planned. The police will never be able to prove a thing. In a few months, the murder will just be a thing of the past. Martin and I will once more be as close as ever. What's the day's office this morning? Well, so I finally caught up with you. My partner told me a few minutes ago that you had been looking for me. What's on your mind? That's putting it mildly. There's been a five-state alarm out for you for the past 24 hours. Why? Where have you been the last few days? I've been vacationing at a small resort a hundred miles upstate. And it's pleasant vacation, wasn't it? Even your partner didn't know where you were. So I went there on the spur of the moment. Oh, you did. Yeah. And where were you on the night of the 22nd? The night Diana Winters was murdered. Say, I read about that, Kelly. That's rather than the night... Not stalling. Where were you? Frankly, Kelly, I don't recall where I was that night. I'm afraid I was a little drunk. You're going to have to do better than that for the DA. Oh? Well, I'm afraid I won't be able to. I really can't remember where I was that night. But I think you're going to wind up in a place you're not going to like in the chair. That's your hat. We're going down to headquarters. Oh, that sounds serious. Well, if you mind if I speak to my partner and explain matters to him? That won't be necessary. You'll be able to read all about it in the papers. And believe me, it isn't going to make the pleasant reading. Witnesses have testified that the defendant, Walter Cabot, threatened to kill Diana Winters. And how has the defense replied to the charges of the state? It hasn't. Can we accept the flimsy story of the defendant? That he was drunk the night of the murder and hasn't any recollection of his actions? Perhaps Walter Cabot doesn't know where he was that night, but I do. He was in the apartment of Diana Winters, where he cold bloodedly strangled her if he vowed to do before a dozen witnesses. There is only one verdict you can render. Guilty of murder in the first degree. The state rests, Your Honor. Since you've insisted on defending yourself, are you ready for the defense's summation, Mr. Cabot? Your Honor, I've often observed the strange twists of fate by which a man is saved or condemned. My inability to recall any of my actions on the night of the 22nd left me without a defense. Yesterday, frankly, I regarded my case as being hopeless. Today, however, through a twist of fate, I have received a new lease on life. I'm now prepared to prove my whereabouts on the night in question. I should like to call upon a witness for the defense. You have the court formation. Thank you, Your Honor. I wish to call Peter Wilk to the stand. Peter Wilk to the stand. Here I am. Thank you, Your Honor. Here, please. You tell me where to tell the whole truth, and I'd want the truth to help you, Your Honor. I do. Take your name and occupation, please. And Peter Wilk. I'm constable for the village of Valley Springs. Mr. Wilk, will you tell a jury exactly what you told me this morning? Well, yesterday, George Hutchins, he's our justice of the peace, and myself, we're looking at a city newspaper, and in it we see a picture of a man, Mr. Cabot, right on the front page. It says he's being tried for murder, committed on the night of January 22nd. Well, George and me recognize him right away, as the fellow we locked up in our jail that night on a drunken and disorderly charge. It's good to see you again after all these months. Oh, it's bad. Can you ever forgive me for running away when you need it? To give you this nothing. To forgive, son. Dad, I know now how right you were about that. Well, you don't know how happy it makes me to hear you say that, son. I've been through a great deal lately, but it doesn't matter now that I have you back. Dad, I'm glad to be back. I promise you I'll never let you down again. Come in, have a seat. Been quite some time since I've seen you. Yes, yes. Last time you were here, you put this cut on me for the winter's murder. Well, mistakes will happen. Anything on your mind, Kelly? No, nothing special. That's friendly calls. Oh, thanks for dropping in, Kelly. Oh, by the way, have you seen the latest edition? I know. Anything of interest happen? Yeah, you might find it interesting. It could mean a client to you. Oh, really? What's happened? Oh, here's a late paper. Read it for yourself. Oh, thanks. You suspect hells of winter's murder. Oh, no. Oh, it can't be. Why not? If you didn't kill Diana Winter, someone did. And we've got that someone down at headquarters. But you must be mistaken. What evidence have you got? Evidence? Yes. Oh, well, we can prove the guy we've got was at Diana Winter's apartment that night. Okay. But he was seen leaving just after midnight. After a flail of a quarrel with her. Quarrel? What about? Oh, you should think. We both know what Diana was. Two-timing gold diggers. Yes, of course. She had plenty of other boyfriends than your sons. Only none of them knew about the others. But that night, the guy who killed her found out a few things about her. And Buster asked. No. I don't believe it. I told you he left right after midnight, didn't I? That's right. Well, her watch was found on the floor where she dropped it during that fatal struggle. Stopped. Busted 12. And that watch is going to hang the guys. We may have been wrong in your case, but this time we have the right man, and we'll make it stick. Even though the evidence is circumstantial. Well, I'd better be running along. Good night. Can I take the paper? You might want to read the whole story. New suspect held for Windows murder. District attorney uncovered apparently conclusive evidence of guilt. I can't be. I had it planned perfectly so that no one, no one could be held for it. There's no such thing as a perfect crime, Walter. The murderer always overlooked something. No such thing as a perfect crime. Murderer always overlooked something. A human said that, but I knew better. And now an innocent man has been arrested for my crime. Whoever he is, he's innocent. I must kill him.  Gentlemen of the jury, you have reached a verdict. You have found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree. Change in the courtroom. No, no, it can't be. You're wrong. Change in the courtroom. I'll have it cleared. Mr. Cabot, you're kindly refrained from such outbursts. But your honor, I protest. The evidence submitted by the state was purely circumstantial. It was no real. May I remind Mr. Cabot that this case may be appealed. Your honor, jury is quite uncalled for. But the prison is innocent, your honor. You haven't any right to... Another such outburst, Mr. Cabot, and I'll hold you for contempt, of course. Your honor, the defendant was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. But I have positive proof of his innocence. Why did you wait until after the jury rendered a verdict to make this statement? I'd hope, your honor, that the defendant would be acquitted and I wouldn't have to reveal my proof of his innocence, but I would like to do so now. Yeah, this is highly irregular, Mr. Cabot. But since the jury has already rendered its verdict and cannot be influenced, you may proceed. Thank you, your honor. I know for a certainty that the defendant is not guilty of the murder of Diana Withers, or it was I who committed the crime. In this courtroom, Mr. Cabot, you say you confess the murder of Diana Withers? Yes, your honor. I and I alone are responsible for her death. You must believe me. Mr. Cabot, only three months ago you were acquitted of the murder of Diana Withers. You will know that a man may be tried only once for a crime. This confession now can do you no harm. The court sees your confession as being motivated only by your desire to see the defendant go free. No, no, your honor, that isn't true. I fit murder Diana Withers. Then I broke my watch and I set it back to 12 o'clock.  May I? Have Mr. Cabot discarded from this courtroom? Where's another remaining yourself? No, no, no, wait, your honor. Listen to me. He isn't guilty. I am either one of them. Say, in court, I confess a thousand times, yet no one will believe me, no one. But you, sir, you will help me, won't you?  No, of course not, but I hardly see how I... Every minute that passes brings him closer to the end. We must save him, we must. If you really... Hello, Cabot. Oh, Kelly, I was just telling this gentleman here my story. We can't let an innocent man go to the electric chair.  You believe I murdered Diana Withers, don't you? Yes, I do. You do? Then you'll help me save him? People wouldn't believe me any more than they do you. But they would, Kelly, they would. Why should they believe your story? You can't be tried again for the murder of Diana Withers. And what man in your position wouldn't confess to save his own son? But he's innocent, Kelly. Martin, my son is innocent. He was convicted only because he was near her apartment that night. And now there's so little time to do anything. The execution is set for midnight, and it's already... No, already. No! No! I'm sorry, Cabot. It's all right. My son... No! Traveller again. Enjoy our little trip. Too bad about poor Walter Cabot, wasn't it? Such a brilliant man. But his own intrigue sent the one person he loved to the electric chair. As the city all clocked down midnight, Walter Cabot must have heard his partner's warning. And it's no such thing as a perfect crime. The murder always overlooks something. If there any sense in your contemplating murder, I'd suggest you stop and think it over. As you find your sorrow, let it soon. Oh, you're getting off here. I'm sorry. But perhaps we'll meet again soon. On your third chapter, 67, the final chapter of this series of The Mysterious Traveller, tales of the strange and terrifying. In tonight's story, Murder Goes Free, Ed Latimer played Walter Cabot, Tony Barrett played Martin, and Irene Winston played Diana. The Mysterious Traveller is written by Bob Arthur and David Colgan, and original music is played by Henry Silverne. The entire production is under the direction of Jock McGregor. Traveller is presented from our New York studios. This concludes the present series of The Mysterious Traveller. Next Saturday evening at 9.30 Eastern wartime over most of these stations, Mutual will present a new program, Radio's first nationwide audience participation mystery series. It's called Calling All Detectives. We invite you to be with us for Calling All Detectives next Saturday night at 9.30 Eastern wartime. This is a Mutual Broadcasting System.


George Powers grid is interconnected so during restoration even if you don't see a crew working on your street know that oftentimes repairs may be required by our crews up to several miles away in order to restore power to your entire area.


Yn mynd i'n fawr, mae'n meddiw i'ch gweithio'r crisis wylau. Mae'r cyffredin iawn ac yn ystyried i'r gweithio'r hwn. Yn ymwneud hynny, mae'n meddwl yn fawr o'r llwythau. Ac mae'r meddwl yn angen i'n bwysigio'n meddwl yn dweud yn ymgyrch. A yna, Boris Johnson yn ymddweud yr aelod yn gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio, I'm assuming most people here know what that is. It's the latest United Nations climate change conference. Boris Johnson commenced the opening ceremony. That will commence two weeks of negotiations. Business leaders will be there engaged in private negotiations. There will be press conferences and panel discussions. As well as business leaders proposing their ideas on how to solve the climate crisis. So it shows you the class nature of the event. Like I was saying, in the last five, six, it's hard to put an exact number on it, but since I started off as a climate activist, I was very much kind of a weirdo on the side as a student. Nowadays everyone on a university campus is deeply concerned about this question. It's a fundamental acceleration in events and with that consciousness. Under pressure from these events, the ruling class themselves are starting to wake up to the problem, but it has its limitations. They've been putting the issue further and further forward on their agenda. I think one of the main reasons is the pace of events, even in the most developed parts of the world now, places like Germany and we saw in New York as well, extreme flooding that would in the past have been considered a one in a hundred year event or something. These are now becoming regular occurrences with the dramatic acceleration of the rate of change that affects weather systems and all the old patterns are being thrown out. This has extreme economic and political consequences that the ruling class can't afford to ignore anymore. The rural population of Bangladesh, for example, or North India have been getting devastated by floods every monsoon season due to a lack of infrastructure. Obviously nothing is done about that. That's only set to get worse, but when it starts hitting places like New York, they really can't afford to ignore it anymore. For this reason, there is a lot of hype around this COP26 conference. We've seen this hype before, so we shouldn't be drawn into any illusions. That's the first conclusion. In the mainstream media, COP21 had a similar amount of hype that was in 2015, and that was celebrated as a bit of a turning point in the struggle against climate change. The general scientific consensus of the time and still today is that in order to avoid irreversible damage and unlivable circumstances, the global temperature has to be limited to 1.5 degrees higher than it was before the Industrial Revolution. They were the targets adopted by the Paris Agreement at the COP21 summit in 2015. Some people are therefore placing all of their desperate hopes on these kinds of targets. I've heard that it's a code red for humanity. People are desperate to believe that something can be done about it. Other people see it as too little, too late, and I think that is a bit closer to the truth. Not in general, but I mean by the capitalist system itself, the representatives of capital. They're only switched on now when this problem has been evident for a long time. It's now that it's hitting their pockets and their political careers that they're switching onto it. The COP21 summit, although it was celebrated as a turning point, very little has actually been done. Things are actually getting worse, I would say. Emissions have not gone down apart from due to the pandemic, which created a collapse in demand temporarily. Geopolitical tensions are one of the biggest barriers here. The main reason that the Paris Agreement targets were revered as such a breakthrough at the time was this claim in the media that Barack Obama and Xi Jinping and China and Putin in Russia, they'd all, for the good of people on the planet, put aside the competition, the rivalry between the three greatest imperialist powers in the world. But this was obviously an illusion, an illusion which was completely shattered exactly one year later when Donald Trump won the election, campaigning on a promise to withdraw from the climate agreement, a promise on which he delivered, unfortunately, I suppose. But the point is that it completely exposed how fragile these kinds of promises or agreements between the world leaders are. Geopolitical tensions are increasing and this wasn't just the result of the volatile personality of Donald Trump as an individual. There was that, but all he did was lay bare the existing tensions between America and China, for example. This kind of protectionist policy is becoming generalized. It actually existed under Obama, the beginnings of a trade war with China. Trump spoke very openly about it and that increased the tension massively. The same trade war and the same protectionist approach still exists under Biden even though he signed the United States back up to the Paris Agreement. This really exposed the bitterness of the trade war going on between China and the US. The European Union and the US are also engaged in a bit of a trade war. Within the EU you can see extreme tension as well with Britain breaking out. That's going to completely disrupt the already broken policies of things like carbon permits, which I won't go into too much detail on this because it's a rubbish policy anyway. But it was basically the idea that you could get permits to emit carbon. These ended up getting exchanged and speculated like stocks and now with Britain crashing out of the EU they can just dump loads of permits on, which will increase supply and completely disrupt the pricing of them and stuff. It's a rubbish policy. Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that even the most dedicated defenders of globalism and liberalism, mouthpieces like Emmanuel Macron for example, since the crisis in 2008, the stagnation of the world market, that's basically what's been the driving force for this economic nationalism, this protectionism.  If you look at the kind of exchanges between him and Britain at the moment, it's pretty clear how strong the tensions are. They're acting like they're about to go to war. So yeah, all of this just goes to show how fragile these promises and targets really are. It was hard enough for them to come up with agreements. Any talk of an actual practical plan, a united plan of action is absolutely meaningless in this context. Two key features of the capitalist epoch are private property of the means of production and the nation state. And I'd say these are the two biggest barriers to us having any kind of global plan with regards to climate change or anything else for that matter. The United Nations, they launched a document in 2020 called Race to Zero. And I think in their own words it expresses quite succinctly exactly what I'm trying to explain. They say breakthroughs cannot happen if individual entities work in isolation from one another. The challenges of competition and inertia often deter ambition where individual actors cannot make the first move without putting themselves at a distinct disadvantage in the near term. That's not my words, that's the United Nations basically explaining that private property and the nation state and the competition of the market is the main barrier to any kind of progress on this question. Obviously the United Nations is a tool of capitalism of the biggest imperialist powers and for that reason it owes its very existence to those imperialist powers. And so without wanting to completely throw in the towel and say there's nothing we can do about this, it doesn't want to do that but it also can't look beyond capitalism to which it depends on for its existence. It can't imagine another way of doing things so it just has to resort to delusional false optimism. This is the same document, I'll quote again. The transition to net zero will occur through exponential change. We know this because it has happened before in every major industrial disruption. It will happen again with decarbonisation. Technologies in new markets often grow on exponential curves rather than in straight lines. Different actors across different sectors in different geographies and economies start to support the transition and the positive feedback between them will raise confidence and increase demand and investment along every stage of the value chain will make it systemic. Is it just me or does that sound absolutely delusional? It's the blind faith in those kinds of market forces which has led us to the precipice we find ourselves on now. But they have no other option. There's nothing else that the United Nations or capitalism can offer. All they can do is hope. They're praying for a new long period of economic growth even though none of the symptoms point in that direction. I'm hoping that a regulation here and a tariff there will inspire the whole of the economy to revolutionise itself into a zero carbon transition. It's complete blind faith basically. And we don't really have time to just wait for a period of growth in the economy. This is a time, a very time sensitive question. It's an existential question. Nothing short of a complete transformation of the whole global economy is what's required here. Probably the biggest change that we've ever seen in the shortest time we've ever seen. Nothing short of that will do. As it stands, 84% of the world's primary energy consumption still comes from fossil fuels. Only around 20% of final energy consumption is produced by electricity at this point. Obviously the most pressing task, that means so much of the rest of it is still combustion engines essentially. One of the most important things then is to electrify every aspect of the economy we can and provide it by renewable energy. Where there is still need for combustion engines, there are alternatives as well. Things like green ammonia, green hydrogen. If 20% of final energy consumption is provided by electricity, you'd need five times that roughly to meet, if you could electrify everything, to meet the total energy demand. Can we provide that by renewable energy? Of course we can, technologically, it's 100% possible. In 2019, the International Energy Agency, the IEA, put together a report called Offshore Wind Outlook 2019. This is just the potential of wind power alone. The report concluded that with high quality resources available in most major markets, offshore wind has the potential to generate more than 420,000 terawatt hours per year worldwide. This is more than 18 times global electricity demand today. 18 times just by wind that discounts any areas where average wind speeds are below 10 miles per hour or something. It discounts geological fault lines where it would be risky to build them. It discounts shipping routes that it might disrupt. The technological potential is absolutely there. But on the basis of capitalism, such a transformation within the required timeframe is impossible, I would say, unfortunately. The current economic climate is distinguished by chronic under-investment. Obviously, a transformation like that requires a huge amount of investment. We don't have time to sit around and wait for an upswing, hope that the investment comes. There has been some increase in investment, people will tell you this. We need to arm ourselves to explain the truth. There has been some increase in investment, but the current level still does fall far too short. Don't take my word for it. The International Energy Agency again said that in 2020, clean energy investments by the oil and gas industry accounted for only 1% of total capital expenditure. The biggest energy companies, 1% of their investment is going into renewables. In 2020, that did increase to 4%. But again, the same document says that the $750 billion that is expected to be spent on clean energy technologies in 2020 remains far below what is required in climate-driven scenarios. They've also stated that to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Clean energy investment worldwide would need to more than triple by 2030 to around $4 trillion per year. $4 trillion per year. It's a huge amount of money and we're falling far too short. At this rate, it wouldn't even reach half that by 2030. 2020, last year, was also supposed to be the first year of climate financing. Climate financing refers to a pledge made in 2009, I think, where the world's wealthiest countries agreed to donate 100 billion every year to the world's poorer countries for the sake of investment. A tackle climate change agreement was 2009. I think it was supposed to be from the year 2020 to 2025, 100 billion per year. They fell 20 billion short in the first year. A whole fifth of that they didn't manage. Again, shows the chronic lack of investment and also the incapacity in terms of international relations to actually act in a united manner. The same problem of investment exists in the key industrial sectors too. Like I said, some things aren't or they're more difficult to electrify. Some pioneering projects here and there, they give us a glimpse of the technological potential that exists. But there is again no sign of a genuine transition. In steelworks, for example, which contributes to 8% of global CO2 emissions every year. There are zero-carbon alternatives using green ammonia in new modern DRI furnaces instead of the carbon-intensive coke that is used in blast furnaces traditionally. This summer, I think it was, the first full-scale zero-carbon steel plant is underway at the cost of 1 billion euros for one steel plant. So you can see the amount of investment that would actually be required. This needs to be rolled out globally with a huge urgency. But there's two reasons that this will not happen. The first is that a huge amount of capital is already invested in existing infrastructure, in existing blast furnaces. No capitalist is going to just give up on that and leave that factory idle or just put that blast furnace to one side and invest in a new one until they've extracted every single penny of profit that they can from the capital they've already invested. That would be bad business. Secondly, there is already a huge excess capacity in steel production for the level of demand for steel. We can already produce too much steel. So there's no real new market for new investors to bother venturing into with this new technology. Again, don't take my word for it. I've explained in an OECD report in 2019 and I quote, it takes years to plan to get permits for to finance and to build a steel plant. Once built, they can last for 25 to 50 years with proper maintenance. The current oversupply of steel plants will also naturally serve to slow the development of newer, more innovative facilities. Potentially on the basis of a profit driven economy. This will not happen is what the OECD is saying. Even in the case of this new zero carbon steel work, the question of profit could mean that it is for nothing after all. The company in the small print of its press release said that should green hydrogen not be available at affordable rates by the end of 2025, they'll just use natural gas in the furnaces anyway. So we can see that the question of prices and the question of market forces is the biggest barrier. Profit is the raison d'etre of capital. It's the only reason it exists and functions. And if faced with the choice of protecting the planet or polluting, well not if faced with the choice, they are faced with this choice on a regular basis, losing profits on the one hand or polluting the planet on the other, the capitalist must always choose the latter. It would be bad business not to. So I think that deals with the question of investment. And in particular the market and the volatile fluctuations of prices are throwing up huge barriers to tackling climate change. That don't seem like they can be circumvented. The capitalist class is at the moment, it is pulling out of fossil fuel investment to some degree. It's spooked basically by regulations and public opinion and now come in quite quickly and heating up.  And so they are withdrawing from fossil fuel investments, but that doesn't really necessarily mean a corresponding increase in investment in renewable energy. And that's the problem we're seeing. In short they're withdrawing from the fossil fuel sector faster than they can provide clean energy. And so there's supply shocks in the energy market which is causing the price of energy to skyrocket. And the rise in the price of fuel affects the prices of commodities across the whole market because it is fundamental to the production and distribution of all commodities in the economy at the moment. And this threatens generalised inflation. And so instead of incentivising a move to green investment it can have the opposite effect. You might think that withdrawing from fossil fuel is good. But with a generalised increase in prices materials like steel and copper and aluminium and lithium for batteries they're all absolutely essential to proper green investment in that kind of technology. But they're currently very carbon intensive to produce. That's pushing the price up further. And so this last minute frenzy of regulations and tariffs on carbon emissions is actually raising prices and disincentivising investment in the green sector. Thank you. This is being referred to as greenflation. An article in the Financial Times explained that trying to shut down the old economy too fast threatens to push the price of building a cleaner one out of reach. So for bourgeois policy makers basically tying themselves in knots every single way they turn they find contradictions in the market that just blow up in their faces. An article in The Economist has also highlighted this saying that there are grave problems with the transition to clean energy power. Legal threats, investor pressure and fear of regulations have led investment in fossil fuels to slump by 40% since 2015. And so the result is economic turmoil. It's actually a step backwards for decarbonising and a further increase in those geopolitical tensions. Since May the price of a basket of oil, coal and gas has soared by 95%. Britain has turned the old coal-fired stations on that have been shut down for a long time. This is what I mean by a step backwards in some places. American petrol prices have tripled. Blackouts have engulfed China and India. And according to The Financial Times, Vladimir Putin has just reminded Europe that supply of fuel relies on Russian goodwill which terrifies them given the tension in geopolitical relations. So it's not simply a matter of the scale of the investment, which is all too low anyway. It's a question of the manner of the transition. And under capitalism the transition cannot be a managed one. As a result of this and the inability of a coherent plan, nonetheless the biggest world leaders are putting forward their own disjointed investment plans. And this is all interwoven with a bit of rhetoric around climate change. So a very interesting phenomenon in some cases is the return of Keynesian economics, where the state is offering huge amounts of money that it plans to invest to desperately try and stimulate this period of growth. The Chinese government, let's look at some of these investment plans. The Chinese government has declared it will reach peak emissions in 2030 to then reach net zero by 2060. This is actually not in accordance with the Paris Accord. But even if they managed it, that would still be progress. They've also pledged to withdraw overseas investment in coal power plants. The Chinese economy, Chinese industry paints a very contradictory picture. On the one hand it is the largest producer of solar panels, for example, but it's also the world's largest emitter. It burns more coal than any other. It burns 50% of the world's coal that is burnt. But some people, nonetheless, they have a bit more faith in China's ability to decarbonise than the other large economies. And this is due to the heavy involvement of the state. I think this is part of the reason where the faith in Keynesianism is coming from again. The Chinese state for the last decade or so has undergone the largest programme of Keynesian spending that the world has ever seen. And the state is an enormous state, and it dictates to business in a way that, for a time, resembled some sort of state planning of the economy. But this illusion is being shattered now. The Chinese economy is running into extremely deep contradictions. There's a whole talk on this at some point this weekend. Debt has skyrocketed, both public and private debt. Firms are beginning to declare bankruptcy this year. And this has shattered the illusion of any kind of planning in the chaos. It's failing. It is a capitalist market economy. And it reveals that China is no better equipped to meet its targets than somewhere like the United States. So how does progress look in the United States? Not very good, I'm afraid. The White House has reasserted its goal to decarbonise by 2050. So it's talking the talk. But in the face of fuel shortages and rising prices, in the same week it asked OPEC to increase oil production. OPEC is like an international cartel of oil producing countries. And the White House is pleading for them to step up production to bring prices down. So again a very contradictory picture. The US is also set to burn more coal this year than it did last year. Biden's $2.6 trillion investment plan, which sounds very big. There's nowhere near enough to carry out the level of infrastructure transformation needed anyway. But even this figure of $2.6 trillion has been absolutely slashed less than a quarter in order to get it through Congress. There was another bill called the Clean Electricity Performance Program, the CEPP bill. This is also being met by extremely fierce resistance in the Senate by the most staunch defenders of oil and gas interests there. So it shows you even someone like Biden who, to some extent, he's on board. I think he actually does. These people don't want chaos, they want stability. But their hands are tight. There's nothing they can do in the current economic climate. And due to the contradictions of capitalism itself. So in China and in the US, and to some extent in the European Union, you've got these Keynesian-based spending programmes. You've got financial schemes to try and incentivise investment on the one hand, disincentivise investment in the fossil fuel sector on the other hand. But as I've said before, there is absolutely no balance to this policy. What's the word? Pulling investment in one sector doesn't necessarily mean increasing it in the other. Because capital will only invest if it is certain of a profit. And the whole economic situation is one of stagnating profits and a chronic lack of investment. If you think about it, during the pandemic, this is one of the clearest examples, you had a complete slump in the economy. And the various states of the world printed money and lobbed it at the cap at this class, so-called stimulus. There was absolutely no stimulus, it was lack of support. Investment in the private sector remains completely low. So I think that deals, I spent too much time talking about the rubbish policies of the bourgeoisie. What is there on the left? On the left, the dominant slogan these days is the Green New Deal. So what does that boil down to? I would say it's still based on Keynesian economics. It has some extremely progressive, well, it's actually a very enigmatic thing. People from Biden, clear representatives of the capitalist class, all the way over to the Corbyn movement are using this slogan and obviously they have very different meanings by it. In the UK, Labour for a Green New Deal, they base themselves on the class to some extent, which is very good. They want to work within the massive organisations of the working class to get this to be the adopted programme in the Labour movement. But what is the programme? The demands are largely progressive, things we would absolutely support, things like expanding public ownership, nationalisation of energy, nationalisation of water, railways, a big emphasis on well-paid and unionised jobs, so far so good, this is all very good stuff, green housing standards. We'll support any reforms that increase the living standards of the working class, but we're also interested in raising class consciousness and exposing the limits of certain programmes. This is an existential crisis and we do not have time to go down blind alleys that we've already explored in the past. And there is actually nothing new about the Green New Deal. It's talking about nationalisation, which of course we support. But these nationalisations, it's limited to certain sectors to kind of be run as an appendage to the market economy as a whole. And that, as can be seen, even somewhere like China where the state is so big and for a while it did seem it dictated to capital, we now see it's actually the other way around. The state does not dictate to capital. Capital dictates to the state when the state is an appendage to the market economy and that unfortunately is the limit of the Green New Deal. It fails to resolve the same old problems. Firstly, the capital will still dominate the global economy. And secondly, that the global economy is in a period of slump and government spending can't create a period of capitalist growth. The market dictates to the state and not the other way around. That's the most important point that we should hammer home. And not only do we need to reduce emissions to limit the damage, but we also need to be able to adapt to the changes that are going to happen. There's a certain delay between what we pollute and the way it affects the climate and the weather changes that come with that. We already see in those changes happening now and it's going to continue to happen even if you rent carbon zero tomorrow, which we won't.  It's not just the question of the climate changing and the rock we live on. It has social repercussions. So from a human perspective, it's a human problem. From a working class perspective, it is a class question, the question of climate change and how we're going to deal with it. Climatic changes are already wreaking havoc on the working class and the poor across the world. The rich will continue to be able to afford air conditioning. They'll be the first to get fresh water and food. They'll be able to move house to places that are well defended from flooding or rising sea levels and so forth. They'll even pay private firefighting companies and this sort of thing. Thank you. Whereas the poor will have their homes destroyed, there will be absolutely no security. They'll be forced to move from where they're from. There'll be shortages in food. There'll be droughts. There'll be crop failures. This will affect the poor and the working class. And so just as the capitalist class, it can't plan a transition to zero carbon. It's also patently clear that they're not going to provide a world worth living in for the working class when they can't already. I've solved the problems of today. How are they ever going to solve the problems of tomorrow? I gave the example of the flooding that happens every year in Bangladesh. Do we really believe that the state is going to actually do anything about that? That the capitalist class is actually going to come to their aid just because the problems they've been experiencing for years and years and years are getting worse and worse and worse? Clearly that is utopian. So the point is these are not new issues. The results that come from climate change, they're things like hunger, they're things like displacement, where obviously migration is not an issue, but it becomes a social issue because the working class are pitted against each other to fight over crumbs. Where you get droughts, for example, in one area, you might get a crop shortage. For example, in the 21st century, I think we should take the question of food security, for example. It's a particularly poignant one with relation to climate change. It's a fundamental human need on the one hand, but also it's extremely directly susceptible to changes in the climate, the production of food. When we look at that question, it's disgraceful. In the 21st century, there are millions of people facing starvation and this number is increasing. This year, 1 million people face starvation in Madagascar as a result of climate-related crop failure. Earlier in the summer in Kenya, as well, due to a drought, there was a famine. On a local level, people's access to food is becoming less reliable due to climate change. Despite the fact that there is enough food produced on a global scale to feed 10 billion people, which is obviously the world population is 7.0. It's a huge surplus that we're able to produce. None of this starvation is due to shortage on a global scale. The problem is not one of production. It's not profitable to feed the poor when they can't afford to pay the market price. On a global scale, there is surplus. The task at hand is to redistribute where we find unevenness. This is a question of climate change. The problems facing the working class as a result of climate change are basically the same social problems that they face under capitalism anyway, but exacerbated. We need to redistribute where we find unevenness. In order to do that, we need a democratic plan of production and distribution. That's quite clear. This has to be based on collective ownership of the means of production. If you want democracy in production and distribution, you need democracy in the workplace. That's where it has to start. Worker's democracy and workers' control so much. In order to do this, the largest agricultural companies in the world need to be brought under public ownership and workers' control. Cargill, for example, you might not have heard of it, but Cargill is the largest agricultural company in the world. It's responsible for 25% of all US grain exports. It's not just operating in the US. It operates in almost 70 countries and it employs 166,000 workers. This enormous monster of a company is 90% owned by one individual. Companies like this are absolutely ripe for expropriation by the working class. The sacred property of one man is the destruction of millions of lives around the world. That is a morality we absolutely reject. Today's global network of agricultural companies, taken into workers' control, would allow for agriculture's abundance, which does exist, to be used for all of humanity's needs, to be distributed to every corner of the world, while also restoring the world's forests. A lot of these agricultural companies are the main culprits for the decimation of rainforests like the Amazon. It would also allow for this to be done while protecting the insect population. A lot of these companies make a huge amount of profits through selling extremely toxic pesticides that there would be absolutely no need for a worker's run international agricultural system to actually use. They just don't want to give up on that commodity. This obviously would need to be combined with a centrally planned international intermodal network of shipping routes for effective distribution. This is entirely possible as well. The monopolisation that you see in the shipping sector makes it completely ripe for expropriation too. Between the years 2000 and 2018, the 10 largest container companies increased their market share from 12% to 82% of all container companies. 10 companies, in other words, would need to be taken into public ownership, and you would have almost the entirety of the world's shipping containers under a centralised democratic plan. Obviously, a programme like this cannot just be carried out. It can't fall from the sky. It can't just be implemented by any politician who fancies it. Obviously, only a mass movement, and the mass movement led by the working class, only that can carry out this transformation. That is what we base ourselves on. They are the methods we base ourselves on and they are the traditions we base ourselves on. There are these movements. This isn't a fantasy. It's based on history, and it's based on the present day. There are these movements all over the world. Let's take the example of India, which is in the face of a complete crisis over the last year or so on many fronts. The situation in India absolutely demands a situation like this. There was a movement to match it, comrades. That's the most important point. Look at what's happened in India over the last year. Cargill, that same company, is actually the largest buyer. Sorry, it's the largest private buyer. The state is the largest buyer. Cargill is the largest private buyer of grain from the farmers in India, and it is a huge threat to their livelihoods. It's trying to squeeze them from the market, basically, by becoming the dominant buyer, getting rid of any price regulations, squeezing them out so they can take over Indian agriculture. Over the last year, as a result of this, millions of Indian farmers have been mobilising in a historic uprising. I mean millions. They got in their tractors from all different villages, and they drove on Delhi and surrounded the capital. This was compounded by the largest general strike ever seen in history. 250 million Indian workers came out on strike. Despite the hesitancy of the trade union leaders, they did this despite the leadership, not thanks to the lack of leadership of the workers' organisations. In the face of such a movement, a movement like that, it would have been entirely possible for the leadership of the working class to have taken decisive action to unite these movements, give them a political spearhead, and transform Indian society forever. This could have also led the way to tackling climate change for the world's working class. India is actually the second-highest burner of coal after China. Obviously, with a sixth of the world's population in India, it's an economy of huge importance if we're going to tackle climate change. India will have to play a huge part in that. On the question of food security, 40% of all food produced in India is wasted. The government has silos that are owned by the Indian government that are sat full of grain reserves and yet you still have millions of people starving in India this year. There was a hunger crisis. In the face of that movement we saw last year, if the Communist Party of India, for example, was even remotely communist, or if the leaders of the trade unions had a shred of militancy to them, in the face of a movement like that with proper leadership, who is to say that the mass movement couldn't have swept away the Modi government, brought down the government? Who is to say it couldn't have formed a worker and farmers government? This is entirely possible, and that's why the role of leadership is so important. That's the task we face, comrades. In those circumstances, the country's coal plants and the rest of its industrial sectors could have been taken under worker's control. Cargill's food processing plants could have been taken under public control. Their huge command over the purchasing and distributing and exporting of Indian grain could have been taken into public ownership. And the farmers, on this basis, could have formed committees and negotiated with this centralised workers controlled plan of production. And they could have sold their grain to the industrial centres for a far better price for themselves and for the workers by cutting out the middleman, like Cargill and these other private companies, which are ripping them both off. Cool. And on this basis, those industrial centres could have geared their production to providing equipment to the farmers, improving the level of productivity, improving sustainability practices in their farming, connecting them to the rail network, providing an electrified network that reaches every village in India, providing an electricity grid that does so, transferring the production of that electricity from coal to renewables. It was an Indian company that is behind this zero carbon steel plant, so the technology exists, the potential exists. On this basis, the surplus food that is produced in India could have been shipped across the Indian Ocean to Madagascar, to Kenya to feed these people where the starvation is happening, reach out an arm and ask them to join a new federation with the Indian state. This is the type of perspective comrades that matches up to the situation that we live in, both in terms of the climate crisis and the political turbulence, the potential is there. This kind of perspective, though, unfortunately, is lacking from policies like the Green New Deal, and that is what we are fighting for. It's not a utopian dream. It's a very real and very necessary possibility. The India's farmers movement and general strike is probably the largest movement in history. The climate crisis and the coronavirus pandemic have laid bare more than anything else I can ever think of, and have laid bare the need for an international plan of production. It was so clear that that was needed and so clear that that was impossible on the basis of capitalism. The demand for the expropriation of the biggest monopolies and industries should be on the order of the day, and yet it's not. There's a complete lack of leadership on the left of the labour movement. You could not ask for more clear opportunities for these, but left reformism, and this is the problem, it cannot help but squander these opportunities, despite the best intentions, because it cannot see past capitalism any more than the ruling class itself can. It doesn't believe another way of organising society as possible. That is the idea we have to put forward. Raise the class consciousness, raise the consciousness of the working class in their own power, in their own history, and in their own future. In other words, the main barrier to tackling the climate crisis is not a technological one, but a political one. The only social force that can strip away that barrier is the organised working class, and time is running out. The movement of the working class needs to be armed with the correct ideas, a sense of its history, a sense of its future, a sense of its power. And the reformist illusions, even those of the left reformists, unfortunately, don't really lead down those blind alleys that I was talking about. In 1938, Leon Trotsky wrote the following words. Without a socialist revolution in the next historical period, a catastrophe threatens the whole culture of humankind. The turn is now to the proletariat. The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership. It was true back then in the face of World War II, which was a brutal industrial slaughter, and that did follow due to the failure of the revolutionary leadership. And it's true now in the face of the climate catastrophe. So to manage our resources for the needs of the people and the planet alike, we need a democratic plan of production and distribution. The task at hand is to prepare for the revolutionary events that are already coming and will continue to come in the next period because we can't afford to squander these ones. The task is the preparation for the seizure of power by the working class. This and this alone, the only thing I can see that can throw the doors wide open for the next great task facing us, which is the harmonisation of humanity with the rest of the natural world. It is possible. Let's get to work. Thank you, comrades.