The Highwire with Del Bigtree - NO PETS IN THE NET ZERO FUTURE?

Episode Date: September 2, 2025

Jefferey Jaxen uncovers how the net-zero agenda is creeping into everyday life, even raising alarms about pet ownership. From bans on access to nature to proposals for restricting meat consumption, climate policies are increasingly targeting personal freedoms in the name of “saving the planet.”Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

I want to move now to an update on the World Economic Forum. Klaus Schwab stepped down. We had the Nestle guy who believed that water wasn't a human right. He stepped in as the co-chair. And now he's gone. We have somebody else moving in there. The world's largest asset manager is BlackRock. And this is Larry Fink, who runs BlackRock and manages almost $12 trillion of assets in

in 2024. And where does he point those assets? How does he wield his power? Well, this is just one interview with Larry Fink. Take a listen. The faster that we could find ways to mitigating the rising temperatures, I would say the more just society could be. And so to me, we don't have much time. We need to be learning about the new technologies and how to move forward.

And we need to then inform our investors ultimately where we think the next opportunities are going to be too. And as Bill in his book wrote about, we need to employ $50 trillion to get to a green world. $50 trillion of taxpayer money towards an absolute disastrous hoax that only makes us richer. I mean, what could possibly go wrong, Jeffrey? We just have the guy that is managing probably your home loan, your bank account, your automobile company that built your cars. BlackRock has got its fingers in everything.

And now he's just the head of the W.E.F. What could possibly go wrong? Anybody who hatches a scheme that has Bill Gates laughing like a Scooby-Doo villain should really alarm people at that point. So again, we're hearing these words. This is rapid net zero push. There's not much time. It's up to us for a just society. You know, the trillionaire class. And he says, we're going to inform our investors. There's this really gobbly group talk of it's just going to be touchy-feely. we're going to just suggest to them how to reshape society. Well, how is that suggested? Here's one of Larry Fink's comments. BlackRock CEO slammed for forced behaviors.

This comment in 2017, he was talking about the DEI initiatives, but he says this, quote, behaviors are going to have to change. And this is one thing we're asking companies. You have to force behaviors. At BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors. That's Larry Fink. And so let's look at how they kind of shape the market. So they're talking about the informants.

their investors. This is Andrew Bailey. Again, out of Missouri, a lot of great things that happen in Missouri. Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed suit against Black Rock, also State Street, and Vanguard, for illegally manipulating the energy markets. And he said this in his press release. Over several years, the three asset managers acquired substantial stock holdings in every significant publicly held coal producer in the United States, thereby gaining the power to control the policies of the coal companies, using their combined influence over the coal market, the investment cartel collectively announced in 2021 their commitment to weaponize their shares to pressure the coal companies to accommodate green energy goals. Basically, our cartel wants you to do this and you do this or

you go out of business because we're going to put you out of business. That's how Larry Fink is moving. So I bring up these conversations because a lot of people are looking at the Department of Energy, President Trump, and saying, well, we have a little bit of a pause here, respite. We have breaks on this massive climate push that's reshaping society. Yeah. And we have, it's not what's happening in the rest of the world. It's not what happens, what's happening with the largest asset managers in the world. This is going full speed ahead.

And as a side note to that, we have Andrew Bailey. He has recently stepped down just as of days ago from the Missouri AG position. And he's going into the FBI as a co-dead deputy director. This is, I believe, actually great news because that's a power position now. This is somebody who sued China for 25 billion. for their response to the COVID disaster. He also sued the Biden administration for their censorship regime. So this guy is a heavy hitter.

Now he's kind of installed at one of the top positions to the FBI. Pretty good news, in my opinion. And so let's move this conversation to the climate science, if you will. And people watching this may have, we've been watching for however long you've been watching the high war, you know that the vaccine conversation, we've been told it's settled science for a long time. We've shown it wasn't. Our ICAN lawyers have shown that it wasn't as well from FOIA documents or depositions.

And so the climate conversation is the same thing. And here's a study, a new study that just came out literally called unsettling the science, talking about the complex climatic system. And it says here, the research presented here challenges the ideas that we live in a greenhouse and that science can be settled and revisits the most fundamental topics related to climate. These researchers basically are suggesting they replace this word greenhouse gas with atmospheric radiative, effect because the idea of a greenhouse is not really how earth works. And that is actually something that came about in the late 50s, early 60s, when this club of

Rome push happened, you had this buzzword greenhouse, greenhouse effects. They're saying, let's go take away these buzzwords and let's get back to actual scientific terms. We're talking about this. So they conclude this. There's an empirically verified atmospheric radiative effect, ARE, in the atmosphere, not only on Earth, but also on other planets. On Earth, ARE is dominated by water vapor and clouds, with CO2 playing a very minor role,

let alone human added CO2, which represents only 4% of total emissions to the atmosphere. So they go on to say focusing on one of the factors affecting the climatic system, namely the anthropogenic CO2 emissions and basing on models that emphasize that this factor may distort our perception of the big picture and can be detrimental to science, whose objective is to pursue the truth. And that's all we want here is the truth. We want actual science. And while we're continuing to wait for actual science, although there's a legion of scientists doing this,

they've just been pushed out of the mainstream conversation until now. We're having, again, this rapid societal push with ridiculous, ridiculous suggestions at this point that are moving into policy on how to fight climate change. Here's one from associated press. People often miscalculate climate choices. A study says, one surprise is owning a dog.

So I had to backtrack this to the actual study, Because I'm thinking what's going on here. You go to this study and they're looking at climate action literacy interventions. So they're looking at what people think they're doing to fight climate change and what are they actually doing. So they've said this. They propose this question. Do people misperceive the effectiveness of their climate behaviors? They say we found that participants significantly underestimated the mitigation potential of behaviors like not adopting a dog or taking one fewer long-haul flights while we greatly overestimating the potential.

behaviors like using efficient appliances, recycling comprehensively. So again, they're basically saying, forget recycling, forget changing your appliances, get rid of your dog. That's going to be the best way to stop the oceans from, you know, getting any deeper. Exactly. And they're basing this because dogs are carnivores, they're meat eaters, and, you know, that has a larger carbon footprint. And everyone knows dogs fart. Right. So what's kind of scary in this article, this research, is they're used these terms like

behavioral plasticity, referring to the degree in which behavior can be changed. And they're saying these are strategic starting points for policymakers. And as we show last week, these strategic starting points for policymakers often become law pretty shortly afterwards. So I mean, I don't think they're going to be able to get people to not have dogs anymore to stop loving dogs or adopting dogs. I don't know, I really don't understand that whole aspect of this, but good luck. But they're also saying long haul flights.

There has been a big push when you're seeing this now. There's been a push to keep people locally. You shouldn't be traveling anymore because it's bad for the climate, taking flights. That's why they're seeing these 15-minute cities pop up. That's why you're seeing people talking about ride sharing. You're even getting automatically driving cars. That could be backfired pretty quick. But you've got to ask the question, how do you inspire people to travel less?

you don't want people to visit places, right? Well, it's not just going to magically say you can't travel anymore. It may start looking like this. Hawaii, one of the first states to do this, new tourism tax aims to offset costs of climate change. So make it a little more expensive to go to places. And we know in 2019, the UK government commissioned a study looking at how we get to absolute zero with carbon,

not net zero, just absolute zero. And this was the UK fires document. And we know that this is on the agenda. in 2029 by 2029 you can see here on this chart they want all airports except heathro glasgow and belfast closed by 2030 to 2049 all remaining airports closed so the airport industry reaches net zero by stopping to fly the airport industry is gone there's no more airports but when it comes to tourism right now since we still can fly the tourist spots are trying to make a little more uncomfortable here's greece for example the greece is shutting down beaches uh declares 198 beaches as fully protected this is because

because of the climate. And so they're taking out the umbrellas and the sunbeds. They're just making it a little more uncomfortable for you to be there. But when that doesn't work and when taxing doesn't work, then the protests happen.

And it looks like this. Water fight on the streets of Barcelona. Some locals spraying tourists ending visitors fleeing from their tables. The most visited museum in the world failing to open due to a spontaneous strike. Thousands in Italy and Portugal are protesting tourism.

Thousands of protesters walking through the city the weekend chanting tourists go home. Tens of thousands have taken to the streets and the Canary Islands to protest against mass tourism and its impact on housing and the environment. A group of residents gather on the beach. Anger has grown amongst the locals who say they want their beaches back. All beaches are ecosystems. Any place in the planet don't want this kind of tourists because destroy.

We need responsible tourism, not mass tourism. So some cities are actually taking drastic action. In Amsterdam, they're banning new hotels from being built. Venice is charging tourists to enter Venice for the day. People just don't feel like it's not. Europe could be heading for a long hot summer of anti-tourism protests. I can't imagine after your life savings, saving up for that dream trip to Greece or something like that. And suddenly you've got protesters stepping over your towel.

You know, and we know that these just are not grassroots movements. This is being fueled by insanity, funded by lunatics like Soros and Gates and things behind the scenes. Every time you look at it, this doesn't come out of nowhere. It's just, it's horrendous, turning people against people, making people your enemy, making the climate the reason you can be awful to other human beings. You know, I just want to state, again, as always, Jeffrey. I grew up an environmentalist from Boulder, Colorado. I still believe I want clean water, I want clean air, I want clean food. And I think, and I just want to say this,

I think early on a lot of environmentalists thought, well, this climate thing is kind of baloney, but it's getting people to start recycling. It's getting them to think about clean water and things like that. But now you start seeing the dangers of that. Once you allow a bad idea that is not backed in science to be a reason to do anything, They just push more and more pressure on it, take away more and more of your rights.

And by the way, if you want to know how small can a 15-minute city get, I would go ahead and recommend everybody revisit the movie Matrix this week. There's a tub of jelly waiting for you at the end of this with some plugs in it that both feed you and take your energy to feed the AI machine that's now running the world. I swear sometimes it feels like that's the direction they want us all to land in. And you hit on a great point because there's a difference. there used to be a difference between environmentalism and conservation and there's a big difference now because one is an agenda-driven thing conserving natural resources is a good thing cleaning up rivers

cleaning up pollution that goes after these big polluters and that is something that environmentalism used to be before this agenda came in and kind of sidetrack this and actually took a lot of the funding away from it but we're seeing the tentacles spread out everywhere so you see it in science you see it literally in the grassroots and it's not grassroots, as you pointed out, but on the streets with protests, they're very kind of like Black Lives Matter, very similar to that. You see the slogans, everyone's got a slogan, they're harassing people. But you see it illegally as well. So there's a lawsuit now, the first of its kind.

This is Associated Press again, wrongful death lawsuits, has big oil contributed to heat wave and woman's death. This is a complaint filed in Washington State Court accusing seven oil companies of being responsible for a 2021 heat wave that killed a woman. So, I mean, this is trying to connect those two ends. I guess they're going to try to do that in this lawsuit, but this will set a massive precedent if this happens. And a lot of these large companies would be on the hook for, I don't know, when it rains

a little too much or when an extra hurricane comes rushing through, I guess we can blame the companies for that because global warming. It's hard to see the logic here. But this is what's going on. This is in the United States, too, mind you. This isn't something we're seeing over in Europe, but this is right here in Washington State.