Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t James Delingpole – Alice Bows-Larkin has given a TED talk, which outlines her plan for “saving” the environment from a 4c temperature rise. The gist of her idea seems to be that developed countries need to dramatically reduce their output, while developing countries raise theirs, so everyone gets a “fair” share of a smaller pie.
How deep a cut are we talking about?
10:52
So that poses very significant challenges for wealthy nations. Because according to our research, if you’re in a country where per capita emissions are really high — so North America, Europe, Australia — emissions reductions of the order of 10 percent per year, and starting immediately, will be required for a good chance of avoiding the two-degree target. Let me just put that into context. The economist Nicholas Stern said that emission reductions of more than one percent per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval. So this poses huge challenges for the issue of economic growth, because if we have our high carbon infrastructure in place, it means that if our economies grow, then so do our emissions. So I’d just like to take a quote from a paper by myself and Kevin Anderson back in 2011 where we said that to avoid the two-degree framing of dangerous climate change, economic growth needs to be exchanged at least temporarily for a period of planned austerity in wealthy nations.
Click here to read the full transcript
Why do I think this plan for aggressive CO2 emission cuts amounts to economic ruin? Lets think about what 10% per year actually means.
Imagine this reduction as slices taken away from a 5 day working week. I’m going to assume for the purpose of this calculation, that emissions are a proxy for economic activity.
In the first year, not so bad – its like leaving work every week on Friday at lunchtime. It might be uncomfortable, but a lot of people in developed countries probably have the spare financial capacity, to absorb a 10% cut in income.
By year 3, things get unpleasant. By now you are only working;
(1 – 0.10)3 years * 5 days = 3.5 days per week.
More than an quarter of your income has gone. Bills are getting tough to pay, you spend long hours in the Supermarket aisles agonising over your grocery basket.
By year 10, things are desperate. By then you are only working;
(1 – 0.10)10 years * 5 days = 1.7 days per week. 66% of your income is gone. Your mortgage if you owe money on your house is in arrears. Debt collectors are calling every other day, demanding money you don’t have. All you have to look forward to is more hopelessness and despair.
OK, so you’ve lost most of your income – but working 1.7 days per week, you would get plenty of time off, right? Wrong. The reality is you would probably still have to work your normal 5 day week. What is being degraded is not the number of hours you have to work, but the economic return those hours generate for you and your employer. Your 5 days of effort now only returns 1.7 days worth of the spending power, in terms of what you earned before the cuts started. Your employer’s profits have also been slashed – they simply can’t pay you any more, even if they wanted to.
Even at 34% of your original income, you probably still have more spending power than many people in the third world. The cuts would have to continue.
Of course, most people would probably be worse off than my simple calculation predicts. I doubt very much whether the green elite would give up their frequent flights to climate conferences, and other perks. So if the national pie in your country is shrinking, and the greens keep the full portion of their slice, your slice gets smaller even faster.
If alarmists are right about the rate of climate change, which by any reasonable evaluation of the skill of climate models is very doubtful, is all this hardship really a price worth paying, to prevent a few extra days of pleasant sunny weather every year?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sounds a lot like the old Penn and Teller pie sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz2p4EQtEXs
Perfect analogy, thanks !!
really? this is probably the dumbest analogy I’ve ever heard.
This is also what the Ford Foundation pushed as the Line of Plenty in papers created as part of Rio 2012.
Here’s a little cartoon that explains progressive income taxes.
http://youtu.be/S6HEH23W_bM
The formula should have been decided before installing the improvements. The hardworking, thrifty one should have put the gate and flowers in front of his house alone. Let the shiftless, lazy one feel the imact of crime and barren surroundings. It may provide an incentive to GET TO WORK! [Sorry for the caps shouting…it is well deserved.]
LarryFine,
Great video and great link to Prager U. I recommend more people see it and the other videos.
I can’t work out whether it’s an attempt at sarcasm or the creators are deadly serious that this is the way it should be? I don’t know much about Puger U, but given it’s a university I assume they are deadly serious?
reductions of the order of 10 percent per year, and starting immediately, will be required for a good chance of avoiding the two-degree target.
================
seriously? so she is OK with a 10% pay reduction every year! How about everyone else where she works? Are they on board with a 10% annual pay cut?
Try making the interest payments on your student loans, with a 10% pay cut each year.
” so she is OK with a 10% pay reduction every year!”
Well obviously she’s an academic, so no. Her pay won’t be cut. Yours will. She’s working in a protected environment. And a green to boot.
I have no doubt that she actually believes there will be no problems caused by a mere 10% cut per year.
Dr. Bows has with her nifty idea, just elevated herself to the same pedestal as that other brainiac, Sheryl Crowe, who can wipe her a*** with one 4 inch square (100 mm for scientists) of one ply recycled toilet paper.
Maybe they can share their ideas with each other.
g
George,
This short video shows what people can do to save on toilet paper (explanation toward the end).
I heartily recommend it to Dr. Bows-Larkin, who would surely benefit. ☺
Why would anyone listen to the economist Lord Stern??? There would be economic upheaval alright…………his economic upheaval.
NOTES:
Abengoa is engaged in solar energy and bioenergy devices and other products.
Stern also runs the NS Economics Limited (sole owner, jointly with wife; the company’s main business is the Member’s speaking engagements. He likes to speak and get paid to talk about climate alarmism. I wonder why he keeps telling us that ‘climate change’ is much worse than he thought while investing in climate schemes. It surely wouldn’t have anything to standing to gain from one’s own alarmism would it?
Lord Stern:
“I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse”
Of course. Good Lord! You are a failure in economics and climate.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
I don’t think Teller is going to get any pie at Bill Gate’s place either. He will starve, as will we all if her plan were implemented. In 10 years, you will only have a hunter gatherer society. I don’t think this lady actually understands the consequences of her plan. I would suggest that she be offered a trial run under the conditions that her policy would generate. She might change her mind. If she knows she is spouting nonsense, and knows what the real impacts would be, she would likely decline the offer. If she is as uninformed as she sounds, she just might accept. If her plan were successful, she’d rue the day she put it out to the world.
Actually if they tried this climate scientists and greens would be an endangered species. People’s tolerance only goes so far after that that its A La Lanterne.
Good point. It would be torches and pitchforks.
Hilarious 🙂
I wonder how many of the young Eco-Terrorists realize they would have to give up their Iphones,Ipads, laptops,make up, GameBoys and cell phones …etc……??? All are made with evil CO2 contributing products !!!!
There is a very much greater possibility that the USA’s electric power grid would be attacked and knocked out than of the climate changing catastrophically solely due to human activities.
Eco terrorists, like most liberals, are convinced that it’s the other people who will have to give up stuff.
Since they care, they are given a free pass.
@ur momisugly MarkW
“Eco terrorists, like most liberals, are convinced that it’s the other people who will have to give up stuff.
Since they care, they are given a free pass.”
Exactly right. As exemplified by the bun fight about to take place in Paris.
She and her ilk can greatly help by walking to Paris! but nooooo, flying and staying at high end hotels and scarfing in expensive restaurants will be their “right”
Because she cares, she is allowed to continue her lifestyle.
I think most people commenting here are far too nice and polite.
In reality, this is a classic case of SBS, or Silly Bitch Syndrome
Sometimes, a sensible, but sexist, remark is totally appropriate to describe the shallow utterances of the Amazon leaders of the alarmist cult.
Since there’s been no actual warming for 18 years etc., and the CO2 greenhouse theory has essentially been disproven, I don’t see ANYONE altering much for the sake of an academic construct. I DO see them doing it if and when it makes economic sense–and ONLY then. The Smart Money is not losing sleep over “climate change.”
My GF is a green left winger and always goes on about how we need to lower the West’s standard of living to accommodate whatever grabs her attention at the time (like AGW). I took her to the movie Les Misérables. After it finished I turned to her and said “How do you like the lower standard of living?” She hasn’t mentioned it again.
Smart Expat, smart. Funny how somebody’s NIMBY mindset changes once reality smacks them in the nose.
Well done.
Trust me. I know some of the young Eco-Terrorists you refer to and believe when I say…they have convinced themselves that everyone else will have to give up their phones, laptops, game boys….etc. Except them.
Yes, magically running whilst the infrastructure that kept them operating has fallllen apart.
Of course all plastics have to go too, so we’ll just clothe 7 Billion people with animal skins.
This has little, if anything, to do with “saving the planet.” It (probably) has everything to do about the alarmists and their political, corporate and elitist rich backers increasing their power and control over the masses.
Dr. Bows is only a pawn delivering an emotional and perhaps even a strawman argument in support of the above goals.
What is she a doctor of, given that she is an expert (in her mind) on climate and also on economics ??
g
Her undergraduate studies were in astrophysics (Leeds) and her PhD is in climate modelling (Imperial College). Her academic CV is here:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/people/staff/profile/?ea=alice.bows-larkin
Indeed!
I worked on a project in Poland during the Communist period. The government elites had a very nice life style. They lived far better than the people who suffered under their rule. Clearly, the “green” elites of today assume that their privileged life style will endure the poverty which they force on the rest of us.
It’s that parallel between environmentalists and Communists that coined the term watermelons.
Social Justice……direct from the UN playbook.
Yes, whatever Agenda 21 has been renamed to.
Can’t be the UN playbook. If the wealthy countries deliberately impoverish themselves, they won’t be able to pay the $100 Billion per year that the LDCs want as their pay off for the climate treaty. Better to talk the talk, than give up the money.
The UN Isn’t about money, it’s about power. They’d rather be in charge of a world of medieval squalor than nobodies in a high-tech utopia.
Walter Sobchak,
So what if whoever ends up with such power does not pay some promised money? Promised to “the people”, no less. The people will have no way to enforce squat if the folks with real power in this world take it all.
That’s what I see happening, a well conceived attempt to return to “normal” rule by a few elites, like it was for virtually all of history. It happens all the time, so to speak, just not on this scale.
Walter you are assuming the thing has to make sense and be logical. It does not.
Like all Marxist causes the game of Climate is only a pretext to wrestle power.
The road to Green Economic Ruin is paved with imbecilic notions by those without a clue about either climate or economics.
Alice, put the Bong down and slowly walk away…..
Or stagger slowly away, as the case may be.
Mark
+several
Auto – amused.
These sorts of claims illustrate well how little alarmists understand the energy supply and demand and the inter-relationship between energy consumption and economic activity. I don’t know in which field Dr. Bows has her PhD, but it certainly cannot be in economics or any of the physical sciences. It would be simply amusing if claims like hers were just being made by starry-eyed youth who had watched Al Gore’s film too often. The extraordinary thing is that somewhat similar claims are being made by James Hansen and by the “experts” who work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the European Union. The challenge is to do what Eric Worrall has tried to do here, which is to develop a clear explanation of what emissions reductions of this magnitude would mean in practice for people’s lives.
Follow Da Money !!!!
Better yet, Cut Off Da Money!!!
If that doesn’t work, start cutting off other things.
One might suppose she has a PhD in bong-hit smoking, but…no.
Check it out:
“Alice is a Reader in Energy and Climate Change as part of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and based within the School of Mechanical, Civil and Aerospace Engineering (MACE), University of Manchester. Alice trained as an astrophysicist at the University of Leeds, did her PhD in climate modelling at Imperial College, joining the interdisciplinary Tyndall Centre to research conflicts between climate change and aviation.”
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/people/Alice-Bows
A Phd in climate modeling?
So she’s been trained in how to tell lies using computers.
MarkW,
Not telling lies – playing computer games. There is no reason to assume she is lying. In fact I’m pretty certain she believes everything she says. Which is the sad part. As Peter Miller above so accurately put it, a definite case of SBS.
Let us give Hansen certain props. he wants nuclear power, not universal poverty. That doesn’t make his hysteria any better, but at least he understands the problem with his proposals.
Using the climatocracy cry of ‘he/she is not a climate scientist’ I say that as she is not an economist she has no right to any opinion that involves economics.
No right to an opinion on economics??? Why should she not be allowed even one, when economists are allowed an unlimited number? Alice and others should all be encouraged to express their opinion, because then it can be analysed to see if it holds water. This one doesn’t because it is based on zero-sum logic, ie that if the developed produce less then the developing can produce more. Well, Alice, the world doesn’t work like that. If the developed cut back then the developing lose their customers.
Of course she’s got a right to an opinion (although I can see where you’re coming from on that comment). So let’s hear her plan for how this 10 per cent reduction is to be achieved. Massive tax increases? Huge hikes in interest rates? Big cuts in government expenditure? And how does she plan to achieve 10 per cent? (As opposed to 9 or 11.) How does she know, for example, what tax increases are needed for a ten per cent cut? Is she relying on her climate models to tell her? She also seems a bit coy in telling us how long this ten per cent cut is to go on for. And what is her explanation for saying that after several years of cuts, economic growth can resume? But most of all, can she tell us how much of a cut in her own emissions she is going to make over the next 12 months and exactly how she is going to do it?
What are you talking about, everyone has a right to my opinion.
@MarkW
I believe bertief is riffing on the theme usually offered by the wamunists that since (most) sceptics aren’t climate scientists we should just shut up.
And the notion of per capita emissions is just assumed to be a sensible metric? Seriously, what ever happened to brain power in this politicly stupefied world. Economies have not yet to be divorced from the individual constraints of their physicality! Only in models of reality could these self satisfied pronouncements make any sense.
Economies have not yet been divorced from the individual constraints of their physicality! Only in models of reality could these self satisfied pronouncements make any sense.
It is extremely logical to base emissions on per person that way the efficient western model is properly handicaped so communism has a fighting vhance.
Max
Is economic ruin really such a large price to pay for a very tiny chance to prevent some ice from melting in some God-forsaken wasteland where hardly anyone even goes to have a gander before quickly leaving?
The ice man…think of the ICE!
We need it.
We really do.
All that other stuff, like money, food, clothes, stuff…we can do without most of that, can’t we?
If it might possibly keep some ice from melting may…someday…perhaps…?
/sarc off
[Which is the really twisted part: I was being sarcastic. She is being 100% serious!]
Places that are covered in ice for most of the year are death zones and we need less of them, not more.
(Trimmed. Fake screen name. -mod)
I agree Nigel.
This is one thing I am actually sure of…warmer is certainly better.
I would be even if only because it puts the inevitable end of the Holocene further away.
If you liked The Great Depression, you’ll love Alice Bows-Larkin’s plan.
Worldwide GDP fell by 15% from 1929 to 1932.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
… if you’re in a country where per capita emissions are really high — so North America, Europe, Australia …
North America, Europe and Australia are continents. Sloppy.
SPOT ON.
Just shows how divorced from reality the ‘professional students” have become.
Odd dichotomy here: the Greens (AKA loonie socialists) want enforceable austerity, whereas the Socialists (AKA loonie Greens) are fighting to stop austerity. I just wish they would go away and fight amongst themselves and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.
The socialists have defined austerity, as not getting as big a raise as they asked for.
Australia has a population of about 2 average German Bundesländer/Federal States (e.g. Bavaria + Hessia).
Or Texas.
New South Wales is bigger than Texas.
And it’s not as if the have-nots will be magically isolated from such an economic implosion. Such a downturn may be onerous in the developed world, but it will be deadly in the Third World.
One always wonder why the great civilizations of the world have perished. The ruins are still visible and explanations about environmental ruin are abundant though never proven. Has anybody yet thought about destruction from inside? Once a civilization reaches a point where generations start to live on the fruits created by their forebears the values of building that civilization are lost. Rome is a great example by the way.
The same thing is happening to us right now. People who contribute zero to our economy are busy destroying it. So sad.
including TED bowing to propaganda
If she said these things in an attempt at humor, it would not even be funny.
To say such things off the cuff would be quite eccentric to say the least.
To give a talk about it, as a well thought out, actual plan of action is beyond insane, beyond economic illiteracy, beyond even socialist eco-lunacy.
This woman is certifiably bat-shit crazy and mentally incompetent to opine on any serious subject.
We just lived through an economic downturn a fraction as bad as what she is proposing we do to ourselves on purpose, for years on end…to solve a 100% imaginary problem.
I have no idea what is wrong with these people.
Sometimes, like today, I wake up and read this stuff and wonder if I am on the right planet.
Consider that this woman, and people who share her mind set, currently comprise most of the people who have been entrusted with educating our children.
God help us if these people continue to be believed.
I think even He will not be able to help us if power is not wrested from the grasp of these maniacs, and that very soon.
Bows-Larkin’s looney dogma is filling the void created by the collapse of organised religion.
What have the Romans ever done for us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
I agree with you there. It seemed a better explanation to me that these civilisations self-destructed from the inside due to some insane idea that the parasite class used to suck the life out of the productive class. Sometimes I wonder wether those huge constructions that last through the ages are part of the cause of why people dont live there any more, in other words the grand edifices (nearly always of no productive use) require the impoverishment and diversion of productive energy into unproductive monuments to the parasites. Wind farms etc and international conferences are some excellent examples.
Thanks for that perspective + 1.
I had to wade through alot of emails to find this gem today. Do you know if WUWT offers a block or filter ?
The Moche, in what is now Chile, did no such thing. They self-distructed based on a “religious” hype that war and sacrifice pleased their gods. It did not work.
Why are people like this even given space on the web or in a publication to air their views? This is totally brainless. Even the UN elitists who support such a plan can’t be serious. It destroys the goose that lays the golden eggs that provides them with the wealth that allows them to perpetuate their idiotic ideas.
To answer your question “Why are people like this even given space on the web”….it’s the same reason why this blog exists.
[Reply: and even you can post here. ~mod.]
They already have their wealth, they don’t want any one else joining their elite little club !!!
In answer to your good question, the reason is:- other people’s MONEY.
The so-called university she “works” for in Lancashire, England will have received OPM (other people’s money) in the form of a grant from the British government gravy train.
[Even St. Andrews university in Fife has been on that particular “payroll”.]
Worst of all, it appears that Alice acquired her PhD. in so-called “climate modelling” !
Evidently, modelling is not her strong point but she certainly knows how to rake in the MONEY.
Regards,
WL
Climate modelling does not appear to be a “strong point” for anyone.
Just sayin’.
So she’s actually a real-life “Alice in wonderland”.
Big grants makes you larger, and no grants makes you small. Go ask Alice – while she’s ten feet tall.
And the ones that Government gives you don’t do anything at all…
Thank you from the White Rabbit. 🙂
Thanks jeff, how did I miss that opportunity?
Thanks Eric (and also thanks of course to James Delingpole),
Your last paragraph: last sentence
… “is all this hardship really a price worth paying, to prevent a few extra days … ?”
Answer
We have ALREADY paid; many times over.
It is not a few sunny days. I think it should rather be polar amplification which means warmer winter days at high latitudes. Warmer days there come with the price of clouds, fog, rain, and snow.
It is boring, depressing and did I say dull, but luckily at least saves some heating.
A very good analogy. I would like to add though that this process of less hours of work and lower earnings will actually become logarithmic in nature. If farmers cut down their hours, presumably there will be less food which will drive up the prices in the supermarkets. so those whose earnings are cut will have to pay more for food. The same will apply to every consumer item, so inflation rises. At the same time the government will have lower tax revenues, the public service pay bill will be less, but other costs will rise such as the interest rates, making repaying the national debt more expensive so taxes will have to rise.
It also disregards the fact that there are many people in the third world who either cannot or will not work and/or have corrupt governments that discourage work.
This woman is absolutely clueless about reality!
The only way to permanently cut economic output, is to permanently cut the population.
Fortunately, the left also has plans for that.
Mark: “Fortunately, the left also has plans for that” Starvation or hypothermia, take your pick?
Abortion.
And when those don’t work, there are always the re-education camps.
I recommend that as ‘a reader’ she read a lot more.
Dafuq kind of title is, “Reader in Energy and Climate Change?”
She seems to realize that 1% is pretty serious stuff…for her to say that 10% is a “challenge” is an understatement.
This level of stoopid demands we institute something like the Darwin award. Perhaps there’s room for a GSM: the Galactically Stupid Medal. In the case of Alice Lows Barkin, I would improve it to bar and clasp.
I was thinking big tattoo on forehead.
Harry Passfield. I agree. Now when POTUS himself set the acceptability calibration criteria for insults, there is ample of room for humor, sophistication and humanity while at it.
So who gets to decide the speakers at these TED things? Do you have to buy a lottery ticket?
Or is it completely random, as now appears to be the case?
It is as random as who gets published in Science and Nature nowadays.
The “cause” gets promoted in all places possible.
Have read some of the TED comments to her speech, there are so many lemmings out there, whether the “we have destroyed nature by our lifestyle” or hints to “read scepticalscience not to fall for climate denier schemes”.
It’s sickening.
There should be a restriction that no scientist can travel abroad more than 2 to 3 times a year for the purpose of conferences or scientific meetings. I know a few more scientists who are travelling abroad more than 10 times a year showing the same reason. Surprisingly, they are from the group of ‘Alarming Propaganda of CO2’. They are rewarded with lots of undue advantages of travel fund, not to mention about their sudden upsurge in career.
Are you suggesting alarmism is a consequence of jet lag? Perhaps a result of heightened cosmic radiation at cruising altitude? Oh the humanity!
We could meet this goal easily…
…just stop producing food for the rest of the world
Now that’s what I call “planned austerity”.
The idiot (Alice) doesn’t know that if the rich would cuts it’s economic growth…..the third world crap burners have no chance of increasing theirs
Some suggestions:
Every driver is given a card that may be used to obtain gasoline. The number of gallons granted is annually is reduced by 10 percent plus the percentage increase in cards issued. The grant is covered by arbitrarily setting the price at something like $250.00 per gallon. The cards are biometrically locked for social justice. It’s not fair to benefit from a gasoline ration.
Every abode is issued some number of kWh of electricity and heating/ cooking fuels to be determined solely by the number of residents. The grant decreases 10 percent annually. This grant is paid for by onerous prices for overages. Smart meters are used to disable consumption when limits are reached. Credit card readers are provided at the meter for purchase beyond the ration limit.
People who have not secured an abode must live with parents or friends to reduce need for new concrete for construction. Annual national lottery to determine who may build a new home.
We can have this next…
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RtzuGO4Z3t8/hqdefault.jpg
Michael Jankowski,
On her behalf, I accept. She can be the first one to start ridding the earth of excess population, which they all seem to want. But they always want others to go first…
Socialism works great, until you run out of other peoples money !!!
They’ve fixed the problem of running out of other people’s money……they just print more.
Then it no longer has value !!! In 1945 Germany it cost 20 million of their dollars to buy a loaf of bread !!!
Printing money is only a slightly more sophisticated way of destroying the value of “other people’s money”.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/634/economics/the-problem-with-printing-money/
No Marcus, I think you mean 1920’s Germany. We all learned from the last go-round and post WWII inflation in Germany never got anywhere near as bad as post WWI.
She seems to be suggesting we all volunteer to burn one tenth of our money and stuff every year.
Liberalism works great until you run out of victims or other people’s money.
Thanks for the news, Eric Worral, I will not watch a another TED Talk, after having sat trough one a couple of years ago. It was disgusting. Never more!
Why does Alice Bows-Larkin hate humanity, in particular the people of the USA, so much?
“A PHD for a soul” I believe the quote is.
Manchester University seems to specialize in airheads with PhDs. ‘Prof’ Brian Cox comes to mind!
I suggest she spends 5 years in Zimbabwe first, or better still, living with a tribe with no electricity or drinking water or modern medicine and see if she changes her mind.
A couple years without lights, a/c or clean drinking water ought to cure her stupidity! Ya think?
I would give Missy Alice 10 – 1 odds that the planet’s temperature never gets 4º higher. I’d tell her: put up or shut up. But like alarmists everywhere, she would tuck tail and run before putting her own money at risk.
But there’s the thing, DB, with people like Lows-Barkin, it’s too easy to take the grants and live a good life while telling those who pay the grants that you’re working on saving mankind (from itself). What we should do is say we are saving the world from 5 deg C, sit back, take the money, and when the temps (of course) get nowhere near the 2 deg C we can claim it was all down to the work we had done.
A few years ago, one of our trolls tried to claim that the reason for the pause, was all the reductions in CO2 that had already been made.
When it was pointed out to him, that there had in fact been no changes to the rate of CO2 increase, he refused to believe it. After all, they had gone to so many demonstrations, it must have made a difference.