permit, we're bringing our international course on it. rock, send us alonzo. to break down what happened to the planet. the last time the world stood still roxanna scotty. it was only 3 years ago when the whole world was ordered to stay home to prevent the spread of cobra. what we all thought was for only 2 weeks turned into 2 years. well, this is straight economy's and bang for the business. this. it was actually good for the environment. many people were working from home, which means they were no longer driving in their cars, less cars and the road means less pollution in the air. air high school in field, the plains. i'm some we're the only one passenger we're grounded and canceled. many last few emissions houses were all ducked. cruise lines have be not targets up environmental least for tripping. the size of your carbon footprint. the moment you step on deck compared to other typical vacations people see or they were no longer

dumping waste into the ocean's. base scores were seen golf is closer to source and waters have never been so clear. even trays and bosses for public trying to see if were halted completely or reduce their service. for instance, here in washington dc, many bus routes were canceled on the metro went from running every 2 to 3 minutes to running every 30 minutes even now as were returning from the funds that make the trays only run every 50 minutes. with fewer people walking the streets, new york and san francisco, usually full of people, were yearly empty. these also lead to less leader on the ground. here in washington, dc, again, we sell grass grow in areas, usually field with foot traffic. it seemed almost serious turn. greener, national parts sat down to visitors now has while live sunbathing in the middle of

the road, coming out and exploring areas they have never there to before due to mass crowds, many businesses are implementing work from home permanently. this leads to less need for building infrastructure to handle rice and commuters population, meaning less trees have to be torn down to winding roads. but as the world came out of locked down and began to return to work, traveling an hour every day life, so came back to pollution. now the u. n. is warning against the times to combat climate change is a quote, rough if a closing window it seems, were worse than we started. but even back in the heights of the pen demik, when the world was saw supposedly much health, your environmental lee, that you and was saying countries were not on track to meet the pirates agreements kind of goals. we have to remember with all these ground flights also came mass layoffs with canceled boss routes. low income workers had no way to get to their

jobs. restaurant workers, another customer service industries who cannot work from home, became dependent on governments and stimulus handouts have led to record inflation and i'm in pending recession. we're also now learning probably it was a lot. it isn't that deadly as badly as we 1st believe. the boxes don't work and governments are not releasing findings. the virus came from a lab leak in well, on the mask, everyone was forced where you started save. they didn't even stop the spread. now icon for 5500 tons of plastic waste. as 1600000000 this possible mask answer. our ocean seems 2020 people have lost faith in their government, media for making them stay home and destroying the economy. i live so low a middle class families across a group with people, even trust scientists,

if they said a lot that will save the planet. and so while i logged on may have helped mother earth for just a moment. i what cost do we pay? have to pay and what would be the price to do it again? um rosanna solano. 436. the you back to you, scott. wow roxanne, i mean i still, i'm not holding up that i remember what those locked downs did just for our industry, much less others. but we knew that we could come back out if there were certain benchmarks, freeze with climate change. it's not like there would be those benchmarks that would be permanent, as we've already seen. we're already back to where we were preparing demick standards according to climate change activist. would you be willing to stay home, i guess, to save the planet scotty? i think it actually might hurt the plan if i stay home. i have teenagers. thank you, roxanne, for the story. joining me to shed light on the subject is currently matthews communications director at the american conservation coalition. thank you so much

for joining me. carly. thanks for having me. sorry. so the united nations is a warning. the window to take action against climate change is quote, rapidly closing. now, the report details the possible risk of premature deaths across the globe due to climate change. what could cause a desk from climate change as you see it? great, so it's a good question. and i think that the biggest issue that we're dealing with here is kind of the idea of alarm is i'm ruling the conversation when we're talking about climate change. and it's not helpful to tell people that they're going to die in 10 years. it's not helpful to tell them that it, we're out of time to take action. i think there are environmental effects that we should be careful of air quality, of course, and, you know, increase temperatures, extreme weather. those are serious concerns. but i don't think it's really successful. i don't think it's rational to be telling people that climate change means they're going to die and there's nothing we can really do about it. yeah, fear is something that is used often,

but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the most effective way of getting people to understand what is actually going on. so what do you say to those climate skeptics out there? and furthermore, why should the average citizen trust scientist on this one considering the past history from the past few years? all right, so i think that's a great point. i think that we've seen kind of a general increase of distrust of all institutions really across the board, whether they be political scientific, in fact, nature magazine, which is a really up until recently, very respected scientific journal found that after it endorsed here buying in 2020 and people started to distrust it and they actually just trusted their scientific expertise because they weighed in on politics. so i think that we're seeing overall kind of a, a just trust in institutions. but when i talked to climate skeptics and i talked to folks who uh, you know, aren't sure about, you know,

whether or not climate change is happening or whether or not we should care. or frankly, i start with the idea that we all want clean air and clean water. we all want a healthy planet to live on. and we should be taking steps to make sure that we have that today, but also for future generations. and i think that that's really successful, kind of igniting this conservation eco, is talking about, you know, our shared experiences in nature. why our equipment matters. i think that's a really good gateway and then we can get into, you know, the more granular solutions to be carbonized. in order to the effects that we'll see from climate change. when you're talking to the skeptic tractor and i have to ask this based on your last to answer, we're talking to those skeptics. do you see a difference from one political side, maybe more liberal versus conservative, or even a just the older versus the younger generation? who do you feel like it's most accepting that something needs to be done or most accepting that there are changes happening? sure, yeah, i think this is absolutely in each gap rather than a political gap. and you'll see that young conservatives compared to young

progressives. so have pretty high levels of um, you know, thinking climate change is real, what they can support politicians who think climate change is real. and so i really do think it's a generational gap rather than a participant gap, although i will say that. and you know, as you survey to um, get older older um blocks of builders and conservatives. and they tend to be the more skeptical which i think is fair. i think we've seen the um, you know, climate active us the wrong. i think we can point back to you al gore or, you know, some of that kind of early, 21st century climate messaging that frankly just didn't come to pass. but i do think that coming back to this idea of, you know, wanting to stuart our planet and wanting it to be better for all generations. i think that that's something that really unites folks across ages across partisanship, across ya, per fee then. well then you go to the extreme because we are here and these whispers about climate lock downs. we're that locked downs may have made the planet

healthy or during cobit. but what is the reality of this happening now? you know, we've seen protests in hong kong when china tried to lock down for their 0 colored policy and the world actually really behind them. what are the chances people would be actually susceptible to accepting a lock down for the environment? yeah, it's a good question. i think we did see, you know, kind of an environmental rebound during the beginnings of cobra lockdown. people were pointing to that and the rivers incentives and the official returns and they looked cleaner. but i guess my question to that would be at what cost. right. and when we're talking about climate or environmental solutions, they should be good for people and good for the planet. and i don't think that a lockdown is good for people. so when we're talking about, you know, combat and find that change or protecting our environment in general, i think we have to be realistic about the trade off and lockdown, frankly. have to hire a trade off. they don't think it's worth it. and for humans,

i don't think it's worth it for society. it just seems very dramatic considering the stage that we're in right now and where we're coming back from. you know, i want to get your take on this and cast stove debate that is just recently erupted hot topic right now. in america, 40 percent of households do have a gas stove. other countries that ratio is even higher california pass. there's no new construction. we'll have a guest of new york to save. you worked in the same. how will people cook when the electric company cuts their power due to high wind during the season? you know, i, i keep thinking about to the bottom ministration, attempting to push legislation banning these gas stoves has caused an hour. i would love your take on the gas stove band. and if this is really once again, just like the lock down, is this really a dramatic step that would have that much of an impact on the environment and would be accepting by people to it's a great question. i think it's been really interesting how the buying it ministration has tried to kind of navigate this discourse because it 1st, you know,

it was kind of a flooding permanent ministration. official saying that they might consider doing that. and then we were told, oh no, no, no, no, we're not doing that. yeah, that's crazy. that's just can serve this town, say, but to your point, there are states and localities who are being a new gas construction, basically meaning when you construct a new building, it wouldn't have the gas hook up that you'd need to put a gas stove in, in those residencies, so i think the, 1st of all, it's in effective climate policy, right? a lot of people are pointing to a study where, you know, having a gas stove in your home. how does childhood asthma we're really dramatically decreases the quality of the air in your home? but frankly, it's just a really negligible difference if you have an electric stove or a gas to interestingly actually, um, it's more dangerous for air quality to cope with olive oil than to cook with

a gas stove. but again, both are really negligible effects on your health. so i think we're getting distracted with these like bands or top down solutions rather than just focusing on intervening and, and letting the private sector take the lead on climate solutions, living localities, and really do what works best for them. and i think with the the gaps. so ben, it's really just an example of government overreach that won't have that much of the fact. thank you so much. carley matthews, now stick around with us for the 2nd part of the show. because as governments are placing more climate manage on companies, we see if there is any sort of middle ground, disturbing the environment i've got out here and you are watching $360.00 the or what else?

they just don't have to shape out the application and engagement. they close the trail when so many find themselves will support we choose to look so common ground the the russian states never as one of the most sense community best. most all sense of the, in the 6595 and speed. what else calls question about this? even though we will ben in the european union the kremlin mission, the state on the russians cruising and split the ortiz full neck,

even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube tv services. for the question, did you say a request, which is the brains are assassinated? they control everything from our ability to function to experiencing emotion. in fact, your ability to understand what i'm saying to you right now comes down to the amazing functionality of your brain. and yes, there are still so much that we don't understand about how our minds work. so what happens when things go wrong up here? well, to find out the answers, we came here to use, you know, and speak with miguel. here's one of the world's foremost surgeons utilizing state

of the art technology and progressive techniques. we are back with currently, matthews, from the american it conservation coalition on climate locked down. probably thank you so much for joining us. ok, thanks gabby. okay, so we are hearing about e. s, g, or environmental, social and governance. now this is an infesting strategy. looking at a business is environmental and social risk, all a part of financial planning. so there's an e s g investing actually make a difference, and do you see companies really beholden to a higher state or now or does the entire system still live proper checks, verifications, most importantly, account ability. it's a great question. i think e s t is something that is well intentioned. i think it, frankly, i think it's capitalism working, maybe get businesses investing in what they think is right with it as

a conservative, i think it is good business practice, but i think you but you're right that there is kind of this element of well as they're not investing in the fees and there, you know, not the right type of company your, you know, they're not, they're not prioritizing social justice enough where, where they think a lot of these companies do. yeah. she investing for kind of p r and public image. so it's an interesting balance of seeing, you know, which companies are really taking their values into your account and are investing in, in initiatives that they really believe in and making a difference versus, you know, running a p r campaign. sticking to finance, as you know, most of the western world actually lives as a capital society. so why don't they let the paying customers side? you know, if the company wants to go green, if it wants to lower its own carbon footprint, and people are into that linux, it said if they don't care about the planet and people don't want their product push to the product anymore, the company will fail. why does the government have to actually get involved?

why not just leave it up to the consumer? absolutely, and that's something we talk a lot about at the see, see kind of this idea of voting with your dollars and supporting companies that, that share your values. i think that the, the intention of yes, he is to do that right, for companies to kind of show their values, put their money rather amount there and for consumers to accept or reject that support that company or not support that company. i think that that in itself is capital letter stating that that is the free market working. but i think that the government mandating business is invest this way is the wrong the wrong path forward. and we, we can really make sure that the government is out of investing. and, but companies like microsoft, like apple late fees near these large companies that have the capital to do so. i think that they should be able to invest in initiatives that, that their, their employees believe in was interesting when you're talking about conservation. it seems like there's very extreme polarized ends,

where you're either very much this way. they're very much the same, but yet is there some middle ground, for instance, with a letter in central is, is such a high fine. there's one the most pristine beaches that i've ever seen of. it is a fact that literally is bad for the environment. it's also just bad for you as a person to do while the best types of energy seem to be up for debate. how can we actually protect the planet for future generations without actually making the government regulate every aspect of our lives? right, and i, i really like you brought up literally because that's really kind of the perfect example of protecting our planet. and it just kind of an individual action that we've accepted is that we shouldn't litter and there are kind of for that there. there's also kind of like a social aspect of like if it's a friend you littering that friend is going to think about you differently. and so i think that that's a really good example of kind of an individual option to help protect the planet

with energy. of course, it's more complicated and yes, fossil fuels produce emissions, but they're also the reason that our society has advanced to the level it has today . so there are tradeoffs there. and that's why we advocate for all of the above energy approaching, recognize that different areas of the country are going to be able to get their energy from different sources and, and what works in washington state like hydro power isn't going to work in florida where they really drive off solar power. and so i think that there is a discussion to be had there that there's not a one size fits all solution for all energy and climate issues. and especially in the country as kind of vast and geographically diverse is ours. and we're going to need kind of a password of solutions and that's why my organization, advocates for climate commitment which lays out kind of a variety of policy pathways that we can, we can pursue in order to lower emissions, but also protect the planet with people in mind and yet you're finding right now i

think around the world, people are trying to figure out where they're going to get their energy from at this point and, and hope that there's enough of it there. you're right. the fact that one part of the region, you can't, you cannot put rules across the entire glove. obviously the climate is different in various areas. let's take china where there are restrictions on what day you can drive in order to limit the number of people that are actually on the road due to their exported population plus in order to lower popped up pollution. it's happening at any given time. shanghai is, are in a cloud of pollution as the air quality levels are over twice the world health organization to recommended safety threshold. there's got to be an effect on health from that. so could this be something other countries look to and for once actually the west get it right? implement in the future. but is it hard to make this one big a global umbrella policy that would work for all right. i don't think that one size fits all silver bullet solution exists,

and i think we see that when we look to be you and i mean name a more dysfunctional body than the un. and, you know, treaties that we see come out of the un and they're non binding, right? there is not a way that we can hold other countries like china, accountable and in china is really kind of the driver of climate change as we see it today. they're not planning to start reducing emissions until 2030. that's when they're emissions for peak. and and so i think when we're talking about china and in the way that they've treated the environment and they don't care about climate change, they care about power. and the ccp of the chinese communist party and you know, all they care about is kind of their position on the world stage. and, and in the united states, in our allied countries, we really care about our people and our planet. and we have to ensure that the solutions that we implement on our soil worked for both of those. and i don't think

that china is really an example that we should look to, frankly for anything but especially on the environment. so we've talked a lot about climate limitations, but has any country actually implemented a climate locked down? and you said it was a model for others wanting to do the same. and i do not know of this quote unquote successful clement locked down anywhere. and on the planet, and frankly, i don't think there, there would be one. i think that the closest thing we can find is kind of restrictions in china as far as driving, things like that. but again i, i don't think that that's something that what should be countries are really going to tolerate. once again, it's one of those things that you're kind of just threatening out. there is almost a fear factor on i don't know if it necessarily helps and receiving your message right now to actually care more about the climate when you have those kind of threats out there. there has been though, a lot of criticism of client activist lately, you mentioned it earlier. you know, for example, you have pat hatley stage arrest of grad a sunburn and people might think that she's really helps the climate change effort

argument. i think she's actually dental water damage. it's definitely destroyed a lot of trust that. so i'm having it all over the past months, you've even had her deleting a tweet where she herself said the earth would be destroyed by climate change in 2023. and obviously we're having this conversation right now. her prediction did not come true. lots of celebrities, a late to fly on private jets around the world to events where they turn around, they preach about and receive wards about their climate change actress. they're telling us what we should do. obviously they're not, don't you think this actually plays onto this a negative perception? the average citizen has of any climate activism and perhaps actually strips away what might be at the core, a sincere message of warning it to take care of our own planet. and i think you're exactly right. and that's a big reason that my organization does not engage in prototypes. people never finance fooling ourselves. so balls are getting arrested and for protesting. i

think that when we're talking about climate activision, we have to think about, you know, how you're going to weigh people over to your side. and i don't think you're going to do that by interrupting their commute by blocking traffic and destroying the prices, piece of artwork, or staging and arrest. so i think we're really trying to reach you audiences and emphasizing the importance of protecting our planet. we have to get serious about the topics that we use to do that and for formative activism, frankly, doesn't work. and even the station rebellion, which is kind of um, you know, the most notorious climate activism group in europe announced earlier this year that they would be laid off of some of these protests because they found anecdotally that they do not work. and so i think that we're really seeing kind of a change in that and seeing that, you know, we probably need to we need to show people why they should care rather than kind of throwing us dunce in their face. thank you. somebody to call him matthews,

communication director at the american conservation coalition. you know, all the world was a quick to submit to locked downs out of fear of a virus. i think it's going to take a lot more convincing for the same to happen over and occurs, which is still highly debated as whether it is man made or just the natural progression of the yours. sadly, as with almost every other controversial topic, when those who make the rules actually abide by them, then maybe any restrictions they offer will be taken seriously. sky, now hughes, and this has been your 360 view of the news affecting you. thanks for watching the the

the at the end of the 18th century, great britain began to conquer and colonize australia. from the very beginning of the british penetration to the continent, natives were subjected to severe violence and deliberate, extra patient. according to modern historians, in the 1st 140 years, there were at least 270 massacres of local b. both any resistance to the british was answered with double cruelty. hundreds of natives were killed for the murder of one settler. indigenous australians were not considered complete people. no wild beast of the forest was ever hunted down with

such unsparing perseverance as they are. men, women, and children are shot when ever they can be met with squatter. henry myrick wrote in a letter to his family in england, in $1846.00 plus strategy as fast as these rightly described as blood soaked in races. if at the beginning of colonization, there were one and a half 1000000 indigenous people living on the continent, then by the beginning of the 20th century, their number had degrees still 100000 people. despite the indisputable historical facts, the problem of full recognition of the crimes of white australians against aborigines has not been resolved so far. the pull up schultz is not that bright and he has an even worse german chancellor. though he is self aware enough to understand and acknowledge some nations, the double standards on russian, peo, colonial thinking. it would seem to dice hard the mortgage to

search as far as the lights as the cargo border brothers punch. but they will not put, it was up in one of the sons of this. so basically of course, we need your last name was need read, those can, will be used to live. imagine we have some more for someone who is this, we would show new people to the the, the body of 3 people. so for instance,

coming up with is what the psalm i'd love to have to choose between you and the youngest. you want to get to the store why? why the next this goes to leave it up there. the word made that up way. anything that apple beat was awfully cool my lot. so shift about a few things to get suitable for something that you all this up with the law, mid july seventy's with office

officials and don't say russia's victory at archibald schools so known as bach moot is imminent. announced that wagner private military company reports on the strategic value of the front line city, also a head on the program. this applies increasingly powerful weapon system is combined with the ongoing, transferred data to campus strikes makes the states not any participants in on conflict with russia, but also a calculus is. so the military crimes of the, on the 4th grade pressure is on void. so the un condemns kids. western bonacre's saying there are shipments of lead till age and ukraine gives most go the right to respond. and to concert incoming security threats on the u. s. continues that search for.