Summary of #4 - Ben Pile on massive amounts of "completely unaccountable" Green Blob funding and spending

This is an AI generated summary. There may be inaccuracies.
Summarize another video · Purchase summarize.tech Premium

00:00:00 - 01:00:00

In this video, Ben Pile discusses a range of issues relating to the green movement, including neocolonialism in environmentalism and the issue of unaccountable funding. He questions the rationale of NGOs like Oxfam and highlights the intentional destruction of power plants in the UK, which has contributed to the rising cost of domestic energy bills and energy poverty. Pile argues that green climate policies are more dangerous than climate change itself and criticizes the UK's political system as an "abomination against democracy." The speaker also challenges the notion that we rely solely on nature for survival and suggests exploring the entire energy debate beyond just technical aspects. Lastly, he highlights the appropriateness of policies to mitigate the impact of heatwaves, given that coal claims 80 times as many lives as heat.

00:00:00 In this section, Ben Pile describes the moment he became a climate skeptic and how he started the blog Climate Resistance to interrogate the ideological dimensions of the climate debate. He argues that the foundation of the green movement's claims in science was not that strong and that the radical transformation of society that they propose is not based on sound science. He emphasizes that the green movement has not been subjected to the same level of scrutiny as other social justice movements, despite having a more repugnant history.
00:05:00 In this section, Ben Pile discusses the issue of neocolonialism in contemporary environmentalism. He claims that there is a colonial aspect to the climate agenda, as developing nations are not granted the benefits of industrialization that the West has received. The global institutions responsible for such intervention, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, are seen as tremendously evil for trying to prevent finance from going towards fossil fuel and hydrocarbon projects in developing countries, which leaves the hospitals in Africa without any reliable power. Ben Pile also questions the rationale of NGOs like Oxfam, which intervened in fossil fuel development as it is against its founding.
00:10:00 In this section, Ben Pile discusses the massive amount of funding and spending that the green movement receives from philanthropic foundations. He emphasizes that the movement would not exist without the benevolence of around a dozen foundations, and some of the billionaires who have given to the green organizations include Jeff Bezos and Mike Bloomberg. Pile also points out that some of the information about where the funds go is opaque, and it’s difficult to find out the donors. Pile believes that it's hypocritical for green organizations to claim that independent people like him are funded by big oil when they are funded by such wealthy benefactors.
00:15:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the issue of unaccountable funding in the Greens' movement. He argues that the Environmental Defense Fund funds organizations that advocate for transparency using an unspecified portion of money that is completely unaccountable. Many media outlets, such as The Guardian, are funded by billionaire philanthropists and claim to be supported by their own readers. However, the reality is that they receive millions from those billionaires, while painting others as receiving only a few thousand from philanthropic campaigns. The purpose of this funding is to lobby shareholders and others to divest their money from fossil fuels, invest in ESG stocks, and push for sustainability in a rather murky way.
00:20:00 In this section, Ben Pile discusses how individuals are pulling their money out of fossil fuels and lobbying banks to stop financing fossil fuel companies, using coercive tactics to increase the cost of capital for those companies. He also mentions how the Bank of England has become a green NGO, with former Governor Mark Carney appointing Mike Bloomberg to an advisory organization on ESG standards for disclosure of environmental and climate risks. Pile argues that the Bank of England is aware that its actions are restricting the supply of oil and printing money, both of which create inflationary pressure.
00:25:00 In this section, Ben Pile discusses the intentional destruction of power plants in the UK, which started in 2012 and destroyed about 27 gigawatts of capacity of oil and coal-fired power stations. The closures were done hastily, giving no opportunity for coal-fired power plants to be brought back online, meaning that people now face a doubling and a doubling again of their domestic energy bills and they go into "energy poverty". Ben also criticises the president of COP26 for filming himself blowing up a coal-fired power plant while energy companies were collapsing due to the massive price hikes.
00:30:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the potential harm caused by green policies and the lack of planning for reliable energy supplies in the UK during the winter. He points out that while politicians may want to be seen as planet-saving superheroes, the reality is that green climate change policy is more dangerous than climate change itself. Hospitals may have diesel backups, but they can be very energy-intensive. While some people may have solar panels or small generators, there is no surplus, and there is no plan for keeping factories or houses powered during winter blackouts. The speaker hopes that sanity will prevail, however, there has been no democratic contest of policy in Britain since Thatcher, and there is no indication that current leaders want to confront the rising cost of the living crisis head-on.
00:35:00 In this section, Ben Pile discusses the challenge of undoing net-zero policies due to the pervasive presence and funding of green NGOs in government departments, political parties, as well as the civil service. He explains that even if a qualified majority in both houses of parliament favors repealing the net-zero targets, it is not a straightforward process, as the green consensus is powerful and embedded within the system. The source of the power of green NGOs and their influence over politicians is also discussed, including the example of Zach Goldsmith, a multi-millionaire tycoon who was made a lord when he lost his seat as an MP, following a history of standing on a platform of environmental activist policies.
00:40:00 In this section, Ben Pile describes the current state of the UK's political system as an "abomination against democracy," where the two main opposing parties are signing pledges to not let the public have a say in the climate change debate. As a result, the parliament has become a group of zombies, where there is very little difference between policies offered by the labor and conservative parties. Pile suggests the best outcome is for them to demolish their own parties and let true constituencies come forward to stand as the parties. Furthermore, Pile explains that the emergency powers have become an excuse for the political institutions to indulge in the idea of emergency, as they wouldn't have to convince the public to sustain power. The blob is reorganizing itself to capitalize on the anger of public over high energy prices and restricted energy supplies, while arguing for the nationalization of the energy sector without compensation, which would only compound the problems and destroy Britain's financial standing.
00:45:00 In this section of the video, Ben Pile discusses the consequences of green policies and the green movement, such as potential starvation due to the choking of food and energy supplies. He mentions a interview by Michael Yon in which Yon argues that the world will see serious starvation and rioting due to these policies, and cites examples such as the high ESG score in Sri Lanka which has ignored the interests of the public. Pile argues that climate change policy is worse for us than climate change itself and that the number of people experiencing problems from extreme weather has decreased despite the global population increasing. He worries that the persisting belief that we are dependent on nature and the havoc created by these policies could potentially be more fatal than World War II.
00:50:00 In this section, Ben Pile argues that the notion of relying solely on nature for survival is not true, and that we actually survive despite nature. He criticizes the green ideology for teaching people that wealth is created through natural providence, which is not the case. Pile mentions how the green movement refuses to acknowledge figures like Bjorn Lomborg, who present analyses that disagree with their ideologies. He warns against the increasingly defensive green movement, which may use tactics like financial regulation and social media censorship to harass their opponents. Pile believes that we need to explore the entire energy debate beyond just the technical aspects, focusing more on the role of feedbacks in global warming and the consequences of relying solely on expensive renewable energy sources.
00:55:00 In this section, the speaker outlines the different columns of the climate debate and points out that many studies predicting catastrophic effects of global warming depend on dramatic projections. He argues that claims of sea ice loss in the Arctic and heat waves have been exaggerated and that while heat waves are a problem, they also highlight the appropriateness of policies to mitigate their impact. The speaker points out that coal claims 80 times as many lives as heat, and there hasn't been an increase in the intensity of storms as we're in a hurricane drought. He notes that flooding is a policy question and attributing floods to climate change has a low level of confidence, indicating that flooding is typically a result of engineering or policy failures.

01:00:00 - 01:25:00

Ben Pile discusses the issue of implementing policies to reduce emissions without having a clear plan on how to do it and argues that the green blob is spending huge amounts of money trying to silence skeptics of climate change policy. He emphasizes the need for people to be free to make their own choices and be allowed to dissent from policies. However, the public sphere is becoming increasingly closed off to skeptics, and legislation to silence them is being advanced in several countries. Pile suggests that people speak out their minds on social media platforms where debates can take place to arrive at a consensus on issues. The conversation also touches on the lack of regulation in the climate change debate and the need for academic freedom.

01:00:00 In this section, the speaker challenges the assumption that melting ice is necessarily a bad thing, arguing that in some cases, like the melting of ice over what is now Chicago, it can be a gain rather than a loss. They also suggest that while CO2 might cause extra precipitation, it is never credited with preventing droughts or lessening floods, but rather is seen as causing problems no matter what. They argue that claims of a climate emergency have no data to support them and that all evidence contradicts this, pointing out that poverty and conflict have both decreased, and agricultural productivity has increased year after year. They suggest that those who are not confident in discussing global warming and worried about being labeled "basic physics deniers" should start with the yellow column (infectious diseases linked to climate) and work their way to the red column (climate emergency claims), since the latter is completely unsupported by data.
01:05:00 In this section, Ben Pile discusses the issue of implementing policies to reduce emissions without having a clear plan on how to do it. He argues that the targets are legally enforceable, which is creating chaos and leading to a total transformation of the relationship between the individual and government. The green blob, as he calls them, is spending huge amounts of money trying to silence skeptics of climate change policy by lumping them in with vaccine deniers and terrorists. Pile believes that, while people should be free to make their own choices, they should also be asked for their assent to these policies and be free to dissent from them. However, the public sphere is increasingly closed off to skeptics, and the legislation to silence them is being advanced in several countries.
01:10:00 In this section of the video, the speakers discuss the idea of focusing on specific issues within the climate change debate instead of overextending oneself with scientific arguments. They also touch upon the lack of regulation surrounding the debate and the potential for lies and misinformation. One speaker points out how one moment of realization can lead to newfound skepticism, while the other emphasizes the opportunity to reach people who believe in the climate change agenda but have not thought critically about it. The speakers agree that arguing with people like Michael Mann is pointless and instead urge people to focus on data and encouraging independent thinking.
01:15:00 In this section, Ben Pile argues that the issue with science today is that it has transformed into an institutional science that services political agendas like climate change rather than being an open platform where ideas are tested through democratic arguments. Ben argues that the influence of political power in scientific institutions has created a cemented power that is not going to dilute itself and can even cloud the truth. He further suggests that people should speak out their minds on Twitter or platforms where red team-blue team debates could be held to arrive at a consensus on issues.
01:20:00 In this section, Ben Pile discusses the idea of a red team blue team and how it was suggested by the gwpf to combat groupthink in scientific research. He also talks about the power of money in policymaking and mentions that it is naive to expect a good-based debate to take place without a crisis to examine the causes. Pile believes that the old ways of submitting formal papers and waiting months for a response are outdated and that making information available on the internet enables faster and more efficient responses.
01:25:00 In this section, the conversation continues on the issue of academic freedom and the attacks on academics who challenge climate change orthodoxy, such as Susan Crockford and Peter Ridd. The use of legal action and ultimately getting people thrown out of their jobs for telling the truth is not about science or determining truth but is a much deeper, insidious problem. The conversation ends with Ben Pile highlighting the need to demand more debate and put it back at the center of things.