reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker's company is building infrastructure for both technology and renewable energy industries, playing a central role in a complex landscape. Technology customers demand immediate and clean power, while utilities consider affordability for ratepayers and state regulations. The company facilitates discussions between these stakeholders, aiming to deliver projects on time and within budget for all clients. The company builds about 25% of renewable power generation in North America. This unique position allows them to listen to all parties and contribute to solutions in an exciting time for the business.

The speaker will use their 17 years of experience at T-Mobile to illustrate how corporate America has turned against the American people. While many news sources cover Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DE&I) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), the speaker aims to show how these initiatives have personally impacted their career. The speaker is passionate about exposing the Great Reset and the World Economic Forum. They claim that these entities are significantly influencing the future of individuals and their children, even more so than American politicians.

Speaker 0 notes that the energy solutions list for energy-hungry data centers was short and contained one thing: gas. They ask why not gas and renewables. Speaker 1 responds: "the what one has to appreciate is the intensity of energy." As an engineer, they state: "the mix of energy doesn't matter. How much is wind? How much solar? We like to advertise that. Kilohounces matter because energy intensity has to shift, not the mix." They argue that solar power cannot produce cement or steel and that "they are very energy intensive." Therefore, "you still need a gas based heating or" (implying gas is necessary). They add: "Physics. It's against physics. Fine. Absolutely. Physics don't allow do it." They emphasize evaluating energy mix changes in the context of "jewels of energy," noting the world still needs to progress and must build infrastructure—steel, cement, fuels. The challenge is how to change the energy mix while also building data centers and consuming more energy. They describe the current problem as "single threaded with the gas fired power plant, maybe a little bit of nuclear. Nuclear? Renewable remain in the mix, cannot bring the amount of jewels we need to produce this infrastructure which is required in the world."

There's skepticism about ESG and sustainable labels, which is why we're focused on net zero. We can't stabilize the climate without achieving it. It's simple: emissions either increase or decrease. If they're decreasing, are they doing so in line with scientific standards? We're basing this on the same science used by the UN and others for the 1.5-degree objectives. These are hard numbers, not subjective opinions.

The speaker discusses the limitations of relying solely on wind, solar, and battery power for an industrialized economy. They mention the high cost of battery storage for renewable energy, emphasizing the need for base load power to ensure a reliable energy grid. The speaker stresses the importance of practical solutions over fantasy thinking in addressing energy needs.

The discussion revolves around who will lead the 4th industrial revolution and artificial intelligence. The question is posed about China's potential to lead due to their technological advancements. The speaker differentiates between state capitalism and shareholder capitalism, stating that state capitalism has short-term advantages in mobilizing resources. However, the speaker believes that the future lies in stakeholder capitalism, which combines social responsibility.

ESG investment measures a company's environmental, social, and governance impact. BlackRock pressured companies to adopt certain behaviors, like sustainability, which some consider meaningless marketing. Al Gore claimed sustainability investments enhance returns, but his fund underperformed, later blaming "foolish" stock prices. Many sustainable investment funds are doing worse than the market, yet trillions flowed into them due to pressure from blue state pensions like CalPERS. Banks and BlackRock are now retreating from ESG alliances, and ESG funds are shuttering rapidly. The ESG fad has hurt companies like Intel, which cut jobs despite government funding. Intel spent $300 million on workforce representation and ESG bureaucracy, while competitors innovated. Intel's stock is down 75%, and shares are at their worst since 1974. American politicians haven't pushed ESG as much as Europe, possibly explaining the difference in stock market growth. Ford is ditching DEI policies, signaling a potential shift away from ESG.

It's good that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) labels face scrutiny and healthy skepticism. This is a key reason we are so focused on net zero. We can't stabilize the climate without achieving net zero; it's that simple. Emissions either increase or decrease. If decreasing, are they doing so at a rate consistent with scientific findings? We're basing our approach on the same science that the UN and others use for their one-and-a-half-degree objectives.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about their approach to AI and if they have a specific strategy. Speaker 1 responds by saying they focus on making the best products and mentions that Tesla has achieved success without any advertising. Speaker 1 also claims that Tesla sells twice as many electric vehicles as all other electric carmakers in the US combined and believes they have done more for the environment than any other company. Speaker 0 asks how Speaker 1 personally feels about this, considering the power and influence they have. Speaker 1 responds by saying they care about the reality of goodness, not just the perception, and criticizes people who prioritize looking good over doing good. The conversation is left unfinished.

At BlackRock, we are emphasizing the need for companies to change their behaviors as an investment criteria. We are actively pushing for these changes and although it will take time, we are surprised by the lack of opportunities we have seen so far.

Speaker 0 raises a question from the audience about whether the ADL has considered hiring people to counter-march, particularly with diverse ethnicities, to ensure marches are unopposed on social media and publicity. Speaker 1 responds: It’s important to “go where the puck is going” and not just to where it is. Since 10/07, resources have been redistributed toward LLMs and generative AI. He asks how many used ChatGPT in the last week, noting that ChatGPT has over a billion users and is ground truth for vast numbers of people, having existed for about two and a half years. While marching in the streets is one approach, he emphasizes building technology to train LLMs more effectively and working with leading AI companies. He specifies collaborations with OpenAI, Alphabet, Anthropic, Meta, and Microsoft, and says they are in conversations with Alibaba to train their LLM, highlighting that Chinese AI models are profound, potent, cost-effective, and spreading. He reiterates that marching in the streets is only one option, but the focus is on going where the puck is going by investing in Wikipedia, LLMs, and changing the game before it changes us.

Speaker 0 questions whether the climate change narrative is dying, noting that many people are afraid to say so for fear of being called a climate denier. They claim a growing number of people believe “this is bullshit.” They relate conversations with energy industry people who said, “the thing is collapsing because the money people are realizing we can't pay for this,” and that the grid cannot rely on solar and wind because it “needs to maintain frequency.” They reference Spain shutting down last year and describe the grid as unstable now. They say, for the last ten years, engineers have known there’s a major problem but won’t say it in meetings because “the climate stuff comes from the top and you can't question it,” yet this is starting to break down as people realize trillions of dollars have been spent to move from “85% of our energy is from, you know, real fuels” to “84.2” or so, which they view as insane. Speaker 0 asserts that “Real fuels are gonna be needed,” and notes a shift in stance on the climate hoax. They claim the pivot is happening because “they want data centers and they want to pour massive energy into them,” and suddenly “don’t care about the climate because all the boys up the top who are pushing the climate are now saying, no. We need data centers. We need CBDC. We need a crypto,” which is described as a huge energy use, along with mentions of AI. They conclude that it’s “always crypto,” and state that these developments reveal the climate pushers to be liars.

The conversation centers on a perceived collision of finance, politics, and ideology at the highest level, framing a looming “great reset” as a plan to control money, freedom of movement, and human existence. Tucker Carlson’s interview with Alex Jones is described as opening a door to a topic mainstream outlets avoid, with the question posed: how much time remains before the great reset becomes reality? Key claims and points discussed: - The global elite, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Economic Forum, are portrayed as deciding in the last few years to “deal with monetary debt worldwide” through inflation, affecting corporate, governmental, and individual debt, with Trump’s stance described as accepting inflation alongside expansion of goods. - The Great Reset is depicted as a plan by leftist UN, WEF elements to implement post-industrial, carbon tax policies that will yield stagflation (high inflation with ongoing recession), described as a “perfect storm of hell on earth.” - The globalists allegedly want to create a worldwide system of “more manageable slaves” by breaking down borders, lowering all levels of economic status, and establishing small and rural city-states (reminiscent of a Hunger Games scenario) while tech and medicine are centralized above a devalued population; this is presented as the official policy for 2030. - Depopulation and resource restriction are asserted as deliberate strategies to crash the world economy, enable bank loans to fund a new cashless system, and implement a social credit system. Carbon lockdowns and 15-minute cities are described as tools for totalitarian control. - The UN’s and globalists’ aim is claimed to be feudalism or neo-feudal capitalism, a system where a few elites retain rights while others are stripped of them, an economic model presented as the oldest form of government being revived. - Elon Musk is cited as recognizing the existential threat, and the importance of mobilizing political and legislative action is emphasized. - The dialogue highlights high-level influence over policy, including John Kerry’s statements on cutting global farming, and the actions of global financial players like BlackRock. The depiction is that BlackRock’s influence over investment and ESG policies is being challenged by state-level pushback. - Recent legal and political countermeasures are noted: attorney generals winning cases in Texas and elsewhere against BlackRock’s climate and fossil-fuel initiatives; states pulling pension funds from BlackRock; public admissions from Larry Fink and shifts away from certain ESG directives in some regions. - The overarching narrative asserts that the aim is to demoralize free Western societies, to consolidate global power, and to ensure there is nowhere for free societies to escape to, thereby reinforcing a globalist control structure. Overall, the discussion portrays a globalist scheme involving monetary manipulation, demographic and political restructuring, and technological and legal controls intended to establish a new world order, with mainstream opposition framed as insufficient and the West needing to resist to preserve freedom.

The speaker discusses who will lead the fourth industrial revolution and mentions the technological advancements made by China. They differentiate between state capitalism and shareholder capitalism, stating that state capitalism has short-term advantages due to its ability to mobilize resources. However, they believe that the future lies in a combination of stakeholder capitalism and social responsibility.

The speaker differentiates between state capitalism and shareholder or private capitalism, describing it as a clash between two systems. State capitalism has short-term advantages because it can mobilize resources to reach objectives. However, the speaker believes the future is not state capitalism or shareholder capitalism. The future is stakeholder capitalism combined with social responsibility.

Speaker 0 contends that concerns over rising power bills due to AI data centers are about to worsen as BlackRock and Blackstone buy up local power utilities. The piece, attributed to The New American, claims globalist equity firms are acquiring local energy companies nationwide to support AI infrastructure, provoking pushback from ratepayers and regulators. The Associated Press is cited as reporting that private equity giants are purchasing utilities to power AI-driven data centers, raising ratepayer and regulator concerns, with Oregon Citizens Utility Board noting increased public discussion at Public Utility Commissions. Speaker 0 notes a widespread anxiety about electricity costs tied to aging and expanding power infrastructure, including lines, poles, transformers, and generators, as utilities harden for extreme weather. The narrative asserts that apart from general cost increases, the core issue is the AI race, and that large international asset firms are eager to back a technology with potential for surveillance, manipulation, and control, while also seeking strong returns on investment. It claims these firms have historically used monetary power to push corporate support for climate alarmism and transgender activism, and that BlackRock and Blackstone together controlled more than $13 trillion in assets (BlackRock about $12 trillion; Blackstone about $1.2 trillion). It states only the U.S. and China have GDPs larger than $13 trillion. Concrete buyouts and investments are listed: January 2024, Blackstone bought a 20% stake in Northern Indiana Public Service Company for $2.1 billion, with the utility planning to boost green energy production afterward. In January 2025, Blackstone outright bought Potomac Energy Center, a natural gas power plant in Loudoun County, Virginia, for $1 billion, described as Blackstone’s most recent investment in power infrastructure for AI. In March 2025, Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission approved the buyout of Superior Water, Light, and Power by Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and BlackRock subsidiary Global Infrastructure Partners, with BlackRock taking a 60% majority stake. A separate deal: Blackstone bought Hilltop Energy Center, a natural gas power plant in Pennsylvania, for $1 billion, with executives Bilal Khan and Mark Zhu describing the acquisition as AI-focused. Blackstone is also seeking regulatory permission to buy Albuquerque-based Public Service Company of New Mexico and Texas New Mexico PowerCo, while BlackRock and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board’s attempted purchase of Minnesota Power faces regulatory turbulence; a Minnesota sale could determine how such firms expand in a sector linking households, data centers, and power sources. Speaker 0 adds that the rise of AI is providing these firms with an “excuse” to control infrastructure, and mentions Yuval Noah Harari and the WEF. It cites the WEF’s “you will own nothing” rhetoric and notes Harari’s hypothetical about future irrelevance, Neuralink, and a broader agenda including surveillance, ownership consolidation, and potential reductions in access to private property. It asserts Larry Fink of BlackRock is at the WEF and CFR, and that BlackRock’s broader investments include real estate, farmland, timberland, and single-family rental homes, as part of a “build to rent” scheme. The piece warns that one corporation controlling vast natural resources and power utilities amid rising prices would be disastrous, urging citizens to resist BlackRock’s influence. It contrasts China’s influence with BlackRock’s power, condemning ESG models and the World Economic Forum’s agenda toward a “great reset,” digital currency, digital ID, and reduced access to resources. Speaker 1 interjects with a separate 1999 statement about how genetic engineering will change us and implies a need to start conversations now, arguing that one direction relinquishes power to others while the other empowers individuals to fix themselves. Speaker 0 reiterates that the conversation centers on power, AI, and control, warning against allowing a single corporation to own essential resources. The closing note references the January 1999 statement on genetic engineering, while Speaker 1 emphasizes taking personal power to fix oneself, framing the discussion as a shift in responsibility.

Speaker 0: Date. We sometimes at the Council for Inclusive Capitalism call it a race to the top. We should invest in and work for companies that are taking care of people and planet. That's the way I would Speaker 1: answer will replace ESG. Right? Because all of this needs to be measurable, describable, and tangible for investors to find a way to invest in. So if if you dustbin ESG Right. For all the bad will that it has earned over the last couple of years, something else will take its place. Is there a concept or an idea that you think could improve or actually deliver what ESG was meant to but didn't? Speaker 0: I think it's vital that we deliver what ESG was meant to deliver. And ESG as a term was created almost by accident by the United Nations in a speech in 2005. And then it took on its huge life of its own and assullied itself in the in, you know, in the process. So

It's good that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) labels face scrutiny. This skepticism drives our intense focus on achieving net zero emissions. Ultimately, stabilizing the climate requires reaching net zero; it's that simple. Emissions either increase or decrease. The key question is whether they are decreasing at a rate consistent with scientific targets. Our approach is grounded in the same scientific principles used by the UN and others, specifically targeting the 1.5-degree objective.

The inflation reduction passed a year ago has put the US back on the map as a global climate leader. However, concerns arise that the momentum may change after the 2024 elections. Speaker 1 believes that no politician can halt the ongoing transition towards addressing climate change. This transition is driven by scientific evidence and is not influenced by politics or ideology. It is crucial for everyone to contribute to this transition as it directly affects the air we breathe, pollution levels, farming, living conditions, children, and disease.