Fact Check: Environmentalist Motives and Nuclear Energy Claims Analyzed

If you're an environmentalist concerned about excessive CO2 in the atmosphere, then nuclear power should be a

no-brainer with its incredible energy output, low emissions, and in fact statistically safer than alternatives.

Unlike the waste of space that are windmills and the difficulties of solar at scale, nuclear is both comparatively

clean and carries the necessary output to sustain civilization. And yet for some reason, these environmentalist

types that endlessly warn us about the impending end of the world due to fossil fuels do everything in their power to

bury this energy alternative. Their most common rebuttal is that nuclear is scary. Look at what happened in

Chernobyl, for example. They, of course, ignore the advances in technology vastly increasing security since then. But even

if we were to assume that nuclear is as dangerous as the liberal says, it's still less dangerous than their claimed

apocalypse, no? The imminent extinction-level event that they've been warning us about for over half a century

due to the abuse of fossil fuels is objectively worse than a blown-up reactor. Given that they are unable to

convince the world to use less energy to make renewables viable, then nuclear isn't just an option, but their literal

salvation. And yet, contrary to all reason, they reject it. But why? Are they stupid or is there something more

nefarious going on? The purpose of this video won't be to convince you to support nuclear energy, but instead it's

an attempt at discovering the true underlying motives behind the environmentalist movement to explain

this apparent contradiction. And if you enjoyed, consider subscribing. Helps the channel. As a society, we have many

initiatives, agencies, and movements rallied around various social issues. These organizations ask for funding and

in return they promise to help solve or alleviate the issues. But what would happen if the organization is successful

and actually solves what it set out to? It would stop existing. Social issues and the organizations fighting against

them are symbiotic. If a social issue is resolved, the organization has no point in further existence. Their funding

stops. The bureaucrats, organizers, and managers all lose their positions. The same is true in politics. If a political

party builds its whole identity around a single issue or a few issues, it may get a lot of support from frustrated voters,

but it will never actually bring about the change it promises. Because if it does, it will die. As a side note, this

is why legitimate political parties and their supporters need a clear long-term ethos. Otherwise, incentives are

misaligned. On the surface, environmentalism is the same. But before I get into that, a quick word from

today's sponsor, Rumble Wallet. As the world's economic situation gets dicier, bank users have to confront an

uncomfortable question. What if your bank told you no to your own money? Delayed transfers, frozen accounts, it's

been happening a lot. Crypto exists to give you full control over your own assets, but most people never try it

because it feels complicated. That's where Rumble Wallet comes in. It lets you buy crypto in minutes and cash out

whenever. And with MoonPay, you can immediately buy cryptocurrency with your credit card or bank transfers. And

Rumble is offering a limited-time offer where you can start with $10 in US stablecoin for free just by entering my

exclusive promo code logic10 on sign up. So, scan the QR code or use the link in my description and try it. There's no

downside, but don't wait around because this offer only has a limited number of entries available. Terms and conditions

apply, details in the description. Now, back to the video. The doomsday narrative that environmentalists have

been building up since well before either I or most of my audience were born has dominated political circles for

half a century. After all, if the world is really ending, all the power and funding going towards the organizations

that will save us is justified. And what makes climate alarmism so perfect for the forever problem phenomenon I

described earlier is that the solution they are demanding is designed to be impossible. They are asking the entire

world to voluntarily abandon fossil fuels and embrace underperforming renewables. This isn't a solution, it's

a daydream. The world's need for energy is in far excess of what renewables have proven themselves to be capable of. Even

when a nation makes the absurd decision to follow that plan, their energy grid fails and they are forced to return to

fossil fuels, restarting the debate all over again. The current hikes in energy prices and decreased reliability in

places that adopted renewables, as well as the subsequent public outrage demanding a return to fossil fuels,

serves as proof of this, perpetuating endless cycle. So, as long as the dichotomy between fossil fuels and

renewables keeps up, the climate alarmists and their institutions will have their forever problem and as a

result, infinite funding and power. The only threat would be a cleaner alternate power source that could rival fossil

fuels and render the social struggle pointless. The irony is that alternative power source, nuclear, is actually older

than climate alarmism and just need the time to advance safety. An advance it has, posing a serious risk not only to

career politicians and bureaucrats, but also strangely, another party I haven't mentioned yet. Given that there are

organizations whose entire purpose is to try to stop the use of fossil fuels, you would think they'd be on bad terms with

the actual fossil fuel industry. But oddly, no. In fact, not only do they not behave as enemies, prominent anti-fossil

fuel movements are directly funded or led by people connected to the fossil fuel industry. One of the most glaring

examples of this is the literal oil heiress, Aileen Getty, who leads the Climate Emergency Fund, supporting

organizations like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion. But it doesn't stop there. Other oil families like the

Rockefellers also fund anti-fossil fuel movements. However, these examples can be explained away. These people are oil

heirs, not oil tycoons. They got their money from inheritance, not working or investing in the industry. So, having a

change of heart is possible. What is far less easy to explain away though is the financial sector. Quadrature Capital

invest hundreds of millions of dollars into fossil fuels across 45 companies, only to then invest a couple million

into Quadrature Climate Foundation, funding some of the most prominent anti-fossil fuels think tanks and

advertising networks. Their grantees included Carbon Tracker and the European Climate Foundation. If this was a

one-off thing, then fine. But Quadrature is far from the only one, as you're seeing on screen. There's no way around

this. Big Oil literally funds the anti-fossil fuel movements. And in fact, they fund the left in general. But why?

It's a two-birds-of-one-stone situation. The first reason is regulation. People have a misconception that government

regulation is bad for corporations' profits. It can be, but not always. Some corporations benefit from suffocating

regulations in their industry because it kills competitors. Why do you think Amazon was advocating for a higher

minimum wage just as they were replacing many of their workers with robots? Why do you think AI companies leading the

advances in AI won't stop telling others they need to stop advancing AI or there'll be an extinction event. More

regulation often means higher cost of entry and maintenance, meaning less competition. This is basic economics.

Another possible reason is to control the narrative. Put simply, if you're the one funding the advocacy against you,

you control the discussion. But even more importantly, you control how loud that discussion is. You could

hypothetically make the discussion so loud, make people so polarized that it drowns out all surrounding topics.

Everyone is either pro-oil or anti-oil, climate alarmist or climate denier, and therefore they'll be so focused on that

debate that they'll be less likely to bring up adjacent topics that you would rather keep quiet like nuclear and

alternative energy source that could actually outcompete you and threaten your profits. Can't have that. So

instead endlessly demand support and subsidize these useless renewables. Since they're a false solution they'll

never be able to honestly compete with fossil fuels so long as the laws of physics remain unchanged the discussion

will never end and your position will remain unchallenged.