reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker, representing the Trump EPA, frames geoengineering and contrails as urgent questions for which the American public deserves honesty and transparency. The speaker asserts that “the era is over” when questions were dismissed or vilified, and declares that the Trump EPA is committed to total transparency. The administrator states that the EPA tasked its team to “compile a list of everything we know about contrails and geoengineering for the purpose of releasing it to you now publicly.” The goal is for readers to know “everything I know about these topics and without any exception.” Rather than dismissing questions as baseless conspiracies, the EPA is meeting them head on, performing legwork, reviewing science, consulting agency experts, and incorporating relevant outside information to create online resources. “Everything we know about contrails to solar geoengineering will be in there.” The administrator emphasizes that anyone reading the information will know as much about these topics as the EPA administrator does, addressing questions from people who have looked up at the sky and wondered “what the heck is going on?” or seen headlines about private actors and governments seeking to blot out the sun in the name of stopping global warming. The EPA states that it has endeavored to answer all questions at the links provided. The EPA notes that it shares many of the same concerns about potential threats to human health and the environment, especially from solar geoengineering activities. The speaker highlights that the enthusiasm for experiments that would pump pollutants into the high atmosphere has set off alarm bells at the Trump EPA. Prior to now, the EPA has “never been this proactive to raise awareness about concerns with geoengineering and to stop this activity from being scaled up.” Finally, the administrator frames the stance as an example of government listening to the will of the people, not squashing it, and asserts that “you can always trust this administration and this EPA to take your concerns seriously, answer your questions honestly, and carry out the will of voters with integrity.”

Is this truly a democracy? A functioning democracy requires a strong feedback loop between the people and their government. Without it, if unelected bureaucrats hold the power, the meaning of democracy is lost. The weight of leadership can be challenging, but open communication is essential for a government to represent its citizens effectively. A government without responsiveness to its people isn't truly democratic.

The conversation opens with Speaker 0 arguing that there is no climate catastrophe or climate emergency. They claim that the threat narrative is pervasive, describing “tentacles” extending across the public sector, private sector, and academia. The speaker asserts that politicians, exemplified by Mark Carney, use fear mongering to secure votes, and notes that this phenomenon is seen globally, predominantly in left-leaning governments. According to Speaker 0, the climate discourse represents self-sabotage and economic suicide. They describe economies as being strangled by a left-wing agenda, contending that such forces are shaping markets, national policy, media output, education, and financial flows. The overarching claim is that this agenda is about power and control, with fear mongering used to imply a climate catastrophe. The transcript then shifts to a brief interlude welcoming Desiree Fixler. Desiree Fixler is thanked for joining again, with a note that much has happened since their last chat.

Speaker 0: Our only opportunity, our only chance to save our democracy is to fight fire with fire right now. Speaker 0: So, yeah, do I bemoan the fact that, you know, we're now blowing up norms? Yes. Speaker 0: So you have to be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to save the country. Speaker 1: When I hear that, I wonder if Is there enough people that believe that same thing? And until you get more to believe that, that may be why the Democrats aren't rowing in the same direction yet. Speaker 0: You can't get people to believe it if you don't act like it.

The speaker criticizes the use of Greta Thunberg by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), calling it a belief system and cult rather than a scientific organization. They argue that despite carbon dioxide only making up 0.041% of the atmosphere, campaigns have convinced people that it is the cause of climate change. The proposed solutions, such as higher taxes and state control, are seen as a pretext to change behavior and make people poorer while benefiting a small elite. When questioned about Thunberg's role in the IPCC, the speaker questions her expertise and the legitimacy of her influence. They conclude by dismissing the discussion as propaganda.

The speaker expresses concern about the cost of climate change and accuses the opposing party of not being honest with Canadians. They emphasize the urgency of the situation and the burden it places on future generations. The transcript ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much reducing carbon emissions in the United States by $50 trillion will lower global temperatures. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of global efforts to reduce emissions but does not provide a specific answer. Speaker 0 repeatedly asks for a clear answer, expressing frustration that taxpayer money is being spent without knowing the impact on world temperatures. Speaker 1 acknowledges the lack of a specific answer but believes that the US must lead in addressing climate change. The conversation ends without a clear estimate provided.

Speaker 0: And what would you say to the average person? Not doesn't work in the industry, somewhat concerned about the future, doesn't know if they're helpless or not. What should they be doing in their own lives? Speaker 1: My feeling is there's not much they can do. This isn't isn't gonna be decided by just as climate change isn't gonna be decided by people separating out the plastic bags from the compostables, that's not gonna have much effect. It's gonna be decided by whether the lobbyists for the big energy companies can be kept under control. I don't think there's much people can do to accept for try and pressure their governments to force the big companies to work on AI safety. That they can do.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 would serve in a cabinet under Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 responds that they don't see it happening because they believe the Netherlands needs a leader who can unite the country and lead internationally. Speaker 1 also doubts Wilders' ability to form a majority. Speaker 0 confirms that Speaker 1 will not join a cabinet under Wilders, to which Speaker 1 agrees, stating that the country deserves a leader for everyone. Speaker 1 believes Wilders' leadership would not be beneficial and emphasizes the need for a leader who can handle crises and promote economic growth. Speaker 1 also mentions that if Wilders were to win the elections, they would go into opposition.

The speaker discusses the need to address the climate crisis by transitioning to sustainable energy sources. They emphasize the urgency of moving away from fossil fuels to prevent catastrophic consequences. A key solution proposed is implementing a revenue-neutral carbon tax to incentivize companies to reduce carbon emissions. The speaker urges individuals to advocate for this change and combat misinformation spread by the carbon industry.

The speaker criticizes the use of Greta Thunberg by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stating that she belongs in school, not on the streets. They argue that campaigns have misled people into believing that man-made CO2 is the main cause of climate change, despite it only representing a small percentage of the atmosphere. The speaker believes that the proposed solutions to combat climate change, such as higher taxes and state control, are a pretext to control people's behavior and make them poorer. They question the expertise of individuals like Greta Thunberg and Bill Gates in influencing laws and violating people's rights. The speaker concludes by dismissing the claims that 0.041% of the atmosphere is responsible for catastrophic events.

Not an expert, but a concerned citizen. Thousands marched in New York, joined by billions worldwide, to address the climate crisis. As an actor, I solve fictional problems, but climate change is not fiction. Pretending it doesn't exist won't make it disappear. We all know better than that.

The speaker questions why Greta Thunberg never criticizes Saudi Arabia or Russia, only Western energy. They ask if she will condemn OPEC energy and every delegate who arrived on a private jet. They challenge her to condemn private jets and ask if she has ever been on one. The speaker claims to own 100 private jets and asks if Greta has ever been on one, to which she responds affirmatively.

Speaker 0 introduces Desiree as an outspoken whistleblower who has challenged the Davos elite, asserts that old systems are not fit for the twenty-first century, and asks how Desiree helped build the WEF’s great reset. Speaker 1, Desiree, recounts that in 2020 she obtained her dream job as chief sustainability officer at Deutsche Bank. She states that while in that role she witnessed fraud and describes the annual report as a “legal living document” filled with lies. She says that a couple of weeks after she spoke out, she was fired, and shortly after, the annual report was released with “all the lies.” She describes a subsequent “horrific smear campaign” and notes that within two days, U.S. authorities contacted her, including the SEC, the FBI, and the Department of Justice. She mentions that they asked her questions, implying inquiry or investigation directed at her claims. Speaker 0 questions whether Desiree is advancing the view that “they’re controlling the world.” Speaker 1 asserts that the WEF is vast and that its tentacles affect every part of life. She claims that this situation is not stakeholder capitalism but socialism, accusing the WEF of lying to the public. She contends that the Davos agenda involves more than net zero and asserts that it is connected to a “climate crisis” manufactured by a “multi trillion dollar industrial complex.” She reiterates that the Davos agenda is about more than climate goals and frames it as a broad, powerful economic and political enterprise. Speaker 0 asks Desiree whether she ever met Claus Schwab and whether she has anything to say about the encounter. Speaker 1 responds with a brief affirmative, saying “Yes,” to having met Schwab, and adds “Truthfully” when asked for further remarks about the meeting. Summary of key points: - Desiree’s career move to Deutsche Bank in 2020 as chief sustainability officer and her claim of discovering fraud and a lies-filled annual report. - Her claim of being fired and subjected to a smear campaign, followed by inquiries from U.S. authorities (SEC, FBI, DOJ). - The assertion that the WEF’s influence extends across life, characterizing the Davos agenda as socialism rather than stakeholder capitalism, and alleging a manufactured climate crisis tied to a multi-trillion-dollar industrial complex. - The claim that the Davos agenda encompasses more than net zero and entails broader power and influence. - Desiree confirms she met Claus Schwab, with a brief, candid acknowledgment.

The speaker discusses the need to reduce emissions to address the climate crisis. They emphasize that even if all industrial nations achieve zero emissions, it would not be enough to solve the problem. The speaker also mentions that global net zero is insufficient and that carbon dioxide must be removed from the atmosphere. When asked about the correct amount of CO2, the speaker explains that the level changes daily and highlights the importance of reducing emissions. The conversation then shifts to a debate about historical levels of CO2 and the impact of human activity. The speaker argues that human beings are contributing to the problem and defends the consensus among scientists. The other speaker questions the need for expensive solutions and raises concerns about the potential negative effects of reducing CO2 levels on plant life. The conversation ends with a disagreement on the role of consensus in science.

The atmosphere in the European Parliament is tense. Many colleagues are realizing they are not serving the people's best interests. It's no longer about the people, but about a global elite. They are starting to see that the public is no longer fooled by climate change rhetoric and are standing up against it.

Speaker 0 asks the Deputy Secretary of Energy how much reducing carbon emissions in the United States by $50 trillion will lower world temperatures. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of global efforts to reduce emissions but does not provide a specific answer. Speaker 0 repeatedly questions Speaker 1's inability to provide a clear response, expressing concern about spending taxpayer money without knowing the impact on world temperatures. Speaker 1 believes that the US must lead in addressing climate change. However, Speaker 0 insists on receiving a specific answer, which Speaker 1 fails to provide.

The speaker discusses the urgency of addressing global climate change and the need for action in Hawaii. They believe that by leading by example and showcasing the pain and suffering caused by climate change, they can make a strong case to a broad international audience. The speaker mentions the importance of smart cities and fire mitigation efforts. The conversation is interrupted and the transcript ends abruptly.

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.

The speaker states that the most significant aspect of their policy decisions is that their values have not changed. They mention the Green New Deal as an example, stating they have always believed the climate crisis is real and urgent. They claim to have worked on applying metrics, including deadlines, and set goals for the United States and the globe for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The speaker asserts that this value has not changed.

Speaker 0 asks Greta what advice she would give if a president asked for her guidance on climate action. Greta responds that she wouldn't advise anything because it would be undemocratic for an elected leader to act without the support of the people. She emphasizes the importance of democracy and not risking it. Greta suggests that the president should honestly communicate the situation as it is. Speaker 0 acknowledges her point, and the conversation ends.