reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Burning ancient carbon (coal, oil, gas) has created a wonderful quality of life for many, but this practice must stop.

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."

The speaker, a founder of a well-known environmental organization, expresses concern about the Green New Deal. They argue that phasing out 85% of the world's and US's energy from coal, oil, and natural gas within 10 years would lead to the end of civilization. The speaker believes that nuclear power and hydroelectric dams could replace these energy sources, but environmentalists oppose them. They claim that the Green New Deal opposes 98.5% of electricity and 100% of transportation energy. The speaker also highlights the challenges of feeding the global population without fossil fuels and transporting food to cities. They warn of agricultural collapse, starvation, and the depletion of trees if fossil fuels were banned worldwide. The speaker criticizes the idea of banning aircraft and fossil fuel vehicles.

Speaker 0 outlines a narrative linking the origins of the environmental movement to the Club of Rome, described as a crisis think tank that purportedly specializes in crisis creation. The speaker cites a document, The First Global Revolution by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, claiming it states that pollution, global warming, water shortages, famine and similar dangers would fit the bill as a new enemy to unite the world and justify a global response to local problems, thereby claiming “the origin of global warming.” The speaker then connects this to Australia, asserting that in 1975 Australia accepted a new economic order via the Lima Declaration at the UNIDO conference. The Lima Declaration, they say, was a blueprint for redeploying tools, jobs and manufacturing to developing nations, leaving Australia short of technology, a manufacturing base and jobs, and that unworkable trade and tariffs agreements followed. They claim these treaties were the foundation for the rollout of Agenda 21 and contend Australia has been moved on a global chessboard with leaders either complicit or naive to long-term consequences. The segment cites 1992 remarks by former U.S. president George Bush Sr. about Agenda 21, describing it as requiring a profound reorientation of human society and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources, integrating concern for environmental consequences into decision making at every level. The speaker urges the audience to consider the implications of “profound reorientation of all human society” and “unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.” The speaker references Morris Strong, then secretary-general of the UN Earth Summit, stating that affluent middle-class lifestyles are not sustainable, including high meat intake, frozen foods, fossil fuels, vehicle ownership, and other consumption patterns. The implication drawn is that Agenda 21 is about controlling every aspect of life—what and how we eat, how we move, food production, quantity of food, and where we live. Dixie Ray, former Washington state governor and assistant secretary for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, is quoted as saying Agenda 21 seeks to transfer wealth from citizens to the third world. A fear-based trajectory is described where fear of environmental crisis would be used to create a world government with UN central direction. The speaker quotes a Habitat One report suggesting land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset and that private land ownership contributes to social injustice, implying a redistribution of wealth through land and resource control. A report from the president’s council on sustainable development is cited as advocating a new collaborative decision process for better decisions and more rapid change in resource use. Harvey Ruben of the Wildlands Project and Jay Gary Lawrence are invoked to suggest that individual rights would be subordinated to the collective, and that participating in UN-planned processes would provoke conspiracy-minded groups to resist, leading to alternative labels like comprehensive planning or sustainable development. The narrative claims that costs are rising for citizens while services are cut, portraying this as wealth redistribution and redeployment of resources that harms the working poor. It references debates over land rights and water allocation, the native vegetation act, and development and planning acts as threats to food producers and long-term security, with alluding to heritage status used to justify control over land titles. The speaker argues for legislative Council checks and balances as a safeguard against parties colluding to pass restrictive policies, urging public participation to restrain erosion of common law, and portraying agenda 21 as an ongoing threat since 2008. The account then traces the Club of Rome’s 1972 Limits to Growth and its environmental alarmism, linking Ted Turner and Mao to early endorsements of the movement, and cites 1987 and 1996 statements about a new world order and an environmental crisis unlocking a one-world government. It asserts the Earth Summit produced the Earth Charter, co-written by Morris Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, as a new set of commandments with environmentalism as a new world religion, and connects this to Agenda 21. Ted Turner’s 1996 reductionist population statements are included, along with a 1998 Baltimore Sun report on Turner’s donations to the UN aimed at stalling population growth and supporting sterilization to “save mother earth.”

Speaker 0 argues that control is in the hands of unelected officials at supranational organizations, and that they want all of the world’s resources in their pocket. Speaker 1 says the bigger picture is an attempt to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with global technocracy. Speaker 2 calls this a coup, asserting that “we can control with rules” and “we don’t need currency anymore.” Speaker 3 describes it as an inverted prison, where you are supposedly free to roam about, but “everything you want to access is behind lock and key.” Speaker 1 warns that “the potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible.” Speaker 4 outlines plans to commandeer land, reduce farming, radically change the food we eat, transform the supply of electricity, dictate how we use it, and replace currency with a system of credits, all built on the premise of a climate crisis caused by carbon dioxide. Speaker 5 counters with, “I do not think there’s a climate crisis,” basing that claim on climate data sets built to answer questions like that. Speaker 0 states, “The government is very clear that they want a catastrophic story,” and adds that there is no single science paper proving conclusively that humans control all or most of the global climate, while accusing Europe’s net-zero push of being “effectively economic suicide,” arguing politicians are “purposely impoverishing ordinary people” and deindustrializing Europe. Speaker 6 comments on the damage done “in the name of saving the planet” and asks, “what is it we’re actually saving if we’re paving it over.” Speaker 0 calls this a global war on agriculture. Speaker 4 notes that many farms are selling up, leading to fears of food shortages. Speaker 2 states, “If I can switch everybody from real food to pharma food, then 100% of the agriculture industry can go through my publicly traded stocks, and I have complete control.” Speaker 3 terms it “the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world,” but also says it is a blueprint and an action plan. Speaker 0 contends that “All life on Earth is going to be radically changed.” Speaker 4 predicts that “Everything will be monitored,” including the environmental consequences of every human action. Speaker 2 complains that “the general cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision that they're facing.” Speaker 3 warns that once a digital ID is in place, “it's game over for humanity.”

Fossil fuels are better for the environment because without them, all the trees would have been cut down. They also save the whales because whale oil was used before fossil fuels. The climate change issue is about controlling energy resources. If everyone uses electricity, it all has to be mined, mostly by slave labor in communist countries owned by dictators. This is not necessarily better than fossil fuels, which make money for those who extract them, involving less exploitation. Scientists who say climate change is real only get grant money if they say climate change is real, while scientists who disagree with climate change have their budgets taken away and are blacklisted. Changing energy resources changes who controls the power in the world.

Some people who own beachfront homes claim that the water is rising. Others who fly in private jets talk about global warming. There are also those who advocate for saving the environment, but use child labor to mine cobalt for electricity. The underlying idea is that people are easier to control when their lives rely on electricity.

The speaker claims the idea of a climate change disaster is false, stating that it is one of the coldest periods in Earth's history, evidenced by ice at the poles, which was absent for 150 million years previously due to warmer temperatures. They assert that current atmospheric CO2 levels are lower than in most of Earth's history, currently at 420 ppm, and were as low as 180 ppm during the last glacial maximum, close to the point where plants die. The speaker suggests an optimal level for plants is 800-1200 ppm. They claim that CO2 emissions have already resulted in a 30% increase in vegetation growth. The speaker argues that fossil fuels originated from plants extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. Therefore, humans are merely replacing CO2, preventing plant starvation and ecosystem collapse. Burning fossil fuels for energy is presented as the salvation of life on Earth.

In this Wide Awake Media podcast conversation, host Didi Denslow and guest Ivor Cummins—a biochemical engineer, nutrition expert known as the Fat Emperor—discuss health paradigms, seed oils, geopolitics, and emerging technologies, with a recurring emphasis on waking up to structured power dynamics. Seeds oils and the “devil’s triad” - Cummins presents a framework he calls the “devil’s triad” to explain modern obesity and diabetes trends: sugars, refined grains or refined tweeds, and seed oils. He cites American data indicating 64% of adults over 45 are prediabetic or diabetic, suggesting the triad drives these conditions. Cutting out sugars, refined carbohydrates, and seed oils is portrayed as a path to reversing obesity and diabetes epidemics. - Seed oils are described as being extracted with hexane and solvents under high heat/pressure. They include sunflower, safflower, rapeseed (and other seed-derived oils). He states they are high in omega-6 fats, used as signaling molecules in inflammatory processes, and should be kept to very low dietary levels (current US intake around 15% of calories versus a recommended under 0.5%). He notes issues in processing: hydrogenation and molecular damage, plus deodorizing, bleaching, and color adjustments that mask natural signals to avoid consumption. - He contrasts seed oils with natural fats from real foods: olives (olive oil), animal fats like lard and tallow, and butter, which are deemed acceptable. He references historical and industry context: seed oils originated from lubricants used in engines (and later hydrogenated for food), with Crisco marking their rise; he attributes a shift in public health trends to decisions in the mid- to late-20th century, including influential thoughts by Ancel Keys on saturated fats. - The discussion also touches the economics and incentives: seed oils are cheap, shelf-stable, and favored by global supply chains and processed foods; this is linked to industry strategies and ties between food, pharma, and academic funding. Some guests’ positions align on seed oils as a major driver of chronic disease, though Cummins also acknowledges the role of refined carbohydrates and sugars. Diet, personal change, and practical guidance - The host shares personal experience: eliminating seed oils improved health, including belly fat reduction. - Repertoire of alternative fats suggested includes high-quality olive oil, coconut oil, tallow, lard from well-raised pigs (with caveats about omega-6 content), and avocado oil as a more expensive option. Geopolitics, digital identity, and cultural shifts - Digital ID and civil liberties: Ireland’s progress toward digital ID is discussed, illustrating a “boiling frog” dynamic: government IDs exist but may become mandatory over time. Cummins underscores civil disobedience, awareness, and lobbying as means to resist, arguing that politicians report to higher, unelected networks. He asserts EU structures (EU Commission, European Parliament) mimic Soviet-era governance, creating a centralized power apparatus. - Hate speech law in Ireland: Cummins describes an earlier hate speech framework (1986 incitement to hatred) as effective, and a proposed newer framework with broad, protected classes as a potential threat to civil rights, warning that the pre-crime model resembles Minority Report, 1984, and Brave New World. He suggests public scrutiny of whom politicians report to. - Global networks and governance: The conversation invokes a historical view of global power networks (Rhodes, Milner, Rothschilds, Rockefellers) and institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, and the CIA. Cummins sees these organizations as orchestrating global policy and economy, with a current sense of tension due to BRICS dynamics, shifting American leadership, and challenges to the old oligarchies. - Immigration and demographic strategy: He cites Denmark, Hungary, Poland, and Switzerland as examples with restrictive immigration policies and self-sufficiency requirements. Denmark, for instance, is highlighted for its stringent residency rules and crime data transparency on migrants. He contrasts Ireland’s relatively permissive approach to immigration with these models, discussing the Kalergi Plan as a shorthand for a demographic strategy, and argues there has been a deliberate, years-long push to alter European demographics, partly framed by climate discourse and social narratives. - Climate narrative and AI: Cummins notes perceived weaknesses in the climate-change narrative, acknowledging growing awareness and industry signals that climate policies may be economically unsustainable. He predicts data centers and AI infrastructure will continue to drive energy demand, while asserting AI is a tool with significant rote-task capability but no true sentience. He argues the public is increasingly skeptical about climate catastrophism, while acknowledging the real-world shift toward data-driven, centralized control. Solutions and events - Awareness and education are repeatedly stressed as essential first steps. Cummins envisions a non-conspiratorial, docudrama-style approach to explain power politics and history, aiming to reach a mass audience with credible, non-fringe framing. - Concrete steps discussed include focusing on Denmark-like models for immigration policy, local and national political engagement (email campaigns to MPs, peaceful in-person events like Ireland’s IRL forum), and media reform initiatives to counterbalance globalist influence. - He promotes practical financial preparedness (physical gold and silver) as protective measures amid expected market volatility and potential fiat-currency depreciation. Closing note - The interview ends with a reiteration to avoid seed oils, stay awake, and engage in informed civic action. The speakers emphasize a broad, systemic view of health, governance, and technology, urging proactive public discourse and engagement to influence policy directions.

The speaker notes that 'the climate change hysteria has sort of magically gone away' and offers two theories: 'the climate hysteria was astroturfed' with 'funding got pulled with Biden out,' or that 'there's so much money to be made in AI that no one wants to criticize the energy industry anymore.' They add that 'climate change was always a luxury belief in Europe but Europe is having financial problems.' The speaker argues that 'the data has been so not cooperating now for several years and we don't have we just don't have the signs that they promise us' and says 'All data is fake,' questions 'measuring the temperature of the earth,' mentions 'No. We don't have like a new technology,' and concludes 'climate change I'm not expecting to make a big comeback but I could be wrong.'

The speaker, a long-time green energy supporter, was dismayed to learn about the environmental and human costs associated with green technologies. A single lithium mine allegedly creates millions of tons of waste annually, laced with sulfuric acid and radioactive uranium, polluting water for 300 years. Child labor is used to mine cobalt. Solar panels are allegedly made by laborers in razor wire enclosed camps exposed to quartz dust, causing silicosis. The Ethical Consumer Organization reports that forced labor in the solar panel supply chain is hard to avoid. Wind turbines consume vast resources, require diesel to start, gallons of oil to lubricate, and are hard to recycle. Solar panels are also extremely difficult to recycle, costing more than production. Lithium batteries pose steep challenges too. The speaker claims these "green" solutions are actually good marketing from the $1.5 trillion climate change industry. They urge people to prevent further escalation through unnecessary EVs and solar farms consuming farmland.

Speaker 0 questions what climate catastrophists get wrong about CO2. Speaker 1 argues that more CO2 is good for the world and that reducing CO2 is absurd given other problems and projections of lower costs for renewable energy, which he calls clearly a lie. He explains, as a Princeton professor and climate scientist/physicist, that geological history shows we are in a CO2 famine relative to what is normal for plants. He notes that in his country, many greenhouses double or triple the amount of CO2, and though it’s not cheap, it’s worth investing in because plants grow much better, and the quality of flowers and fruits improves. Outside greenhouses, he says plants benefit as well: with more CO2, in addition to greenhouse gains, there is resistance to drought, which is particularly important in Australia’s arid regions. He claims satellites show Australia as a poster child of the greening of the world, especially Western Australia, and expresses disbelief that CO2—a gas that is fundamental to life—has been turned into a threat and described as carbon pollution. He challenges the framing of the issue by noting that humans are made of carbon and we breathe out two pounds of CO2 a day. He references the global population (about 8 billion) and suggests that some argue “people are the real problem” and that there should not be more than a billion people in the world, remarking that in the room many of them do not constitute seven out of eight to reduce the population. Overall, the speaker presents a counter-narrative: CO2 is beneficial for plant growth and drought resilience, greenhouse and agricultural practices capitalize on higher CO2 levels, and concerns about CO2 as a pollutant are misplaced given the current and historical context of atmospheric carbon and human needs.

We've built a great quality of life for many by burning ancient carbon like coal, oil, and gas, but we need to stop.

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.

In this video, the speaker presents a comprehensive argument against achieving net zero emissions and instead advocates for energy freedom. They highlight the benefits of fossil fuels, such as their cost-effectiveness, reliability, versatility, and scalability. Contrary to the belief that renewable energy is rapidly replacing fossil fuels, the speaker points out that fossil fuels still account for 80% of global energy and continue to grow. They challenge the notion of catastrophic future warming, citing mainstream climate science that suggests manageable warming and the ability to offset it through climate mastery. The speaker concludes that energy freedom, rather than net zero, is the key to a livable planet and the well-being of billions of people. Additionally, they stress the importance of superior alternatives to fossil fuels, including nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, batteries, and gas, and highlight the role of regulations in preventing ecological disasters caused by mismanagement of fossil fuels. Overall, the speaker advocates for energy freedom to provide the necessary energy for global prosperity and competitiveness.

Speaker 0 believes climate change is not a hoax, noting the last ten years have been the warmest on record. They advocate for transforming the energy system from fossil fuels to sustainable energies to create jobs. Speaker 1 says the climate change issue is complicated, stating the Earth's temperature has never been static. They reference a Washington Post piece that found the Earth is in a cooling period. They cite scientists who have captured 485 million years of climate change data. Speaker 1 suggests there's a lot of money and control involved in the climate change emergency issue.

The speaker, a long-time green energy supporter, was dismayed to learn about the environmental and human costs associated with green technologies. A single lithium mine allegedly creates millions of tons of waste annually, laced with sulfuric acid and radioactive uranium, polluting water for 300 years. Child labor is used to mine cobalt. Solar panels are allegedly made by laborers in razor wire enclosed camps exposed to quartz dust, causing silicosis. The Ethical Consumer Organization reports that forced labor in the solar panel supply chain is hard to avoid. Wind turbines consume vast resources, require diesel to start, gallons of oil to lubricate, and are hard to recycle. Solar panels are also difficult to recycle, and lithium batteries pose challenges. The speaker claims these so-called green solutions are actually good marketing from the $1.5 trillion climate change industry. The speaker urges people to prevent the exponential escalation of these issues with unnecessary EVs and solar farms.

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.

Carbon dioxide absorbs energy from the sun, creating a greenhouse effect necessary for life on Earth; without it, the average temperature would be -18 Celsius. Carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat; a slight increase can significantly raise temperatures. Data shows that since 1950, the Earth's temperature has risen at a constant rate, correlating with the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels seems to lead to a temperature rise, making this the hottest the planet has been in 200,000 years. A common argument suggests that concerns about burning fossil fuels are unnecessary because they will eventually run out, negating the need to change our behavior. For a long time, we've been told that we have twenty five years worth of oil and we've reached peak oil and we're gonna run out.

Speaker 0 argues that groups like Just Stop Oil are funded by the Getty and Rockefeller families. He claims the Rockefeller family made its money in oil and has long supported eugenics and funding, contributing to what he describes as “this sort of new environmental movement” that downplays pollution and emphasizes carbon dioxide as the sole concern. He cites the Club of Rome, stating that its quote—“the biggest enemy of humanity is man”—is the core narrative. He contends that the real polluters are not corporations or the U.S. military, even by climate-change metrics, but rather ordinary people. He asserts that the underlying aim is to control how much energy people can use, which would allow controlling economic activity and, he says, how large families can become. He concludes that this is the ultimate objective.

Speaker 0 asks what policies would slow droughts and flooding if fossil fuels aren't cut. Speaker 1 advocates for adaptation and mastering climate change through technology powered by fossil fuels, citing improved buildings and temperature controls as examples of how humans are dying less from climate disasters. Speaker 1 calls the climate change agenda a hoax related to global equity, noting opposition to carbon emissions and nuclear energy. Speaker 0 asks if increasing nuclear energy is a remedy, and Speaker 1 confirms support for it and removing government regulation. Speaker 0 questions if taller buildings and better HVAC systems are the solution. Speaker 1 says using fossil fuels to advance lives protects against all risks. Speaker 1 claims more people die from lack of energy access than climate change and that climate models are fabricated, referencing 1970s warnings of a global ice age. Speaker 1 concludes that focus should be on human flourishing, not carbon emissions.

Speaker 0 questions whether the “woke era” is a failed experiment and references ESG and DEI as part of that push, noting a shift toward talking in practical terms about what can be done. Speaker 1 reflects on the pendulum of society, noting that BlackRock manages money for a wide range of investors. He says, today, renewables are less talked about, but many investors worldwide are investing in renewables, emphasizing solar and related technologies. He mentions working with Occidental Petroleum to build carbon capture factories in Texas. He states that the pendulum five years ago was too far and that he is personally more pragmatic. He asks whether BlackRock pushed some companies a little left of center, clarifying that it was never their intention because their job is to be a fiduciary to everyone who gives them money. He explains their responsibility: if an investor wants to invest 100% in hydrocarbons in Texas, they will invest the full amount in Texas; if another state fund wants them to invest in all green energy, they will do that because it’s their money. Speaker 1 emphasizes that today, due to AI and the overwhelming need for power and electricity, energy strategy cannot be one-dimensional. It cannot be solely hydrocarbon. He notes that China is rapidly building more nuclear than any other country, has the largest solar fields, yet remains the biggest importer of gas and oil. He concludes that, more importantly today, society has moved into a better position of having more pragmatism, and what Speaker 1 is expressing echoes what their clients are saying.

They claim climate change is a mass delusion to push illogical ideas. The earth's coastlines have not moved in over 60 years. Temperature cycles have existed for thousands of years, with the sun being a major factor. Electric cars still rely on fossil fuels for production. Oil is seen as a renewable resource by some. The speaker rejects the idea of climate change and emphasizes human frailty as a strength, not a weakness.

The speaker argues that climate change is false, citing that the Earth is currently in a cold period with historically low CO2 levels. They claim that the increase in CO2 from fossil fuels is actually beneficial for plant growth, as it was originally taken from the atmosphere by plants. The speaker believes that humans are saving life on Earth by returning CO2 to a more optimal level through burning fossil fuels for energy.