Siberian heatwave of 2020 almost impossible without climate change
worldweatherattribution.org
worldweatherattribution.org
Because these countries have relatively few vulnerable coastal cities, and a lot of land that's too cold to do much with. Yeah some places will get drier, but some will get wetter too (I think overall it gets wetter, but that doesn't mean much to people in areas that turn into deserts.)
Anyway I like to talk to people about it because I've noticed a very visceral reaction among progressives (translation: it gets down-voted on HN) that there could be any "winners" in climate change. It has to be all bad. They might well be right, but I think my point is still valid. Again, I'm not sure these countries will "win" but they'll be relative winners in a game full of negative prizes. If you disagree, engage with me, don't just click on the arrow.
Dunno about others, but the Internet says that Russia is worried about the warming, because it thaws the permafrost, which makes the ground in the cold wilderness unstable, which is very dangerous for all the resource extraction and transportation (pipelines) infrastructure that they have in Siberia. Once the now-rock-solid ground starts turning into a swamp, they will have trouble keeping the infra intact.
But as long as you can extract it at a profit, people will do just that.
Putin bet the economy on fossil fuel extraction, and as a consequence Russia is basically screwed over the long run.
The nukes would be useful against this.
However, some provinces, like Alberta, have already had increased insurance prices due to the more drastic weather patterns due to climate change. It's not a coastal province, but hail, floods, and fires are still extremely expensive.
On the other hand it’s pretty hard to figure out who to buy it from and you’re literally betting on a combination of weather and geopolitics which seems a bit irresponsible.
The rise in sea levels will be global though.
Capital needs somewhere to park, and it all come with risk. I don’t know a company that will be immune to the direct effects of climate change and the secondary geopolitical effects. How is land purchasing differently responsible than any other investment?
If that land may go up in value in the future, plenty of the current owners may be quite happy to realize some of that gain now with 100% certainty by selling to speculators.
To be fair, if you look at it from a land mass point of view, then it is far more land than 3 countries would imply.
Additionally, climate has a lot to be with more frequent unpredictable extremes. In the sense, you are right, that these countries will only be 'relative winners in a game full of negative prizes'.
Though there is a lot of 'unused' land near the poles, there is still a lot of 'used' land near the equator. But map projections distort this, as all 3D-2D projections must.
Here's an example: https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/0...
Africa is set to grow to ~4B people by 2099, India to ~2B, by 2099. Those 'unused' areas my find a use one way or another.
Vancouver is a coastal city, so warmer weather will be paired with rising sea levels for which we haven't built. Forest fires have been a problem every summer in BC for the last decade. The mountain pine beetle has already been decimating our forests; previously they were held in check by cold winters, which are now a thing of memory and likely not to return any time soon.
And that's just Vancouver, BC. The prairies, breadbasket of Canada, have been seesawing between summers of drought and flooding.
It's not that there won't be some "winners", it's that the overall outcome is almost certainly more grim, at least in the short term, than the status quo.
One could take the stance that climate change brings lots of change, and adjusting to change is painful, therefore mostly we lose.
Still I think none of that defeats my point that Canada will be a relative winner compared to other countries.
But HN is very "right wing" compared to say to say twitter or most subreddits.
And There may be some winners, but there may also be deaths and movement of people beyond any genocide ever seen.
1) Set disasters to maximum, map to old (flat), and with non-trivial amount of ocean.
2) Rush to flood barriers.
3) Build flood barriers while they are cheap (or ally the city-state that allows buying them with faith).
4) Burn coal until everybody drowns ;)
Russia has nuclear power plants built on permafrost. You don't need foundations and cooling is easy, but...
Permafrost that is no longer perma and soon not even frost is a massive problem.
If someone wants to take the time to read the whole 35-page study, it would be interesting to know whether "human-induced climate change" is now just a synonym for "climate change", or is part of their research.
At a smaller scale I got acquainted with this paradox as a child—where I grew up, every spring temperatures drop substantially for a period of time as rivers and lesser ice caps unfreeze.
“Why is it getting colder?” “Because it is getting hotter!”
At larger scales, if say parts of Arctic melt, that would cool a lot of air, and where this airmass ends up there will be cold weather.
As a non-native english speaker, I wasn't aware these were different things, and you didn't clarify. Could you explain the difference insofar as it's related to this conversation? The dictionary didn't help much; they still look like synonyms to me.
Weather[1]
1 : the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
Climate[2]
1 : a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2 : a : the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b : the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors a climate-controlled office 3 : the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period : atmosphere
1. A single data point.
2. The average of many data points
Saying "climate change is more complex" because you're having a cool summer is wrong, because global warming is a climate-level change and a cool summer is weather. You cannot look at moment to moment or even season to season weather to describe climate change. Climate is usually described in long term trends, e.g., "For the last 50 years, global temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.13°C (around one-quarter degree Fahrenheit) per decade-almost twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed over the previous half-century." [2] This is a typical description of climate change, explaining a trend over decades.
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_we...
[2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/history-earths-...
Edit to add, before I put my foot in my mouth: climate does inform weather, so you will see, for example, people saying that the Siberian heatwave are probably influenced by human climate change. Based on the original article, what they're saying is that this event would have been nearly impossible without human contributions.
Climate is a set of sustained climatic conditions. E.g. Mediterranean summers being hot and dry is climate. Boston winters being very snowy is climate.
Climate can only be observed in the order of years and decades. Weather is observed in the order of hours/days.
Scientists first use the term "global warming", and then when the denialists point to localized temperature decrease as counterevidence (totally ignoring the global part), we adopt the term "climate change". And now the skeptics say the reason we switched the term is because it's wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In my country it's quite "cold" (for the season) where I live, whereas just 300km south it's hot summer weather as per usual.
Also saying the summer is extremely cold when it's not even over yet is quite a stretch - there's about 6 weeks left, 4 of which could just as well become hot.
No data for July yet, but June was either 2nd or 3rd warmest on record depending on who reports data (EU Copernicus vs NOAA)
Previous months were:
January - warmest on record February - 2nd warmest March - 2nd warmest April - 2nd warmest, behind by only 0.01 Celcius May - warmest
See https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-maps
We need carbon sequestration, maybe.
PS: will the sun entering a cooling period have any serious effect at all on Earth?
Neither of these things are guaranteed to continue after COVID passes. More Westerners going vegan doesn’t automatically lower emissions if people in developing countries continue to grow their meat intake.
On the flip side, if people move out of urban cores and increase online shopping, those might have a negative impact on emissions.
Edit: Seems like people are misinterpreting the "negative impact on emissions". By that phrase, I meant that more personalized delivery and suburban living may very well lead to an increase in emissions. Apologies for the confusion.
Delivery services driving items around, with laws even mandating full money-back without questions asked in eg Germany (inviting people to order clothes in a couple of candidate sizes and lots of retoure) are heavy on emissions as well.
But it's surely an improvement over Westerners not going vegan, and people in developing countries continuing to grow their meat intake.
Plant-based diet.
Treat others kindly.
Luckily, it's becoming increasingly clear that that part will sort itself out without any kind of draconian China-style laws to forcibly limit family sizes: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30677-2
That the population is developing in manageable ways in most of the world is one of the good news that will really help us on our way. The recipe is well-known by now: give women control over their own bodies and their own lives, and provide a social safety net that at a minimum is strong enough that having a large amount of children as an insurance stops making sense. IT WORKS :-)
At that rate it will be centuries before the world starts running out of people - plenty of time to anticipate and start planning more kids again.
In a growth-growth-growth economy, you miss out on a bunch of consumption by having kids young. So people wait, travel the world, eat at fancy restaurants, climb the ladder, and then have one or two right at 30 so that they can get back to climbing the ladder ASAP, afford their nice house, etc.
What happens when the economy isn't growing, you're in the same job for 40 years, air travel is prohibitively expensive, big houses with yards are illegal, etc
And for the last part, big houses have been inaccessible to most urbanites for a while now. Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap.
> Yet urbanites have fewer children later in life than people in rural areas where land is cheap.
People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city.
Sure. Perhaps not international travel, but let's say we agree for the sake of further discussion.
> It also involves a lot less economic growth.
Perhaps.
> And without growth, you can't have a default assumption of a leadership role with sufficient experience.
I can't speak for everyone, but neither I nor most of my peers find a "leadership role" desireable at all. This idea that one must "rise through the ranks" to be "successful" seems like a sad americanism to me.
> chances are you aren't managing a team, because junior employees won't outnumber senior employees.
So what? I'm struggling to see the relation to what you were saying before about "staying in the same job for 40 years".
> People move to cities (in part) to pursue career or social advancement, for which education (often through the mid-twenties) is often a prerequisite. If you want kids more than you want to make partner at a law firm ... you don't move to the city.
Fair enough. I still don't understand your argument one bit.
In an austere, sustainable lifestyle, there are fewer things to do instead of have kids. The current economy both applies lots of pressure to delay kids and provides lots of alternatives to people on the fence about them.
In an entirely re-imagined, sustainable, economy, will the invisible hand keep family sizes down the same way it does in developed nations today? I'm not sure.
We need to rethink our cities, mobility, and transportation in general to truly make a difference.
This particular report is easily found at the CARB website as scoping_plan_2017.pdf
Working from home obviously helps, but transportation is almost inconsequential. I think it is responsible for around 15% of emissions and that includes every form of logistic emitter. Individual traffic doesn't help but wouldn't necessarily be an issue and people are dependent on it outside of the largest cities.
Agriculture on the other hand is one of the largest factors next to power generation.
If every developing country reaches the industrial stage, we will surely fail hard. So technological transfer to developing countries is a necessity, so they can skip this development state for greener alternatives. That is an obligation developed countries need to acknowledge.
Technological progress can help too, but I don't think it is a good idea to depend on it alone.
Or perhaps California emits few CO2 so that is has become a larger factor percentage wise?
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/g...
Just don't listen to them? This isn't rocket surgery. Once you realise something is propaganda and false narratives, it becomes easy to avoid it or point out to others who might be more susceptible.
How do we demonize greed / powerlust, and make cooperative goals more attractive?
1. "Green people" are a tiny portion of the left wing and have little overlap with the two parties that actually matter in any way.
2. Right wing people are certainly not pro-nuclear, they're pro fossil fuels. You win virtually nobody new if every single democrat went 100% for nuclear.
3. Anti-nuclear people cross the political spectrum roughly evenly... conservatives hate it because it is essentially a government brainchild and because the government has such an interest in the byproducts.
4. People who want to actually address global warming (like Rep AOC) as opposed to simply being pro-nature ARE fans of nuclear. The Green New Deal now encourages nuclear power.
5. Nuclear power is not a magic bullet. It's more expensive than solar and wind. It has the same distribution issues as solar and wind. It requires batteries like solar and wind (although less seasonal storage). It's not because of public opposition, or regulations, or any nonsense like that, it's because nuclear power is fantastically complex and expensive to build. If it was cheap and easy Texas would be dotted with reactors, but instead they have wind turbines.
This whole "nuclear vs. renewables" thing is a relatively isolated scuffle between a minor but visible group of anti-nukes and a much larger but less invested pro-nuclear group that mistakes NIMBYs as the former and is generally low-knowledge on the topic. Enthusiasm for nuclear power is already widespread and generally unopposed. It is not a divisive issue between people who disagree about climate change. It is also not a significantly better solution to climate change than normal renewables.
Putting Nye aside, can anyone name an actually good public educator for climate change? I don't think I know of one that didn't go off the rails.
Then there's all the claims around climate change that simply turn out to be untrue. People said that polar bears were drowning because of global warming, yet the polar bear population isn't struggling to say the least. Glaciers were supposed to melt by now, and when they didn't, the signs that said they would were simply removed. Some cities and small islands were said to be at risk of sinking into the ocean by a decade ago, yet they remain dry. This doesn't even include some of the insane claims made by public servants.
I think that anthropogenic climate change is real, and a problem. But I don't think the average person is an idiot for distrusting what they're being told about it. They're regularly lectured by people who are wrong about climate change over and over again. Inversely to conservatives, most liberals I know don't actually understand science at all but treat it as a religion.
Public science communicators can start by no longer making predictions like "By 2020, there will be no more glaciers here." They've not proven to accurately predict anything at the decade-resolution, so they need to just stop doing it.
[0] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
What do you mean, "to say the least"? The polar bear population has just barely remained stable since hunting was ended. They should be growing -populations are increasing in places that are cold enough- but because their range is shrinking quickly the bears are just being forced closer together instead of reproducing.
https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/
> Glaciers were supposed to melt by now, and when they didn't, the signs that said they would were simply removed.
You are specifically referring to Glacial national park; nobody is saying that about all glaciers because the 40m sea rise would be, uh, noticeable.
124 of the original 150 named glaciers in the park are gone. It's hard to see how that's really a failure. Inaccurate yes, but far from wrong. The fact that you see it as a boondoggle is due to messaging and sentiment, not because it was untrue in any important way.
https://glacierhub.org/2019/08/20/new-signage-at-glacier-nat...
> Some cities and small islands were said to be at risk of sinking into the ocean by a decade ago, yet they remain dry.
You started by talking about "public educators"... this claim originated with a 2003 pentagon report that was nonscientific and opened with the phrase "The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller."
https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2004/02/abruptclimatechang...
The report was very explicitly based on a scenario with no scientific justification- they basically said that the Younger Dryas event happened suddenly after a period of warming, so maybe something like that could happen again. Then they tried to estimate political ramifications. It has nothing to do with predicting warming, yet people and notably the press just ran fucking wild with it. It's lunacy.
> Public science communicators can start by no longer making predictions like "By 2020, there will be no more glaciers here."
While there are obvious failures of messaging, the vast majority of misinformation originates with bad actors. Small signs that you don't see unless you physically visit Glacier national park? Sure- bad messaging to a tiny population. National news about Europe being underwater, twisted from a thought experiment that was itself fully fabricated? Nothing to do with scientists or even popular science.
From your very own link:
>> Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.
Polar bears overall are deemed "vulnerable". It's a bad thing because we'd like to see more polar bears, I suppose, but that's not even close to extinction. That's not to say I don't think they could go extinct in the next century. But there are plenty of polar bears, which is what someone who doesn't know better is going to read and then doubt climate change. The polar bear argument hasn't helped the climate change cause, except to embolden people who are already sold on it.
> You are specifically referring to Glacial national park; nobody is saying that about all glaciers because the 40m sea rise would be, uh, noticeable.
I don't think you've actually met many climate change deniers or skeptics.
When people in positions of authority forecast things beyond their ability, and then those forecasts turn out to be completely wrong, that's what people remember. The average person doesn't give a shit data and evidence. That stuff's boring! All they know is that yet another authority figure made an arrogant prediction that turned out to be wrong.
> 124 of the original 150 named glaciers in the park are gone. It's hard to see how that's really a failure. Inaccurate yes, but far from wrong. The fact that you see it as a boondoggle is due to messaging and sentiment, not because it was untrue in any important way.
Doesn't matter. The story was that yet another prediction about climate change was wrong. I know that you are intelligent enough to look at the numbers, but that's not how the average person thinks and that's not how climate change deniers are going to communicate their "evidence" to their followers.
This is why scientists and politicians making hard predictions is a horrible and destructive idea. If everyone was an intellectual, the situation might be different, but we're stuck trying to communicate the issues to non-intellectuals. If you say that "By 2050, there will be no more ice caps", and then it turns out 10% of the ice caps are still there by that point, people will say "Look, those scientists were wrong again!"
Do you understand?
> The report was very explicitly based on a scenario with no scientific justification- they basically said that the Younger Dryas event happened suddenly after a period of warming, so maybe something like that could happen again. Then they tried to estimate political ramifications. It has nothing to do with predicting warming, yet people and notably the press just ran fucking wild with it. It's lunacy.
Yes, for sure. That completely supports my point.
> While there are obvious failures of messaging, the vast majority of misinformation originates with bad actors. Small signs that you don't see unless you physically visit Glacier national park? Sure- bad messaging to a tiny population. National news about Europe being underwater, twisted from a thought experiment that was itself fully fabricated? Nothing to do with scientists or even popular science.
Then there's an assload of bad actors, and the vast majority of them are sanctioned by the mainstream media. And if this misinformation primarily originates by bad actors, then the scientific community has absolutely failed to communicate this to the public.
1. the timescale is decades and centuries, not weeks and months
2. there is a trillion dollar financial interest against fighting climate change
Given what we're seeing with covid-19 and how much harder climate change is to deal with, I'm not optimistic.
Now that I'm older and have spent a lot of years reading discussion boards, my stance is people will predominantly gravitate towards sources that justify their position regardless of whether their source(s) have been wrong before.
But the imperviousness of obviously wrong beliefs in the face of what you consider rational evidence should not be taken as license to give up! Consider - if people tend to want to stick to their wrongness in the face of contradictory evidence, the wrongness still had to come from somewhere. All beliefs are caused by something, even if the cause would not meet a scientifically rigorous definition of "evidence". There's always logic in it, even if the logic isn't immediately apparent. For example, "Hard-code the beliefs of the people around you when young" and "Reject evidence that upends a large proportion of your worldview" are both highly logical heuristics that, incidentally, probably aren't nearly as likely to get you stuck in dysfunctional local attractors when attacking problems like "hungry tigers" as opposed to "gigascale global realpolitik".
All I'm saying is - don't be too cynical. At the end of the day, the truth still matters, and all we can do is keep plugging away at it. The wall is thick but not impenetrable, and we have come a long way already.
Meanwhile as of 2019, over 20% of Americans doubt climate change, a much more significant number. This is far too high in my opinion, but it is steadily improving.
> About a third of those who have heard this claim (36%) – a quarter of all U.S. adults – say that they think it is “definitely” (8%) or “probably” (28%) true.
https://www.journalism.org/2020/06/29/most-americans-have-he...
72% said they would not get a coronavirus vaccine:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/21/most-americ...
Don't see a "trillion dollar financial interest", it's the lifestyle of you and me and also the media/politics which both avoid difficult questions (why e.g. allow/encourage migrants from countries with totally irresponsible population dynamics?).
People will believe what's convenient for them and their lifestyles.
Here in Chicago we just had an episode where a white person was selling food by pushing around a little cooler like hispanic people typically do, and we all had to learn that only certain races can do certain types of jobs or else it's appropriation.
The killings thing has to be judged _per capita_ or else you get the wrong answer, and that of course make sense but the way you phrased it, it's tricky.
I think you have to remove the effects of childbearing, hours worked, and type of job to get the gender wage gap to show the real numbers, too.
Life isn't simple.
The fact that childbearing is unpaid work is a significant part of the problem.
But regardless, that's a question of fairness and/or government's social policy. Not something that should be reflected in your wage (which is the exchange for productive work for your employer) or otherwise a responsibility of your employer.
This not by accident. There is a book everyone should know about: "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" written by science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.
The bottom line is connection between deniers of dangers tobacco smoking, acid rain, DDT, ozone layer hole, and climate skepticism. Small number of core people and think tanks. Physicists like Fred Singer, Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, ... The Heritage Foundation, George C. Marshall Institute,Competitive Enterprise Institute, ... with corporate backers that change with every issue.
The thing is, there’s a huge propaganda machine behind climate change. Backed by Hollywood, politicians everywhere on the left, universities.. there have been lots of distorted and hyperbolic claims made over years and years that didn’t turn out to be true. Lots of politicians making extreme claims that are just obviously false. I’ve personally seen nearing the order of hundreds of exaggerated claims that fall apart if you look in any detail, especially on MSM news sites.
Tons of pressure is put on scientists to match the narrative (multiple Climate scandals over decades where scientists were blackballed for misalignment or caught colluding to fudge numbers to paint a picture they admit they are trying to paint).
Just this year you have two books being published by left leaning scientists who basically say climate change has become a force beyond itself. Both cite data heavily. Both were attacked heavily by the press, or ignored. One was a former activist and leader in the cause originally, used to get a lot of attention and now has his posts literally deleted from Facebook.
To me it’s like this: when you hear the “dumb Americans” going on about climate change and you can’t believe how dumb they have to be to be skeptics... what you need to realize is they saw a lot of smoke, less fire, and they basically are tired of the left puffing the flames of everything they touch. Sure, there’s probably fire there. But how much can we tell? Our universities, the media, a lot of core institutions are actually not trustworthy. Skepticism is not irrational in the face of that.
I’m sure a lot of them would come around to admit some portions of climate change are legit, but it would take some really careful accounting. But they are in their own way calling out what they see as a bigger and more dangerous phenomenon: the distortion of fact gathering and science itself towards political gain. It’s an unfortunate reality. And really it’s hard to argue that isn’t true.
For reference, I am absolutely not a climate denialist but I would say I’ve burst my bubble that it’s so black and white after carefully looking at a lot of research. The main posts are likely true, the models have consistently overestimated our impact, and we focus on the wrong things more often than the real harms.
I totally get why people would be skeptical. Even smart people who have been right in contrarian ways have said exactly what I’m saying (look at Thiel).
So to simplify it down to “stupid righties” is always an error.
After you have presented that, you are not allowed to come back with more evidence. It was what you consider the best and most rock solid. Something you hang your credibility.
Usually the opinion like yours is just 'general attitude' and some individual instances of scientific fraud that is not evidence of anything being consistently biased.
If you want a case, here's one of the books I mentioned [1]. It's not entirely perfect, but an example of how you can absolutely make a very valid, science-based attempt at a world-view that refutes many of the central tenets of modern climate change ideology.
Don't confuse me: carbon emissions are an important problem, one we need to solve. But you have decades of people like Gore to AOC to celebrities to even legit scientists, all on the left, who make claims like "we're X years from Y major catastrophe", and they end up wrong. Then you have corruption scandals, inaccurate models and stories of suppression of non-narrative-fitting data, and the democrats beating it over everyones heads constantly.
All I'm saying is this: it's very understandable that the Average Josephine on the right is skeptical. Any claim that says "the righties are dumb / purposefully ignorant" is missing an important piece of socio-cultural dynamics and rational game theory - having a distrust of an institution thats been intensely politicized is... fairly rational.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmi...
My biggest issue with climate alarmism is that sources universally consider only the negative outcomes of climate change. Thawing permafrost also opens up an enormous amount of arable and habitable land. Some species will benefit from warmer temperatures and extended ranges (and that's not just insects).
Not to mention that neither the change or the rate is unprecedented according to geologic data.
The world is very unlikely to end, human migration and economic impact will be gradual (≈100) years, and people need to consider that mitigation of climate change at this point is also not "free" when they ask people to go vegan (yeah, right).
Rather than buying long-lasting products as an individuals say (instead of the fast-fashion or planned obsolescence products that most people buy), we could push for legislation that makes those products less available and helps people to buy more natural-resource-efficient-in-the-long-term products. Most people, who are not well off, have no choice but to buy the cheap stuff that breaks soon. Most people have to drive in a carbon-emitting car to work because there is no electrified public transit. Most investors prefer to build products in a cheap way that they can flip fast because it leads to greater returns. Until we can collectively reverse the logic of this system, we will not be "doing our part".
We need to be up in arms and posing real challenges to the people in power that could change this situation, until they do change it sufficiently. Protests have not been working, boycotts have not been working. There are not many options left apart from general strikes or all out revolt. As you can see, the youth have actually understood this and have been on a school strike for nearly 2 years. However, this is not a sufficient threat to those in power and it must grow and include everyone else before we will see meaningful change.