Is there anyone actually at the other one? Surely. It's a British player. There's got to be Brits over there. Second serve. Sina to the forehand of Nolay. Backhand out from Sina goes into the forehand of Nolay, who hits it long. Sina does his job. Yannick, Sina asks Djokovic the question, can you force a fifth? It's nearly full now. Yeah, I'd expect that. Okay. I feel like Brits don't give Norrie any credit. I think Wimbledon, I mean Wimbledon have just buried Norrie, even though he's their only hope at this stage. They've not given him any respect this week. The fact that he hasn't played, he's either playing on center court when another big name is playing. Like he was playing on center court when, I think, Kyrie or Sidney Pass was on. So he got missed. And now he's playing on center court when Djokovic is playing, so he gets missed. So he's playing on court one. I just think, yeah, they're really given, they're not really given Norrie any love. And when this tournament started, he was their best chance, possibly, because he's their best player. He's their best player. But he's not even British, I guess. But is anyone ever really anything? Norrie needs the support, yeah. No one cares about Norrie. It's crazy. Like he won Indian Worlds. Yeah. We love Norrie. Yeah, I know the British public, I'm sure love Norrie, but the fact that Wimbledon aren't giving him any love, that's what's sad. Is it, you know, Draper, you know, Raducanu, Heather Watson, you know, all these other players getting more, more press and more love than Norrie.  We're going to put Djokovic on the centre court, sorry. Even when he's the final Brit. If they're ever going to be biased towards British players, you should have done that in the quarter-finals. Give him the main court. Shove Nole and Sinner off another court. You know, be biased for once at the right time. You know, he's 30, loves to come back to this. Serve, down the tier, the back end of Sinner, pointed from Nole into the forehand of Sinner. Again to the back end of Nole, slices it, Sinner with the volley, puts it away. Nice work from Yannick Sinner. 30, love. Sorry, 30, 15. 30, 15, what? Yeah. Sorry, my bad, 30, 15. As Djokovic serves into the net. Second serve. Serve goes to the forehand of Sinner, back in there from Djokovic is wide. 30, all. 30, all. Sinner's down two breaks of serve. So it's still a long way back. Is Djokovic pulling a kereos here and just losing this game so he can break Sinner in the next? First there's a fault. Second serve. Second serve into the forehand of Sinner, back in there from Djokovic to the back end of Sinner into the drop shot of Nole. That goes into the net. And Sinner gets a break back point to get one back. To get one back. Okay. Djokovic was up 4-1 in the first set. And you can see the score on the screen. What happened there? He lost at 7-5. Serve. A let from Nole. 30-40. If you're just joining us, what a match. What a match.  As Djokovic serves down to the forehand of Sinner, back in there from Djokovic, into the back end of Sinner. Again to the back end of Nole. Down the line. That's a great shot. Sinner gets on the forehand stretch. Nole just gets that one. Sinner with a slice. In to the forehand of Nole. Sinner for the forehand. Volley from Nole is too good. Sinner's down. Sinner's down. Oh, he's grabbed his leg, Sinner. Oh, no. Oh, no. Sinner's gone down. Like Zverev. Sinner's gone down like Zverev.  Yannick Sinner. Nole's helping him up. I don't know if that's the right move to get back up and put weight on it. Sinner's gone down. He's up. He's on his feet, but he's going to walk to the chair just. Okay. It didn't look like much when he kind of fell, but he's going to be okay. He's all right. He's back up. He's back up. So what happened? He ran. He went to slide, but no, sorry, he slipped. His foot slipped as he was lunging forward. His foot just went wobbly and he just kind of, I don't think he didn't roll anything or he just tweaked his leg. He's all right though. He's back up and playing. Thank God. It's no Zverev situation. All right. He's back. That was scary. Nole with a good serve. Sinner returns. For now, Nole to the back of Sinner into the front of Nole. For now, Sinner is long and it's advantage. Nole set point where two sets all score line and going to the going to the fifth to take it to the fifth. Yannick Sinner under pressure here as Nole serves a fault. Second serve. Second serve. Out wide to the back of Sinner. Back in there from Nole again in the net. Back to Deuce. Back to Deuce. Yannick Sinner trying to get one of these breaks back as Nole serves. Out wide to the front of Sinner, but it's a let from Nole. First serve again as Nole serves. Add Deuce. Out wide as a fault from Nole. Second serve. Second serve. Serving out of the front of Sinner. For now from Nole down the line to the back of Sinner into the front of Nole who hits it in the net and Sinner gets a break back point again to get one back. To get one back. Advantage Sinner. Now he's down two breaks of serve and I mean he's got to be thinking a little bit about the fifth set potentially. Advantage Sinner served down the tee to the front of Sinner. Fonovan Djokovic at the back of Sinner who hits it long. Nole hits it. Sorry Sinner hits it long and we're back to Deuce. Back to Deuce. Seven minute service game by the way. No back Djokovic. Serves. Down the tee Sinner hits it out. Lovely serve from Nole and he gets a set point for the second time to take us to the fifth. To take us to a fifth set. Nole serves. Down the tee Sinner returns back enough from Nole into the forehand of Sinner. Again to the back of Nole to the backhand of Sinner on the stretch. That's a winner from Sinner. This is going to be all finished. What a shot. And we're back to Deuce. Wow. Yannick Sinner. Not done yet. Not done yet. Djokovic serves again. Out wide to the front of Sinner and that's in the net from Sinner. Nole gets a third. Gets a third set point to take us to a fifth. No back. Djokovic serves. Down the tee and that goes out. Djokovic wins a set and we're going five. We're going five. The show goes on. In the words of Leonardo DiCaprio the show goes on. Now Yannick Sinner is leaving the court for a bathroom break. Smart. Smart from Yannick Sinner. He's waiting for the attendant but Yannick Sinner is taking a poo poo break. That's good to know. That's smart from Sinner. He needs to reset. He needs to reset in that set by the way. Eight winners from Djokovic. Eight on four stairs. Not great but obviously good enough to win. Seven winners from Sinner. Ten on four stairs. Sinner needs to find that first, second set form. He needs to find that first and second set form again. All right. Yannick Sinner. Can he... I mean it would be more impressive if he doesn't now, right? It would be more impressive if Yannick Sinner wins this match now because Nole has all the momentum. All the momentum. If Sinner was somehow to win the fifth set now, it would be more impressive, I think, than winning it in three or four. It'd be a monumental win if you can get it now. But man, oh man, Novak Djokovic is doing Novak Djokovic things. Am I right? So, let's talk about the other match that's happening right now that nobody's watching. Nori is down a set against Goffan, but it's even in the second. So, winner of this match will play the winner of that match. Earlier today, we had Tatiana Maria bidding Niemeyer in the old German battle between the unseeded Germans. So, Maria won that one. And Honster Boris coming on after this. So, stay tuned. All right, let's answer some questions. Let's answer some questions. What's up, everybody? How are we doing? How are we feeling? More importantly, I bet over 46 and a half games. Does that, does it reach? I don't know. Quick math? Maybe, yes. I don't know. What is it? Six times? Yeah, it would be over 46 and a half, surely. What do you need the final set to be? Well, seven plus five is 12, plus eight is 20, plus nine is 29, plus eight is 37. That's all you need a 6-4, do you? Oh, that's a high over, really? 46 and a half? Jeez.  It's crazy. What else we got? Honster Boris coming on straight after this. So, don't go anywhere. Yes, I have to turn down the sound of the Kyrus match. Sorry, I missed that London lady. That was two. Flew off the screen before I could read it. You think about Kyrus News on court? Again, I don't have enough information and I haven't had time, obviously, throughout this match to do any research. But all I know at the moment is that Nick Kyrus has had been accused of assault and he's going to court next month in Canberra. So, I don't know any other details than that. If you send them to me on Twitter, link in the chat. Follow me on Twitter if you haven't already. I'll be able to kind of read through it, but I don't know anything more than that. And we'll talk about it after this match. In the next match, we might have a chat about it. This match is way too interesting to ramble on about Keegs at this point. All right, let me know in the chat who's winning this set, by the way. Who's winning this set? As Sinner serves first, he comes in with a smash from the baseline now with a four and instead, Djokovic on the stretch gets it, back in our center, into the backhand of Nolay, back in every center again, to the backhand of Nolay, to the backhand of Sinner, into the four of Nolay, four and every center again goes wide. No back, Djokovic is just too quick right now. He's found his mojo again. I love 15. Now, Yannick Sinner has to win these first games. If he goes down a break early, that is going to be devastating. He has to hold, the first part of this set is the most important for Sinner. Got to hold serve early. Can't go down a break like he did in the third or the fourth. Okay, first there's a fault.  Nolay doesn't go for it. 15 all. What a shot from Yannick Sinner. 15 all, 15 all. Again, big shout out to everybody who's watching.  Maybe you've been here in and out of the streams, but I'll tell you what, we'll take you through every single one of these points in the next. Who knows how long? Half an hour, 45 minutes to an hour. As we're to find out a fine rally, and that goes into the front of Sinner, backhand out from Djokovic, into the backhand of Sinner, who shanks it into the backhand of Djokovic, backhand out from Sinner, again to the backhand of Nolay, into the backhand of Sinner, again to the fine of Djokovic. Down the line, now Sinner on the stretch. Has been a fine out down the line from Nolay in the net. 30-15. And the crowd goes wild. I've been the crowd to have gone for Sinner in this final set. They were obviously with Sinner at the start. They kind of moved to Djokovic a little bit in the third and fourth because he was losing, but I reckon Sinner's got the crowd on his side now. Let's see if he knows how to use it though, especially against a guy who Djokovic, like look at it. As Sinner serves the big serve, 40-15. 40-15. And the crowd are trying to pump up Yannick. And Sinner's fired up as well. He's throwing the fist bumps around early. Love to see that from the young man. He knows. He's like, you know what? Four sets are done. We don't care about that. This is one set for glory. Second serve now, Sinner. Second serve into the front of Djokovic. Front of Sinner goes into the front of Djokovic. Again, to the front of Sinner. Into the backhand of Nolay. Back of Sinner's shanked. Again, to the back of Nolay, to the back of Sinner, who goes in the net. Down the line in the net from Sinner. 40-30. 40-30. 40-30. Three hours. Six minutes played. And this match has lived up to the hype. Not the way that I expected, but I mean, five sets nonetheless. Can't be unhappy with that unless you're a Djokovic or Sinner fan. Or a Rafa fan who's just lurking in the chat because you're here to celebrate the demise of your your most feared opponent, let's be honest. 40-30. The Dahl fans are probably more nervous than Sinner fans at this point. Got him. 40-30. Serve out Wilders back in Nolay. That goes wide. And Sinner wins the first game. One love. That's what he needed, Yannick. That's what he needed. And the crowd go wild as if they're watching Cam Norrie. And it's one love in the fifth. One love in the fifth. All right. Now, I want to try something in the chat here. We did this before. We want to do it again. I want you to tell me the chat was one, one word. How are you feeling right now? How are you feeling right now? Djokovic fans, Sinner fans, Tennis fans. How are you feeling? One word. One word. I'm feeling, I don't know. I'm very happy with this. I don't know. That's two words I know. Nervous, unbelievable, frustrated, crazy, excited, hype, intense, confident, pumped, thrilled, disappointed, sad, raffa, someone says. I don't think that's an emotion, but okay. Calm, strong, hopeful, anxious, sensational. What else have we got? Sleepy. Really? How are you sleepy? It's crazy. Elated, exciting, hopeful, bloated, bloated. Shit, joke. Impatient. All right. Intriguing, tantalized, hungover. Sinner hits it out, Therila.   All right. Fourth of July, got you good. Patriotic, scared, hungry, I'm hungry too. All right. Some words in the chat that I can't repeat. Cool. All right, 30 Love. As we're serving the net from, sorry, the returning the net from Sinner, 40 Love. 40 Love, by the way, thank you so much, Kathy. And also thank you, Elvaro, for becoming a member for the channel. Thank you so much. If you want to become a member, it's a dollar a month, but you don't have to at all. As we get a back-end to back-end rally now, and Djokovic hits it wide, we're going to get a, we're going to get a replay here because the challenge, I mean, the umpire just got wrong. 40 Love, they're going to replay the point. The no-lay shot was called out, but it was instantly corrected. 40 Love, serve from no-lay in the net, second serve, second serve. Served down to the fore-end of Sinner, back-end from Djokovic to the fore-end of Sinner, to the fore-end of no-lay, down the line to the back-end of Sinner, back-end from no-lay, into the fore-end of Sinner, he puts it away. Nice work, puts the short ball away. 40-15, 40-15, as Djokovic served to level things up here in the fifth. Served into the slice of Sinner, and that goes out from Sinner. One game all in the final set. One game all in the final set. Man, I'm so excited for this one. I'm so glad. When a match like this happens, you know, we always hope for these matches, don't we? We always hope that, you know, we hope that these matches happen when we see these kind of names on the, you know, clash in the draw. Sometimes we don't get it, but today we did. And I don't care who wins, because I'm already one. One all back in our back-end as that goes out from Sinner is love 15. As a tennis fan, we've already won. Oh, I've already won, unless you're a, you know, a tennis fan, well, you're lost. What are you looking for? How would you have found this if you weren't looking for tennis? Love 15. Served out by the back-end of Djokovic. Four-nil from Sinner into the open court. Djokovic on the stretch gets it. Sinner with a fore-end, down the line is too good. Lovely shot-making from Sinner, 15-all. Lovely shot-making. Yannick Sinner. This is what he did in the first set and the second set. He's got to play positive tennis, Yannick. You're not going to win this match because Djokovic is going to give it to you. You've got to take this match. By the way, anyone who says that Nole is a cheater? Sinner also had a bathroom break.  Don't be so one-sided. Come on. Sinner hits that in the net, 15-30. If you're going to call Djokovic, call Sinner a cheater too.   Second serve now for Sinner. Has a bit of a serve now. Out wide to the back end of Djokovic. Back end from Sinner. Into the back end slice of Nole. 4-0 from Sinner in the open court. Nole with a 4-1 down the line. That's a good shot. Back end from Sinner. Slice from Nole. Sinner tries to take over here. Nole with a 4-hand. That goes down the line to the back end of Sinner. That's a great shot. Nole with a slice. Sinner hesitated and he made the error. Sinner didn't charge the net. He should have come to the net quicker. He hit the back end and got, like, watched it. And then he came in and he stuffed up the volley. 15-40. Man, Sinner just, oh, he had that. He had that. 15-40. Sinner with a serve. Two break points here. And a second serve. Second serve. Serve goes to the front of Djokovic. Front end from Sinner. Into the back end of Nole. Sinner again hesitates. And Nole hits a volley. It's a wide. Oh, it just went wide. Sinner almost paid the price again for just kind of hitting a back end and walking to the net. He doesn't come to the net with urgency and he almost got passed again. Nole hit a wide. 30-40. Okay. Serve down the tee. Here's a fault. Second serve again for Sinner. Second serve in the front of Djokovic. Front end from Sinner. Into the back end of Nole. Back end of Sinner. Down to the front of Djokovic. Into the back end again of Sinner. Into the front of Nole. Sinner just can't get the ball away from Djokovic at the moment as they go back into back end. Again from Sinner. Into the back end of Djokovic. Back end of Sinner is a drop shot. And it's in the net. Novak Djokovic has the break in the fifth. Novak Djokovic takes the break in the fifth. Yannick Sinner just couldn't find a first serve when he needed it. Okay. Sinner's going to have to break back straight away. I don't think I don't think he's going to win this match unless he gets a break straight away and regains some sort of control. Questions. All right. Let's answer questions. What have we got?  So, anybody mods? Because you're just talking nonsense.  So, we don't want salty people here. All right. Game set match. Hey, look. Hey, the first set was 4-1 and Sinner came back. So, don't count Sinner out yet. Don't count Sinner out yet. Perfect opportunity, but he choked it. Sinner has not had a chance to win this match yet. Don't get it twisted. Sinner has not had a chance at winning this match. Djokovic was down two sets of love, but Sinner wasn't like on the brink of victory. He was one set away. He hasn't come any closer than one set away. He didn't even have a chance in the third set. He was down a break and he was no chance. So, Yannick Sinner was not on the door of victory. A choke would mean that he had chances to win and he lost. He hasn't had a chance to win yet. He just got two sets. Big difference between a choke and what's happening today. This is just a great comeback by a goat. Unless Sinner double faults on match point in this final setting, then Djokovic wins. That would be a choke. This is not a choke. This is just a goat coming back. As we're back in the backhand rally, that goes down the line of the 4-1 of Djokovic. 4-1 from Sinner into the 4-1 of Noley at 15 loves. Sinner's got a break back straight away if he's any chance. As we're back in again from Djokovic into the 4-1 of Sinner to the backhand of Djokovic. Backhand of Sinner on the stretch. Noley with a drop shot. Sinner's running. He's going to get there. No, he's not! Oh, Djokovic!  I thought Sinner was quick. At least quick enough to get that one. 30 love. Man. 30 love. Lovely hitting there from Novak Djokovic. All right. Djokovic to get the 3-1 in this final set. He serves. A big serve down the tee. That's what goats do. 40 love. 40 love. As Djokovic serves again. A fault. Second serve. By the way, if you want to know who's the opponent for Djokovic, it looks likely at this stage to be David Goffin. Has been a backhand now from Djokovic down the line. Sinner on the stretch gets it into the slice drop shot of Noley and he puts it away. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. 3-1 Djokovic in the final set. Yannick Sinner has a mountain to climb now. He has an absolute mountain to climb. Did anyone take Djokovic at the odds at 2 sets of love down? Because I would have if I wasn't alive. Okay. 3-1. Sinner serves. A fault. Second serve. Again, thank you everyone who's subscribed. We're watching tennis as that goes up into the sky. Smash from Sinner. Djokovic gets it, but he puts it wide. He puts it wide. 15 love. Crowd giving a brand of applause to Sinner because they want Sinner to make something happen. They want more match play.  It'll be fun. It'll be a lot of fun. 15 love. Serve. Down the table for Djokovic. 4-0 from Sinner. Into the back of Noley. Who hits it in the net? 30 love. 30 love. It's only one breaker serve and that was the case in the first set, but the difference now is Sinner has to break back. Not like in the first set where he didn't have to break back. He has to now. Gophane is up a set and a break by the way against Norrie. The forgotten Brit. It's been a return now. The lost Brit. 30 love. Second serve Sinner. Into the back into Djokovic. 4-0 from Sinner. Into the slice of Djokovic who hits a drop shot in the net. And it's 40 love. I'm going to get you myself. I saw you. You put the C word. Where are you? Where are you? Where are you? There you are. Get out of here. Go away. Got him. Sniper. Can't believe that guy was still here. Been here all day just saying the same word over and over. Bye-bye. Have a nice day. Norrie's going to break back. We'll talk about him in a second. 40 love. There's another one. Gotcha. Has been a serve now to the 4-0 of Djokovic. That goes wide from Noley and it's 3-2. Sinner stays in touch. Sinner stays in touch.   Let's answer questions. Okay. What did he take the bathroom break? That's my question. He just took a poo. Or do you want to know in detail how many did he wipe five times? Do you really want to know what he did in the bathroom? I mean, that's a bit weird, man. Just saying. I sinned by taking sinner. Oh, Shannon. He's not done yet though, Shannon. He's not done yet, mate. Not done yet. His bathroom should be checked. Why? Do you want to look at his poo? That's gross, dude. That's gross, man. You guys are weird. He should have the bathroom checked. All right. What? Do you want to go check out his poo if it smells? What's wrong with you? What's wrong with you? That's so weird. You guys are weird. You guys are weird.  We're not going to kink shame on this channel. We're not going to kink shame but I mean, that's a little bit strange to want to see if someone did a poo or not. That's a bit weird. That's a bit weird. Just saying. Anyway, it's 15 Love. Personally, you know, whatever you do in the bathroom is your business and I'm not going to get involved. I don't care. Some people are very invested in Djokovic's bathroom routine. Anyway, let's get back to the match. Shit conversation. Am I right? 15 Love is we're going to find out from Sinner and the find of Djokovic. Find out from Sinner again to the find of Djokovic. Down the line at the back and slice of Sinner who goes into the forehand of Djokovic. Sinner with a lob. It's up. It's up. It's up. It's in. Smash. No way gets it. Sinner with a pass. It's in the net. No way too good. 30 Love. 30 Love. 30 Love. We will see you all at the finals. Hashtag go type predict. Kirios will meet us there. Okay. Thank you, Leo. Thank you, Nigel, as well for the donations. Appreciate it. 30 Love, Djokovic. We'll return now to the forehand of Djokovic for the return was gone. Sinner's going to challenge though. Chalk flew up. Chalk flew up. And that ball was out. 40 Love. 40 Love. As Djokovic puts it in the net. Second serve. Second serve. Down into the find of Sinner. Back into Djokovic. Into the back of Sinner. Find out from Djokovic in the open court. Sinner with a pass. Djokovic with a volley. Too good. No way for two. No way for two. Man, I'd be a great moderator. That's coming in just like. So much fun is to get rid of the, just to clean up the chat. I was a janitor when I was in high school, just for like, not at my high school, but I did clean as I was in tennis coach too. Thanks for respecting tennis for playing Djokovic. No worries. No worries. Milton, thanks for the donation. No, look, you can say that you're not a fan of Djokovic and all that stuff, but I'm like, come on. To say that he went to the bathroom and then that was a cheat. You're just salty that it's so good that he can come back from Two Sisters of Love. I just see that as just salty. And it's just outrageous. There's been a drop shot now from Sinner. No way for the lob. Oh no, Sinner's in trouble. Sinner with a trainer. No way. Oh, it's wide. Sinner almost hit a carry-on shot. Love 15.    That's being toxic. Don't be toxic. Respect the, respect the comeback.  We don't want to hear it. We don't want to hear you complaining. All right.  There's been a fine out of the back of Djokovic, back in every Sinner. I love 15. Now Sinner has to win this game to be any chance. He goes down a double break. He's dead. And that goes wide. Love 30. No back. Djokovic is six points away from completing the comeback. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. No. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. I don't care about what they were saying. Hey, bro, you know I've been subscribed to your channel for a long time. My advice to you is don't, don't ban anyone. Don't feed the trolls. Just ignore them. Thank you. Latua for the five.  And then you guys in the chat won't have a nice experience.  So I have to. I respect your opinion. Thank you for the donation as well. But if I don't call it out and don't tell people that that's not going to fly, then it's going to happen more. And I don't want to see that. As that goes in the open call from Sinner 1530.  So I respect what you're saying, but you got it.  Sometimes you got to call out the, call out those people. Anyways, let's move on. Those people, I think most of the trolls are gone anyway. We got rid of them. Dawn's in the chat anyway. So she's got it. 1530. Sinner must win game. If he goes down a double break, he ain't winning in this match. 1530. Serve. Out wide at the back of Jokovic. Vanya from Sinner goes into the back of Jokovic. Sinner hits a winner. Needed that one. He needed that one. 30 all. And the crowd, they're trying to get on Sinner's side, but they're like, ah, is he going to win though? It's going to win. They're not convinced yet that he's going to win or come back. Okay. Served now. Sinner. Out wide. Good serve. Jokovic gets it. Vanya Sinner in the open court and all over the backhand on the stretch. He's a winner and he's on the ground. No way. He's flying. No back. Jokovic is flying. A shot. 30, 40. Of course he got it. And he lands on his stomach and he's like, ah, legendary. That was a shot at the top of it.  It's like he scored a goal in football and he's like on the ground. That's what that was. All right. No way. Get some return there. Sinner with a swing volley. That's out. No way. It's going to be one game away. Sinner gives that game up and he's given out this match. And no back. Jokovic is going to complete the comeback. He's going to complete the comeback. And he's pumping his fists. And this is exactly like the French Open final from last year. The first two sets were one match and the next three were another. Don't you doubt this man ever. Never doubt this man. Two sets of love as baby stuff. Come on now. Goat doing goat things. All right. Hey, we still have one more match to go, by the way. Du Bois coming on after this, so we're going to be sticking around. But man, oh man. Novak Djokovic does it again. He does it again. Oh man. Don't forget to subscribe. If you haven't already, like the video as well. But my God, we are watching a Novak Djokovic masterclass in how to come back mental toughness. This is what mental toughness looks like. And he serves the match. Serving for the match. Djokovic served now out wide at the front of Sinner. And that's in the net from Sinner. 15 love. 15 love. And Lov, you've been a part of this channel for a minute. You know that I don't have a favorite in terms of goats. I love watching them all. I see them as one. I see the goats as one person. I'm not a big fan of any. I'm not a massive, you know, I'm not one sided for any of them. And I love it when they do goat things. I loved it when Nadal did it at the Australian Open. I've loved it when Federer has done it in the past. And I love it when Noley does it too. And he serves a big bomb in that 30 love. Because remember, these guys aren't going to be around forever. They're not going to be able to do this forever. You've got to respect it and just enjoy it. And he serves an ace out wide. 40 love. Novak Djokovic to take his spot in the semifinals and come back from the dead again. Djokovic with a serve. He serves down the tee, the forna sinner. That's in the net. Novak Djokovic does it again. He comes back from two sets of love down and knocks out Yannick's sinner. And they shake at the net. But my God, that, look at Lovis, right? That was great. This was a whole nother match. That was, that was like what we saw against Kokonakis. Here was two matches, split down the middle. Two different matches. And let's be honest, Yannick's sinner never stood a chance. Really, he never stood a chance. Not even a two love. He never really stood a chance. Goat things. Goat things. If you're leaving us, don't forget to subscribe. Don't forget to like the video. This has been the biggest stream of the tournament so far. And the Goat V Goat battle for Wimbledon is still on the cards. Goat V Goat is still on the cards. And I gotta be early. Let's give it up to Yannick's sinner. Let's give it up to Yannick's sinner because this guy is not far away. He destroyed Alcaraz or he beat Alcaraz. Awesome performance. Quarterfinal Wimbledon and he took two sets of a Goat. He's not far away, sinner. He's not far away. And maybe if Darren Cahill, you know, sits in the box instead of the commentary box, maybe that'll help him next time. But I'll tell you what, Yannick's sinner, he's getting better. He's over 20. Not good enough yet. But he's on his way. He's getting closer. He is getting closer. All right. Let's have a listen to what Djokovic has to say and then we're going to fly over to the next match. But man, what a way to start the quarterfinals. God, giving us what we want. That's what we made. That's, there you go. There you go. All right. 21 loading. 21 loading. Djokovic needed that match to get his gears pumping. He dominated after that. It was a two-set match for Sinner and then a three-set match for Djokovic. There was no overlap. It was a two-set of a Sinner and then he forgot that he was playing a five-set instead. And Djokovic went, oh, I'm just going to win three sets in a row. Easy. And I mean, like I said, that is exactly what happened. Djokovic played the final three sets as if he just started the match. That's exactly, he left the court at two-love-down and he came back and he won straight sets. Like, that's what happened.  And that's in the rules. As they say, and he's saying, Djokovic is giving respect to Yannick, of course, as he should. And of course, as you'd expect from Nole, right? Giving massive respect to Yannick. All right. Now we've got another match to go. We've got another match to go. We don't know who Djokovic is playing yet. We're waiting for the match between Gophane and Nori. That's still going on. Second set. Nori down a set in that one. But we've got, we've got the ladies coming on next. Onster Boar. We do know who she's going to be playing if that matter, if she does win. And that would be, she'll be playing against Buskova. Maria, Tatiana Maria, who's been the giant killer of this tournament. So I'm going to send you guys over there. We're going to, I'm going to go to the bathroom because I've been sitting here struggling. Let's just leave it at that. So let me just press some buttons. But yeah, if you're not leaving us again, don't forget to subscribe. This has obviously been the biggest stream of the tournament. It's been the craziest match of the tournament outside of the circuses. So again, appreciate you guys being here. And it's time for, for Onster Boar to get to her first semi-final of the slam. And possibly a final. I mean, the final is awaiting her for sure. But let me just get the link for you guys so you can actually go over and talk amongst yourselves. There you go. There you go. There you go. There you go. There you go. But Jokovic wins in five. And that did feel like, like I did mention that that match did feel, I had a feeling at the start of that match that it was going to be like that Oje Liazim Nadal, you know, French open match, you know, where we saw a young guy who was on the rise against the old guard and it was going to go five sets, but the experience would prevail. And that's exactly what happened. So, you know, not to, to my own horn, but I mean, I'm glad that we did get a five set match for the sake of the, for the sake of the tournament and the sake of, sake of Jokovic, I guess, because now, you know, next time he plays, you know, he's not going to go five again unless he plays Rafa potentially in the final. So I know it gives hope. Rafa fans were, you know, maybe a bit salty that Nole won. I mean, this is good for him as in Rafa, because, you know, if Sinner can get two sets, we know Rafa's better, right? So why couldn't Rafa get three sets, which equals a win? Again, thank you so much, everybody for joining us. We are so close to that big insane number. We'll get there one day. But again, just thank you so much. We'll play donations after when we come back because I've turned them off for now just so we can finish the conversations. But we'll see you guys in a minute. Go grab a coffee. Go grab a tea. We ain't done yet. We've got another big match to come with Buzkova taking on Jabur. And we still got other matches happening as well at the same time. So don't forget to like and subscribe if you haven't already. Novak Djokovic does it again. He comes back from the dead. He lost the first two sets. That ain't a problem for Nole. He comes back from two sets of love down. He wins in five, five, seven, two, six, six, three, six, two, six, two. Yannick Sinner takes another step in the right direction. But it's not a step too far yet. He's on his way, but the young buck has to wait. Nole wins in five.


Instead of now in a stimulus bill having a hundred billion dollars to give to hospitals, money they won't see for another year or so, probably. Why wasn't the emergency legislation to allocate, I don't know, ten billion dollars for hospitals to be able to rent out spaces to set up emergency rooms or whatever. Whatever hospitals need to expand and to grow their capacity to deal with this. Why isn't that being done right now? Why isn't money being allocated to that if you're going to allocate money to hospitals? Instead, we've got a hundred and eighty billion dollars to basically nationalize the hospital system, which I think is the ultimate goal. If a leadership in Congress, at the White House, in the state houses really cares about this thing, really cares about saving the lives of seniors, why aren't they focused on saving the lives of seniors? Because they're not. They spend much more resources shutting us down and then bailing us out.  I mean, we have this amazing still, this amazing productive capacity in the United States. We have a dynamic, innovative system in the United States still with all its problems. Why haven't we used it? Not used it by forcing companies to make it. Used it by incentivizing companies to make it, which is the American way, not the fascist way. And the same with antivirals, well testing we talked about antivirals and vaccines. We should be pre-buying them. We should be encouraging companies to invest in them. And we should be taking all the roadblocks away. Just to give you an example of a roadblock, the masks, the cotton in the masks has to be produced in the United States. I mean, that is nuts. As I've said before, tariffs should be lowered to zero. Requirements to be made in the U.S. should be eliminated. Regulations should be eviscerated if we care about human life. If we care about the lives of the people who are going to die of this disease. Then what are we waiting for? What is this government waiting for? They're sitting on their hands. No, they're not sitting on their hands. They're using their hands to strangle us hard-working Americans. To strangle you, the small business owner. To strangle you, the employee of the small business owner.  In the name of what? Safety. Safety the excuse for a Theratarians. Who's safety? If you care about the people who are likely to die of this, people over the age of 70, then do something about it. Not by strangling me, but by increasing the resources available to them. There are so many ways in which unleashing American innovation, imagination, entrepreneurship, profit-seeking would solve. Instead, we got bureaucrats standing in everybody's way, destroying our economy, limiting our freedom, telling us when we can go outside, where we can walk, who we can walk with, how many people can get together. I can't share if I told this, but yesterday there was a guy swimming just outside where I live. Swimming in the lagoon here, and only guy. I mean, nobody, hundreds of meters away, there was nobody. Literally, one person swimming, and a police boat shows up to tell him to get out, to go to land. I guess you're not socially distancing yourself when you're swimming. No, because you were told to be in your home, not to be out-swimming, and you have to do what you were told. Rather than what you should be told is, you know, don't put yourself in a dangerous situation by hanging out with lots of people who might have the disease and you might catch it from them. That would be good instruction. That could be enforced, but no, we have to regiment the details. The day I can drive the car, when I can go walk my dog, where I can walk my dog, how far I can go. And the fact is that because from the beginning we haven't focused on old people. You see all these stories now coming out. The original, of course, deaths in the United States came out of an old atrium facility in Seattle, where number of patients were sick. But now it's spinning to other old, but if we had identified it as old people, and asked those facilities to lock down two months ago, then we wouldn't see all these parents and grandparents dying for nothing. And we should also put their deaths in perspective. And I know this is hard to talk about. It's difficult to talk about. But the fact is, if somebody's 85, 87, and they've got something, and we're going to stop the world, their life expectancy is probably three to five years out, we're going to stop the entire world. We're going to stop everything so that they don't die now.  Max, it's insanity. Truly insanity. In Kentucky, Bree says they locked down the old age homes a month ago. It should have been done two months ago, and it should have been done nationwide. And it should have been done not just the old age homes. But the fact is, this is what people want. They want heroic government to write to the rescue. They want powerful politicians to tell them what to do and how to do it. So Daniel gives us some stats. A high-end ventilator, now this is high-end on ventilator pricing, is $50,000 per ventilator, which is probably on the, as he says, a high-end. There's probably cheaper ventilators. The US has showed about 760,000 ventilators. So let's say we take my 50% markup, and you don't have to make it 50%, you can make it 20%. You still have a good profit, but let's say the 50%. So I'm willing to pay $75,000 per ventilator. Imagine we put that out two months ago. And we're talking about 75, even for companies that typically charge 25,000 events, so they'll get a 300% markup. Even if all that was done, that would have cost us $57 billion, a huge amount of money. Huge amount of money. You could argue wasteful. But $58 billion is, I can't do math at this hour, and I'm kind of tired, take $2.2 trillion, how many times is $57 billion going to that? Well, 40 plus, about 40 times. And that's at 50% markup on the highest most expensive ventilator. Assume you set it at $55,000, so yeah, maybe the high-end ventilator. You know, I wouldn't have much of an incentive to make a lot more, the 5% or 1,000 is not bad, 10% markup. But all the people who make them a 30,000 or 40,000 have a huge incentive. Imagine if you did it with masks, and if you did that with all the protective equipment, and you put aside $100 billion to do all that. A lot of money. But nothing as compared to the $2.2 trillion. And remember, the $2.2 trillion came after the first $8 billion, and then was a $30 billion, and then $2.2 trillion. So we've gone through, and now they're talking about another $2 trillion. Chandler's happy because he's going to get $1,200 bucks. Enjoy the $1,200 bucks. I hope you use some of it to support the Iran Book Show. That would be a good use of the $1,200 bucks. So that's the math for you. And then let's extrapolate, if you could extrapolate, what would it cost to make sure that every 70-year-old who couldn't afford, what do you call it, delivery food and delivery services had it? Okay. My guess is another $100 billion. Because a lot of them are already in their old age homes, and maybe we'd have to do a bailout of old age homes because it would become difficult for them because staff, attrition of staff. So let's say another $100 billion, $200 billion to support old age homes and to support poor old people who couldn't afford to get delivery food and people to take care of them.  Because, again, old people are not part of the economy for the most part. So we need to be outraged. We need to offer solutions. I just did. Market-based solutions. We need to focus on the vulnerable. That's a solution. We need to say no to new spending. No to shutting down our lives. No to shutting down our choices. No to shutting down our pursuit of our values. No to stimulus packages. We have to accept the fact that people are going to die. It's a fact. People die of lots of things all the time. Yeah, part of the solutions would be deregulate, deregulate, deregulate, get rid of licensee laws, get rid of red tape across the boards. We should be proposing ways in which we could privatize the function of the FDA, privatize the function of many of these medical institutions that could be private. We should articulate the case for what? How a free market, a pure free market, a real free market, a capitalist market would deal with the pandemic. I did that in a Twitter, in a long Twitter thing. I saw an objectiveist criticize that and say, you shouldn't do that because we don't know how a real free market would do it. You can't imagine. And I often say this. Often people say, well, how would a free market deal with this? And I say, well, I mean, who knows? The beauty of a free market is they come up with solutions I would never imagine. You got to at least indicate. You got to get some proposals. You can say, look, I don't know exactly how to work out, but here's some ideas. You got to show that we have answers and that people are going to say, no matter what, the hospitals are overcrowded. Why? If you isolate the people, if you isolate the people who are not, who need hospitalization, then they're not going to get infected and they're not going to need the hospital. You don't flatten the curve by keeping me home. You flatten the curve by keeping my parents home. You flatten the curve by keeping grandparents and parents from getting the illness. I can get the illness and I'm not going to overwhelm the hospital. They will. Keep me away from them. Don't allow me to visit them. And the problem is that people can't think scientifically, can't think. Young are carriers and asymptomatic, but the people who are in the hospital are not asymptomatic. The people who are in the hospital are people who are suffering because they got this. The people who are in the hospital are old people. And if the young or asymptomatic never went next to an old people, because you wouldn't allow old people to interact with young people, then the old people would not show up in hospitals and the hospitals would not be overwhelmed. And in a free market, hospitals would have spare beds, would have spare facilities, would have the capacity to deal with things that you throw at them. They'd have long-term planning. They'd plan for epidemics. Insurance companies would plan for epidemics. The only people who don't plan are politicians. They have no long-term incentives. We believe, and you hear this rhetoric over and over and over again. Markets are short-term. Business is short-term. But governments, governments think long-term. B.S. Business is long-term. Hospitals would plan for it. One of the reasons they don't today is there's no benefit to planning. Their capacity is dictated by regulation. Their capacity is dictated by government. The capacity in hospitals is not a choice hospitals make. Just ask the state board of medicine in the state of New York, which dictated how much vacant beds can be in a hospital. Hospital capacity is completely politicized. The state board of medicine would not allow a crisis like this to happen. It would plan for it. It would have contingencies. Businesses have contingencies. Have emergency procedures. Know what will happen if they lose 50% of their customers. Know what will happen if they lose 50% of their suppliers. Businesses think these things through.  And any decent business has them. But unless we're willing to stand up and declare that with confidence, the statists win. And the statists are winning because the American people are open to them. They're not open to our ideas, and we won't even make them. There's so many people who follow me on Twitter and Facebook and here. Yeah, Femalk, it's a good except. Except when it's inconvenient. Except when we, we, I can't imagine how a free market would solve the problem. You couldn't imagine an iPhone. You couldn't imagine the Internet. You couldn't imagine anything that the free market has bought us. All right, I should stop yelling. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broad. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support, or go to subscribestar.com, uranbrookshow, and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...


Thank you. I'm Jordan Stangard, part of the Buell Center team. If I can invite up the energy and power group while I read your short bios. Can you come on and have a seat? Okay. We have Samantha Josephad, who is the founder of Studio 397 Architecture and the president of the National Organization of Minority Architects, New York Chapter. She recently received the AIA New York Women in Architecture Award. Forrest Meggers is jointly appointed in Princeton University's School of Architecture and the new Ann Linger Center for Energy and Environment, where he founded and directs the chaos, cooling and heating for architecturally optimized systems lab. Priya Mogaukar is the resiliency planner for the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance, where she leads a city on city and state level climate justice advocacy campaign. Matt Peterson is an organizer at Woodbine, an autonomous space in Ridgewood, Queens. Anandeep Premlau is an international agroecological educator, writer, grower, and pharmacist who has mycelial roots thriving in the Caribbean, ancestral India in the USA. Gaya Sriskanthin advocates for community-led and owned climate solutions, which has included promoting indigenous rights in climate action and supporting social ownership as a critical feature of climate justice. Sean Sweeney is the director of the International Program for Labor, Climate and Environment at the School of Labor and Urban Studies at the City University of New York. And Claudia Zamora Valencia is the director of programs at New Immigrant Community Empowerment NICE, a grassroots organization that builds the individual and collective power of immigrant workers and fights for justice and dignified work for all people, regardless of immigration status. So this group is going to talk for about 20 minutes, and then I'm going to invite Costa Constantinides, who represents New York City Council's 22nd District, which includes his native Astoria, as well as Rikers Island, parts of Jackson Heights, Woodside, and East Elmhurst. He's a chair of Environmental Protection Committee since 2015. I'm going to be holding up time cards, so keep an eye out for that. And thank you so much. I just wanted to give you guys a narrative of where we started in our conversations as a group earlier, and so we started talking about Indian Point Energy Center, which is a nuclear power plant in Westchester. It's scheduled to be shut down in 2021, and it encompasses about 20% of New York City's power as a source. A few of the topics that we discussed in our group revolved around public ownership, the value of labor, creating sources of just renewables, as well as energy efficiency. And so I'll pass the mic to the others on this panel to talk a little bit further on those topics. Hello, everyone. My name is Priyambol Gaukar within New York City Environmental Justice Alliance. Just to give context, you're the first group to go in a very non-traditional, exciting public assembly format. It was really great to have a group of, I think, almost 30 people in and out, huddled around this really engaging topic and this really great background information about Indian Point. So we got a lot of really rich discussion going that really expanded upon the idea of, you know, how can we really remake our power system in the era of the pre-new deal. Some of the kind of context setting that we, as kind of the core group of folks here at this panel, offered is, you know, we're in this really important time of transition, both politically and in terms of, you know, the dire consequences we're facing with climate change. So, you know, we're here talking in the context of a federal piece of legislation, the Green New Deal. But we're also thinking through the, oh, sorry, am I even slower? Sorry. So we're also in this kind of, this precipice here in New York City and New York State of climate legislation that is requiring us to think big and bold and think justly about transitioning off of fossil fuels. So just this year, New York State passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which requires that our entire economy decarbonizes here in New York State by 2050, including transitioning 100% to 100% renewable energy sources by 2040. One of the coalitions that I work with, the New York Renews Coalition, thought really hard to ensure that particular resources are dedicated to frontline and disadvantaged communities in environmental justice communities for workers who are transitioning out of the fossil fuel economy. But we still have a lot more work to do as a state. Here in New York City, we passed the Climate Mobilization Act, and our kind of champion Costa here can talk more about that. But basically, there are so many policy shifts happening that we tried to focus in as a group on kind of what are some tangible actions that we can take in this shifting landscape, given a lot of the technical challenges of transitioning our entire economy. And I think I'll turn it over to Sean to kind of share some of the thinking that we started to do about how we can really enact public ownership over our energy system as a critical first step. Thanks, everybody. First of all, I just want to acknowledge the organizers of the conference, not just for a phenomenal organizing job, but the level of the discussion is very, very high. And I think as a movement, we're getting to a point where we're all trying to share and take responsibility for the transition questions, both the social, technical, as well as the ecological dimensions. In our group, the issue of public ownership was quite a prominent discussion. And I think it also is a sea change that has been brought about by the Green New Deal narrative. If we think about what it was like 10 years ago when Barack Obama was president, the goal was for an economy-wide emissions trading system as a way of decarbonizing the U.S. economy. It didn't succeed. Congress defeated it. But one of the things that the Green New Deal has done is it said, we all need to be involved in this and leaving it to investors and developers to make money out of the Green Revolution has proven to be a catastrophic failure at the policy level. And there is a lot to be said about that, but I think it was acknowledged in our group that if we're trying to leave this to mobilize the private sector, the private sector wants guaranteed returns on investment to do any serious projects. If we're going to do that, we're not going to have control. It's going to be more expensive. And the challenge of doing it fast, do it fair, and do it in a way that can meet the social objectives of the Green New Deal becomes virtually impossible, so ownership was crucial. I would, in a couple of minutes I have left, would say that one of the most welcome things about the Green New Deal narrative from people like AOC and Bernie Sanders is the emphasis on the public. Bernie Sanders has said under the Green New Deal, renewable energy will be publicly owned, and it will work in partnership with the existing publicly owned utilities. And that's crucial because what we've got now is so-called competitive electricity markets where you have basically a lobbying effort for subsidies of all kinds which ends up getting passed down on electricity bills and doesn't create the kind of jobs we're trying to create. So that's a huge departure at the level of policy in the debate that was not there even a couple of years ago, and that's crucial. Now, but with that policy break, I think, or that rupture, we've got a situation now where we can separate out. There were two challenges with decarbonization around energy in particular. I think we all know that if you can't decarbonize the power sector, you won't be able to decarbonize the transport sector, and you won't be able to decarbonize the building sector. So that means the electricity, the power generation, has to be in tandem working alongside energy conservation and efficiencies. But that doesn't work in the market model because the whole goal of the build and sell approach for electricity is to sell as much electricity as possible in order to return profits for investors. So what this does, it puts a public goods agenda right at the front of the debate, and I think that was broadly shared throughout our group. And so now then we've got an opportunity if we can get rid of this myth of competitive electricity markets, get away from that, reclaim, fully reclaim the power sector to public ownership. We've got a chance then of isolating the real technical challenges of decarbonization. And they're not small. So Indian Point, I'll just wrap it up on this point. Two gigawatts of power, 20% of electricity. I think I was the only one in the group, but I'm not sure by the end of the conversation if I was the only one who shared this view, why are we trying to close Indian Point when if the replacement energy is going to come from fracked gas from Pennsylvania. Two wrongs don't make a right, but there is clearly an obvious problem here in terms of what is the bigger problem facing the human species right now and its climate change. So even that discussion needs to be had, like how do we assert planning over the process of energy transition to advance energy conservation and do it in a way that can isolate the market problems, get rid of the competitive market, get rid of the idea that people should make money out of electricity generation, promote efficiencies and then we've got the power sector in our grasp and that'll give us a chance to build a platform for the kind of social, economic and ecological objectives we're trying to achieve. So I think that was the, at least I think I captured some parts of the discussion and I'm sure others will be able to do the same. Sure. Yeah, just to add to what John was saying, just to put it in the story that we had to sort of work through in terms of Indian Point, you're, as Sean said, we're getting rid of the equivalent of 200 megawatts of electricity and then where does that electricity come from? Currently the front line, the front runners are natural gas and also importing hydroelectric power from Canada which has its own issues because large hydroelectric dams have issues with indigenous land, they also come with their attendant environmental problems. So when we're looking at, we have to look at the electricity system holistically and there are huge problems when we're trying to balance our needs in terms of the climate transition with trying to get a small group of shareholders the maximum profits that they can out of a private utility or a private electricity generation company. And I think this idea that we're just, we cannot get away from the private sector in solving our problems. It's really dominating the way that we're looking at climate change and I want to give an example internationally right now the UN is very wedded to this idea that we have to go through public-private partnerships to reach our goals, whether it comes to sustainable development or climate and right now when it comes to energy access, which is a huge issue for people all over the world we're not meeting our goals because the private sector, there's no money in it for them they're not going there and they're not getting the results we need. So there's a huge gap in this logic that we have to go through the private sector all the time to achieve these goals. Yeah so maybe to drill down a little bit into that power dynamic of the private sector and the generation of power, if we can all stop and think about what two gigawatts is and what New York City is, right? I think that's one of the biggest conundrums and to me we hear a lot about the changeover has to happen, 2040, 2050, zero carbon, these are our time horizons but to answer Sean's question about do we think we should really shut down India? Do we think we should shut down? So should we shut down the planter, keep it open? 2021 is pretty close, right? And that's two gigawatts, right? That's more than 1.21 gigawatts that you can time travel with. It's a lot. Thank you. But also two gigawatts is six million solar panels that would cover more than four square miles, right? And there's not four square miles at Indian point, right? But I think the impetus should be what are the things that we can do to replace two gigawatts of power if we take them offline by 2021 and I think why not put a little pressure on ourselves? And this is the biggest city in the country and I would argue we have a lot of examples of young people doing amazing things. So I think the question about should we shut it down or not is really like a question to us about what we can do and how much time and these really big numbers are not that big when you think about the population of New York and all the things that you can do and the fact that it's not necessarily just putting a sweater on when the building's too cold. There's a lot of things you can do in public housing in the bill that actually make public housing more comfortable and use way less energy. And I think those are the spaces that we have a lot of opportunities in terms of heating and cooling in buildings which I do. Most buildings would be much more comfortable and use half the energy if we just would use our heads a little bit about how we operated them. And I think in that space one of the things that we can recognize as a community is how we together make up a big number, right? Even though it's hard to grasp two gigawatts of power, when you break it down into every individual building, the number of public housing interventions that we can do, the number of any building interventions we can do, it's a really, really big number. And I think we were telling a lot of different stories about how that can happen. And at the end of the day how we do that was the last, the second part of our conversation because it takes people to do that. Those people ideally should get paid fairly and justly and get given those jobs equitably. And I think that was kind of one of the big questions that if Indian Point shuts down, the second part of that is a thousand people lose their jobs there. And how many more jobs can we make to make up for that and to do that carbon-free. And I think we had a lot of great ideas discussed about ways we can really engage the public in the labor side as well. Hi, my name is Claudia Zamora and I work for NICE, New Immigrant Community Empowerment. We are a worker center here in Jackson Heights and we work with construction workers and day laborers. And so for me, the aspect of how we bring these communities into the new, and you mentioned it, it's key, right? Like right now in the construction industry, in the past 10 years, 500 workers have died in their job sites. Last April, three people died in one month. And the workers are doing these dangers and taking these jobs because they need work, right? So if we're going to bring them into the workforce, we need to make sure that we provide the tools, they are the trainings, and organize them so they can participate in the new deal but equipped to do the work in a safe way. We receive 200 people, every week we receive around 300 people who come to look for work. And in the past three or six months, we have received 600 cases of wage theft. So workers who are in their job site, they work and then they don't get their money. So there are structural changes that need to happen. We talk about the need for thinking about policy and regulation. So these workers who don't have the same protections that union workers can fully take advantage of the development of a new, like the new Green Deal. Hi, I'm Anandi Premlal with Sustainable Queens, and one of the things we brought up was creating solutions. Solutions that center predominantly marginalized communities and all that we're doing in creating new jobs, new buildings. Creating solutions that are a replicable model for other power plants that exist in lesser affluent communities. Also utilizing, creating solutions that utilize all municipal and organic waste to generate renewable energy, because we do have a lot of that in New York City. And this could be, yeah, definitely a new solution. And many people united in taking action towards a shared goal. I think in small solutions coming together, we can definitely make this happen. Hi, excuse me, I'm Matt, and I'm not an architect or a professor or a scientist or an engineer or a politician. And I think most people in this city and country are also not those, they don't have those professions. And one of the things that was spoken about as a question here is this question of green gentrification. And I think our breakout group, one of the dangers potentially would be the level of expertise in the discourse is incredibly specific and specialized and potentially marginalizing and confusing, incomprehensible. And these ideas of what a gigawatt is and what you want to do with that or not or how you're going to replace a gigawatt is automatically reducing the kinds of people who participate knowledgeably or reasonably or confidently in such a discussion. And I think really when you think about the Green New Deal or the potential for a public ownership campaign, the opening there is really one of public education or popular education to really bring this kind of discourse like to the worker center, for example, as you mentioned in our breakout. And my concern with this question of gentrification is the emphasis on what could be so-called professional managerial class dominating the discourse of the Green New Deal in a really difficult, problematic way. And of course, I want to acknowledge the research and work people are doing to think through these questions in elite institutions and fields, but also leave space for the kinds of neighborhood, community, education, popular meetings that would need to happen really. A lot of people point towards this idea of the grassroots. It sounds nice to talk about the grassroots, but there's really a divide between Princeton and Columbia and the grassroots, and we have to think seriously or critically about how that divide is mediated or bridged. And with the Green New Deal or this idea of socialism, I think a lot of people are scared about some kind of technocratic governmental bureaucratic horizon that's going to solve everyone's problems through legislation. And I just want to think about different public educational forums like this one, but involving different voices in different communities to think through that. Some friends of ours have produced this People's Climate Plan for New York City. This is going around, and this is one effort maybe to think through that, to write about that, to think about different ways of doing education. So that's just what I wanted to bring to the table and bring to the discussion. As the day continues, it's great that so many really accomplished professionals are here among us to talk, but we also have to leave room for different people who are not architects and scientists to really think through what the Green New Deal means to them as well. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Costa Constantinitas, a New York City Council member as well as the chair of the New York City Council's Environmental Protection Committee. I'm proud to hail right here from the borough of Queens in Western Queens in Astoria. And, you know, earlier this year, we passed the Climate Mobilization Act, which was the largest emissions reduction policy, not just in New York City, but any city anywhere. And it sort of changed our conversation in city government. And this really came from a grassroots movement. We worked with so many of the great people on this panel and so many activists to make sure we got this right, because as it was talked about, big real estate wasn't too interested in doing this on their own. The buildings we regulated as part of the Climate Mobilization Act were only about 50,000 out of a building stock of 1.1 million. And yet those buildings accounted for a 30% of New York City's total emissions overall. So we needed to get these buildings under control, and we made sure that this bill was aggressive but achievable, that building owners could hit these targets. We also made sure that we weren't pitting sustainability and affordability against one another. So we gave alternative compliance to our rent-regulated buildings because we can't have situations where men and women in our communities are priced out of their neighborhoods because of policy, because of sustainability policy. We need a better model. So this bill passed back in April. It has become law. We're on the path to getting it done and implementation. But we have to sort of think about what the next horizons are. I think many of the folks on this panel have been thinking about that. We recently introduced a bill, a set of bills, called the Renewable Rikers Act. And taking a step back from that, thinking about where power plants have been sited. Power plants have been sited primarily in environmental justice communities. The last time they sited power plants in this city about 20 years ago, in the name of reliability, they sited 10 power plants in New York City Limits, no environmental review. Here in Queens, they were placed next to the Queensbridge houses, the Ravenswood houses, and the Astoria houses. With no environmental review, they were told those neighborhoods that, don't worry, we're going to close down these plants in three years because we're going to have a plan to shut them down. Well, 18 plus years later, they're old enough to vote. Those plants are still operating next to public housing, and those residents have higher than the borough average as more rates. They have higher than the borough average ER admissions and hospitalizations. This is the challenge that the conundrum that we're dealing with every single day, that all this fossil fuel infrastructure was placed in environmental justice communities, communities of color, low income communities who are bearing this burden. And those are the same communities, by the way, that were flooded during Hurricane Sandy in western Queens. The communities who can ill afford to move, the communities who need the Green New Deal most desperately, we need to come up with solutions. So the solutions we've come up with, at least one of them, is to, as we're transitioning Rikers Island, Rikers Island needs to become part of that solution. We have legislation that would transfer ownership of Rikers Island to the Department of Environmental Protection. And with that, have them start knocking down structures and building renewable energy on Rikers Island. Oh, there we go. That's exactly what I want to hear, that kind of knocking down of structures. We're in the same boat here. But we want to, you know, we were working with CUNY Law School to come up with a model, and I think we have a coalition of organizations that are in support of this model that would put down 100-plus acres of solar with utility-scale battery storage, which could potentially be enough power to replace these fossil fuel power plants that were opened 20 years ago. We need to build anaerobic digesters, move our organic waste onto Rikers Island, barge it there, not through trucks, we don't want trucks, but barge it there and create renewable energy in that way. So the legislation we have would have a renewable energy study to see how much renewable energy we can create. And we right now have, not that I don't trust city government, but we do have some money already allocated to sustainable CUNY to come up with a model to see how much renewable energy we can create beyond just solar on wind, on how we can really sort of maximize our renewable energy potential right here in Queens. The Climate Mobilization Act that I talked about earlier, Urban Green Council has estimated it's going to create 141,000 jobs over a 10-year period. How do we make sure that we're bringing communities that have been impacted by environmental racism? How do we make sure that they're the ones getting these jobs? I know here in my district we're transitioning one of our local high schools, the CTE program, the Continuing Technical Education, we're transitioning it to renewable energy. So we're teaching young people in high school how to be renewable energy installers, how to make sure that they're installing solar, they're installing wind. I just took a tour of local three, the Electrical Union, last week, and I was talking with them about how we can transition those young people. How do we can get them into unions? Because I know that my father-in-law came to this country, didn't speak a word of English. He was able to get a job, he worked on the original World Trade Center, he became a plasterer at Teamsters 237, he bought a home, put my wife and her siblings through school, supported his family when he died of a heart attack nine years ago, he left the pension. That's what union work does. It gives windows into the middle class for those who most need it. So we define these ways of transitioning, these opportunities, so if we can create a job pipeline, not a gas pipeline, we don't need those any, we don't need more fossil fuel infrastructure, but we can create a pipeline from our local schools teaching them renewable energy, having solar curriculums in our schools, having career technical education in our high schools, and then being able to transition into our unions, we can have an opportunity for young people to get these jobs, to do the solar installations on Rikers Island, to do the construction of the anaerobic digesters, and last thing I'll bring up on Rikers Island as well, it's not the terribly most sexy project, but over 100 years ago, we built our sewer system when only a million people lived in New York City. We have a lot more than that right now. Every time it rains more than a quarter of an inch, our system can't handle it. So what happens is, its fail-safe is to dump. Last year, not too far from here, Flushing Bay, Flushing Creek, five billion gallons of sewage went into Flushing Bay, Flushing Creek. Just last year, I'm not talking about lifetime, I'm talking about 2018, and we know the impacts of climate change are only going to make it wetter and hotter, which means our sewer system is going to be overwhelmed. If we take the remaining land on Rikers Island and build a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment system, we have the opportunity to close down the Bowery Bay wastewater treatment plant, the Talman Island wastewater treatment plant, the Ward's Island wastewater treatment plant, but also keep, because it's state-of-the-art, keep billions of gallons of sewage out of our waterways. And who lives next to our waterways very often? Again, it's environmental justice communities. So when we clean up our waterways, we're making our waterways swimmable and fishable, we're a city surrounded by water and yet our waterways are polluted. We need to come up with real solutions, and these real solutions can put men and women in New York City to work. And then we can have a conversation on Rikers Islands. I've heard different arguments. We should make it affordable housing. We should make it an extension on the airport. Not too much excited about that extension on the airport part. But we do need to have a conversation around affordable housing, but I'd rather have those conversations where the power plants used to be in environmental justice neighborhoods. I'd rather have those conversations about affordable housing where the waste water treatment plants in environmental justice neighborhoods used to be. That's the right place to have those conversations. And there can be community land trusts that regulate that land to make sure it doesn't fall into the hand of developers, but that communities, the communities that have been most impacted by Rikers Island through over-policing and mass incarceration can then have the strongest voice and what we do with that land in their own communities and build opportunities for affordable housing, for more green space, for renewable energy together. We can change how we power a city, and that's why when we're talking about the Green New Deal, we can power our city differently. We can do our wastewater system differently. We can create 50,000 green jobs right here in Queens. We just need to have the political courage to do so. So I'm looking forward to partnering with all of you. I want to thank everyone today who put this conference on. We need more of these conversations because I walked in today. There shouldn't be a fear about this. This is an opportunity that we have every 100 years that we need to grab and not let go of and push forward and not let big real estate and not let special interests control this conversation. The last thing I say is I put out an op-ahead last week. I know I have less than a minute. But all of this should not be regulated by Con Edison either. National Grid and Con Edison have been playing a shell game. The minute the Williams Pipeline was turned down, all of a sudden they stopped doing gas connections. They're using families that's pawns in their political game to try to bully us into an arranged marriage with fossil fuels. We need to take public ownership. I agree with the Democratic Socialists of America that we should have a public power option here in New York City. Because one of the problems I've been asked about this plan on Rikers Island is how do you plan on plugging it into the grid if Con Edison's running the grid? Well, that shouldn't be our problem. We should control our own power. And the same way when we turn on a faucet, water comes out, we control our water system, we should control our energy system. So again, my name is Costa Constantinitas. I look forward to partnering with all of you. Thank you for having me here this afternoon. Is this still on? Okay. There's more seats that have been laid out over here.  We're going to open it up for about 20 minutes of questions. The panelists can also feel free to ask each other questions if you want. But I'll call on three questions at a time and then we'll do as many rounds as we have time for. If there's someone who has a mic that passed. Okay, great. I see one here. Second row. Great, thank you. Hi, thank you. I'm sorry, I don't know the gentleman very well. Yes. Hello, how do you do? Okay, so if I heard you correctly, because I've been hearing all the talk about Rikers Island. So Rikers Island will be now an energy island? Is that what you're saying? I think that is the goal. Okay, so it will no longer be for prisoners. Well, there was a... I know, local. So by 2026 there won't be any detainees on Rikers Island. So it's like what do we do with that land? 413 acres. Okay. Second, I heard you say that you were going to put a water sewer treatment plant there at least you would like to. And then in that event, you would then take away other water sewer treatment plants because there would no longer be a need for them in the various communities that they're in. Correct. Okay. So I know people who work at these treatment plants. So then what happens to their jobs? Hopefully, this whole conversation around just transition is part of that. But in addition, there's still going to be a pretty significant wastewater treatment plant that is going to be functional. So there is going to be a very large state of the art, brand new wastewater treatment plant. But I think we also have to have conversations about how we have to adjust transition. And thirdly, I heard you say that you're going to then take land trust where these water sewer treatment plants were originally should you close them down and make this for affordable housing? This land, would that not be considered superfund land? Like what would that land be? I mean, the community, community land trust, the community would make the decisions. But on so treatment- Well, they can be remediated, right? I mean, a hundred years ago, it was an amusement park. So I mean, there is opportunity. And so there's opportunity to think about these things as a community together. And maybe it's not those uses. Maybe it's more renewable energy opportunities, but it's an opportunity for a community to have those conversations, not real estate, not special interests, but the neighborhood if they own the land can have a conversation what they want to use the land for. Okay, thank you so much. I'm going to take three questions in a row, and then we'll do answers after. So I see one, and then another mic can go up here. Hi, everyone. Thanks to the panelists. I'm Amma Francis. I'm from the Saban Center at Columbia Law School. I'm just wondering if you all could break down for us what public ownership of the electric grid looks like in New York City. That would be helpful. Thanks. Okay, second question here. Yeah, and just on the point of Indian Point, there's been a movement working to shut down Indian Point for decades now, and I think it's very important that the conversation about Indian Point and about all nuclear power plants not happen in a vacuum. Indian Point is very old. It's way past its closing date, and it has had a history of just astonishing accidents. It's an accident waiting to happen, and there are tens of millions of people living in the area, in the radius area for the plant, so. Is there a third question before we go to answers? Hi, I'm John Forster from District Council 37 here in New York City. Thank you all for being here. So I'm just wondering also in this idea of the Digester Plant on Rikers Island, also perhaps be it an appropriate place to produce clean liquid hydrogen fuel that's been talked about a little bit today. And then all the second part of that is as we move towards that public ownership of energy, I think we need to back off of the power purchase agreements that we're currently using, particularly for the installation of solar power that's gone very slowly in New York and on public buildings, public schools, and I was just wondering how people feel about that because that tends to privatize the entire operation and moves us in the other direction. In terms of the first question, we did talk a lot about what it looks like, and within our group we asked everybody how many people have gotten advertisement for green mountain energy or green X energy, right, to buy energy from someone else, right? And they try and outline for you clearly, you're going to buy energy from me, it's still going to come from your local generator, and this is all part of the complexity of the current private energy system that we operate, right? So there's people that make power, sell it into a big market, and a bunch of other people can buy that including buying wind power in Texas and in theory sell it to you here. And all of those complexities are bound up in our current private system and a public system, right? Now the main difference would be that there's not a profit anymore that locally the generation has to not be tied to a private entity making money from you consuming your energy, right? Your energy is managed by a public good that everybody pays into. It's a very different system and I don't have the answer of how the complexities between the current system and a public system would all be resolved, but I think the main discussion point we ended on when we were discussing the public private part was really should electricity today and energy delivery be a public good, right? Something that is everybody has a right to and that shouldn't be something that people make money off of, right? Because there's an inherent problem in public goods profit a limited number of people. We also discussed something that I think everybody's heard about as a situation in California over the last few months where you have a privately owned utility that is basically sacrificing its entire public that are dependent on it in order to preserve its business model. So I think that's a very stock example of where a private owned utility is like the worst model for managing an essential public resource that people depend on for basic economic activity. But I wonder... Just on thinking in general principles on public ownership most of the world would be in the dark today if it wasn't for publicly owned energy which didn't produce electricity for a profit. All of the global sites, large parts of the global north we can look at the... One of the remarkable things I think about the Green New Deal is it's opened up a discussion about the old New Deal and the role of the rural electrification administration none of that, none of those experiments were perfect but let's look at some of the facts. In 1935 only 6% of rural dwellers in the United States had access to electricity. By 1955 because of the New Deal it was 95%. So if we're talking about and we are talking about speed, scale, equity we have to do this quickly. We need to take the profit motive out of it. It needs to be done because it's a public good. Emissions reductions generated anywhere will benefit people everywhere. Emissions generation anywhere will harm people everywhere. So this lays the principle for a public goods approach. But then it goes a bit more detail. We've got to talk about there's generation of power, there's transmission, distribution and then there's the whole retail and customer service operations. I've been working with the British Labour Party and the trade unions in the UK and the debate there is do we take it all back? Generation, even fossil based generation, a nuclear generation? Or do we just take over the distribution and transmission systems? I'm with the former. I think we cannot tell workers in the generation system right now that well you know you're going to wither on the vine because you're the past and the future is renewable energy so we're going to look after renewable energy. This is a social and political problem but it's also a technical problem because for the foreseeable future we will need centralized power as we phase in renewable power. The sun does not shine all the time. The wind does not blow all the time. We need to be developing grid balancing and movement of renewable power but that's a decade or two decades down the tracks. So as we phase out the fossil fuels and centralized generation and phase in the renewables we're going to need the workers in those industries to help us balance the grids and that means taking back the investor owned utilities which were publicly owned bringing them back into public ownership and having a planned transition from fossil based power to renewable based power. It's the only conceivable way in my view of actually doing it and around the world if I may conclude on this we're seeing this struggle for public energy coming back again. I mentioned the UK situation in South Africa where I'm also working with the project trade unions for energy democracy and the unions in South Africa. The environmental groups want to see the breakup and privatization of the public utility which burns coal. That's a big mistake because the most ambitious scenarios for decarbonizing South Africa is that there will still be at least 50% of its electricity produced by coal by 2030. So if you're going to have private renewables coming in and you're going to bankrupt the public utility the people will end up having to bail out the utility because you're going to need the electrical power. It's a technical challenge as much it's not a market challenge, it's a technical challenge. So that's where public ownership allows us to plan allows us to develop the technologies allows us to protect the workers and train for new skills that's the joined up kind of thinking we need if we're going to make this energy transition possible to get to zero carbon within the years we have remaining. So that's my point on that. We'll take three more questions. I see one in the front. My name is Diana Hernandez. I'm a professor of public health at Columbia University and I do research on this concept called energy and security which is basically people's inability to adequately meet their household energy needs and a lot of the stakeholders that I'm hearing in these discussions happen to be on the supply side of energy and supply communities but a lot of times like people are unable to pay their bills. So what does that actually mean and where is their room for something like basic energy where there is an opportunity for people to have a basic allocation of energy that is distributed to that household because the yellow vest in France are a really good example of how these transitions end up being unaffordable and they're really good for the economy to some extent they're really good for the climate but they're not necessarily great for people's pockets and I think we do need to kind of think about the people here in the just transition that might be economically marginalized as a result. Hi I'm a student at Hunter College and this is kind of speaking to what Matt mentioned about education how would you like what are some specific ways that you would try to educate young populations especially like really young kids about the complexities of this topic and everything that has to do with it. Do we have a third question? Oh sorry go ahead. My name is Jonathan Bailey. I'm one of the co-chairs of the Queens branch of DSA and very involved with our dual power working group. One of the, this is kind of I guess a question that's kind of directed at our political leaders and anybody who's working with labor but one of the things that's been really on our minds especially as a part of the dual power working group is kind of the context for a lot of this stuff. It's super awesome that we're talking about a green new deal and it's obviously like this reference to the new deal but one of the context for the new deal was the fact that the Communist Party USA was at its height of power and was able to actually serve as an impetus for a lot of this kind of political change then. And there's kind of two examples that we really have in mind when we're kind of thinking about this. We saw recently in the state of Oregon there was kind of a Militost environmental reform pushed by the Democrats there and we saw that the Republicans just left the state, militias threatened to shoot any cops that went after them. We saw that we didn't actually have the power to make these changes happen. Another example that we're very much thinking about is the way that Amazon workers staged a walkout and were immediately able to get reforms to Amazon, sorry, Amazon walkers staged a walkout and were immediately able to get reforms. And so our question is kind of targeted towards what are we doing right now to build the power that exists outside of the capitalist state in order to make those changes happen because if we're just relying just on passing reforms we might find in the circumstance of the state of Oregon that's not enough to actually create these changes. Thank you. Hi, so I just wanted to answer your question on education. So one of the things, and I think John Forrester, I think it ties into the question that was asked by John Forrester before but I didn't have a chance to answer it. We need to be investing in renewable energy in our city buildings. There are 4,000 city buildings in the city of New York that are city owned. One of the things that we're doing all the schools in my council district that are solar ready will be solarized by next fall. PS171 is an example. 516 solar panels. It's an elementary school. 50% of the base load will come from those solar panels but also there'll be a sort of display in the auditorium that has... Here's how much renewable energy is created. Here's how much fossil fuels we aren't burning. Here's how much greenhouse gases are being averted. So we're bringing a solar curriculum into these schools. So it's not just about we're putting on the roof. It's not just about fighting climate change but it's also about connecting those students to those renewable energy so it's building science experiments, it's building math equations around it and then every middle school in our council district will be solarized by next fall. So they'll be going from elementary school that has a solar curriculum to a middle school that has a solar curriculum and then hopefully a high school that has CTE, cure technical education. We can build that sort of basis for knowledge all the way through. That is one of the questions that we're trying to answer and we're trying to supercharge the investments that... Because John is right. There's too slow on implementation. There has to be, and I think that kind of ties a little bit into what Jonathan was talking about, that we need to have a lot more activism on the ground that's sort of holding people accountable, building structures outside of government that are holding us accountable because as fast as we're pushing, we need to go faster and there's only a limited amount of ability that one elected official can do or one policy can do. So we need to have infrastructure around that so I'm continuing to push on that as well. Yeah, I'd like to add on to that point of implementing it and having advocacy efforts to implement it within our curriculum for K through 12 schools. And whether that... We talked about it a little bit during lunch, but whether that is having a third party come in and teach some of those things within the curriculum and having it in house in each school as we wait for it to be more of a national push in the academic literature that they're providing for these students. And then to answer your question about how is it impacted by the end user, I think our policy right now requires that building owners and landlords meet these particular demands, but there isn't anything, any literature in that policy that talks about how we measure how these landlords are doing that. And a lot of times what happens is they're just offloading that burden onto the end user. And so we need to look back at that policy and say, like, how are we really articulating how this should be done on an ownership scale so that the end users, like the residents, aren't only impacted. Hello. So if I could try to respond to the energy burden question as well, because I think that's a really critical point. You know, low-income people, people of color tend to live in, you know, under-invested housing. They tend to have less efficiency and have to run their air conditioning. That kind of thing happens where the power will just be blacked out in their neighborhoods. You know, there are a lot of intense burdens placed on these communities that also result in higher energy costs and more of their paychecks. Okay. More of their paycheck being paid toward electricity. And these are just going to be compounded as we see, you know, increased heat waves, increased instances of power outages from things like Superstorm Sandys. And so, you know, one question that I have for everyone here to think about when we're talking about public control of utilities and public ownership, is there room in that model for community control and community-scale energy systems? So we need to have, you know, renewable-powered, you know, battery storage kind of in communities of color in low-income communities, particularly in areas with under-invested housing. And we need to make sure that in instances of heat emergencies and Superstorms, that when the power goes out and the grid can't support electricity supply, we have local kind of islanded sources of electricity for vulnerable communities. So that's one of the solutions that the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance is thinking through. And I would love to have more conversations with folks in the public power space about that. How can we have kind of community-controlled, local-scale, cooperatively-owned solar systems in the kind of context of the public taking back power? Maybe just to speak to your question about the education, I think, when we think about energy and power, you know, this idea of power exists, one specifically in the question there's also the idea of power just in terms of how our society is governed and organized and administered. And I think we can see it here with the questions like if AOC was here as a congresswoman, she would field more questions. Then maybe Costa would field a second tier of questions. Then maybe policymakers would field a different tier of questions. Then maybe researchers or whatever because there's a hierarchy about how we think of power and how we think of expertise and knowledge and who can actually get things done. But when Bernie kind of talks about political revolution, it would be some kind of flipping about how we would think about who we would talk to and why. And that's what the community power, community control I think or I would hope would point towards. And that's really the question of education for me is to think about how do we shift this political imaginary about who we talk to and why and who we think can change these things and why and therefore how you would build a movement with who. We say we want public power or it's up to us. Who is that we or who is that us? Do we think of purely politicians or technocrats or bureaucrats or managers or ministers and we think if we just shift the power from one set of bureaucrats to another, everything will kind of work out for us. It'll be more egalitarian. Or do we think of really empowering people in a different way, a different kind of autonomous imagination of what power would look like both in terms of electricity but also in terms of how we see ourselves as having agency in the world or agency in the city we live in. And I think on the question of education it would shift from thinking about Indian point where people may have no idea where it is or how it functions or who owns it, but maybe starting from your utility bill, you know what is con Edison or what is national grid and maybe working up the chain backwards through that and thinking about how those different infrastructural nodes or points function as a kind of process of education and that would also happen maybe in different spaces, in neighborhood spaces if they exist, community spaces church spaces outside in parks and plazas, they do try to engage people that are not already embedded in institutions of power and political kind of control or management. I think that would be for me the educational horizon of something like the Green New Deal or public ownership. I just wanted to answer, I think it's Sean's question on power in terms of organizing and I think AOC and Bernie are right on the money when they say that it's going to take a movement to implement the kinds of policies that they're trying to promote in this country and the same thing as it's critical for a Green New Deal I think we need to build up these important institutions like unions, currently our political parties are extremely opaque and not there's no entry point for normal people to participate in them I'm also from the UK originally and the Labour Party has started this massive democratization of the party and having more space for local members of the party to shape policy and we need to nurture movements like that and I think groups like the DSA unions and even environmental groups that I think my one criticism coming from the environmental field my one criticism of environmental groups is that I think for too many decades we've kind of bought the whole neoliberal model for like how are we going to fix the environment and we can just work we can just tweak around the edges and it will be fine and I think we have passionate people who could be activated but maybe like looking in the wrong direction and not looking at power analysis and we need to bring a culture of doing power analysis back into the environmental movement as well we're all out of time so thank you to our panelists