Mike Adams critiques the Colombia conference where the Netherlands urged developing nations to abandon fossil fuels, arguing hydrocarbons are essential for feeding 4 billion people via nitrogenous fertilizers. He exposes the hypocrisy of advising oil-dependent Colombia to shut down resources while Europe suffers industrial collapse from abandoning its own infrastructure. Adams asserts the green agenda is a Western strategy to engineer artificial scarcity and poverty, noting major producers like the US and Russia boycotted the event. Ultimately, he concludes nations must responsibly utilize their energy resources to build economies rather than following a path to economic suicide. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Oil Giants vs Green Energy00:09:19
Also generates revenue through profits from the global energy giant Royal Dutch Shell, a British Dutch conglomerate.
The company has been embroiled in multiple lawsuits and compensation claims over oil spills across the world, mainly in Africa.
Let's discuss the implications of all this with Mike Adams, founder of Brightian Platforms.
Thank you very much for joining us on the program.
I would love to hear your reaction to what's been said by the Netherlands at the first conglomerate conference on the transitioning away from fossil fuels that took place in Colombia.
Well, thank you for having me on.
And I think that those leaders are missing the point that it is hydrocarbons that have created abundance for our world.
And it is hydrocarbons through gas that have created the nitrogenous fertilizers that feed over 4 billion people in our world currently.
And as much as it may pander to their people to talk about green energy, the technology currently does not exist in terms of battery storage tech in order to make green energy anywhere near as reliable and as portable and as powerful.
As hydrocarbons.
So, our economies and our transportation in particular and our food supply will continue to be powered by hydrocarbons and fossil fuels for many decades to come.
Although it can be augmented on the grid with solar and wind and hydro, it's not a replacement at this point.
So, to what extent are such segments from developed countries surprising, considering the escalating global fuel crisis sparked by the war on Iran that we're amid right now?
Well, in fact, the war and the supply chain chokehold on oil and gas is really.
Showing how much the world depends on hydrocarbons.
But we also saw this, remember, following the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, we saw the partial collapse of Germany's industry.
And they actually crippled themselves in many ways in Germany because they had shut down their own fossil fuel infrastructure before that.
And other countries had shut down their nuclear power.
They were dependent on gas from Russia, frankly, for their industrial dominance in Western Europe.
And now that has dissolved quite rapidly.
So, if anything, The message to countries, think about China, for example, they are diversifying their energy sources.
They are buying gas from Russia, a new pipeline in the works, of course.
They are buying oil from the Middle East, and they are building hydropower sources as well as wind and solar.
But their economy still largely depends on fossil fuels.
I think what's also worth highlighting is that we have officials from a major oil consumer, the Netherlands, coming to a country they call developing, that is an oil producer, Colombia, to advise them.
How to drop fossil fuels.
How exactly is that supposed to make sense to anyone right now?
Well, it makes no economic sense to the country that has the oil.
Basically, yeah, you have this kind of arrogance from these European leaders who, in many ways, do not represent the European people in many ways, but these leaders running around the world, arrogantly speaking down to these countries that have tremendous natural resources and telling them, don't you dare tap into your resources.
And it's also a reflection of the fact that many of these European countries themselves.
Have locked up their own resources and now they are paying the price economically.
They're paying the price with not being able to heat their homes and businesses in the winter and now coming up, not being able to have the food output that they once counted on to feed their populations.
Yeah, as you say, oil and coal account for around half of Colombia's exports.
So why would Bogota possibly want to pursue the infamous green energy agenda now?
Well, it makes no sense.
But frankly, the whole green, I call it a scam.
This idea that carbon dioxide is bad for the planet, that claim is completely false and it stands in contradiction to a basic understanding of photosynthesis.
If we want to grow food crops for the world and we want to have rainforests, then all of those plants require photosynthesis.
They benefit from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide could be called the miracle molecule of life for Earth, it's actually the greening molecule itself.
So the more carbon dioxide that we actually unleash into the atmosphere, the more food and the more abundance the world will experience, including marginalized countries.
That are on the verge of starvation.
Yeah, I mean, this is one argument I've heard again and again over the years.
When you have countries like the Netherlands, which has had centuries to exploit as much coal and oil as it wants, does it look like that fact is accounted for when talking about both developed and developing countries transitioning to green and splitting the quotas?
Yeah, it's kind of like what they're saying is well, we built our civilization on fossil fuels, but you are not allowed to build your civilization.
On fossil fuels, and it's incredibly unfair, and it's actually a way to trap more developing nations in a cycle of poverty and dependence.
And that's exactly what I think we're witnessing here.
Really, we should encourage open trade of hydrocarbons and fossil fuels from all sources around the world because all of humanity will benefit from that.
And if countries choose to make some level of a transition to a green power grid, they can begin to do that.
But frankly, again, the energy storage technology is not mature.
And it won't be for many years to come to make that economically feasible.
I think it's worth pointing out as well that the Netherlands has built this reputation of being a strong green transition proponent.
But at the same time, its port of Rotterdam sees over a million barrels of oil pass through each day, and it consumes quite a lot of petroleum on its own.
How does all that stack up with what Dutch officials are telling the developing world?
Well, it's that we can have energy, but you can't.
We can be wealthy, but you will be trapped in a cycle of poverty.
And dependence, and that you have to listen to us for your direction.
So, you know, frankly, this is my opinion, but I believe that these nations in Central and South America, nations in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, even Middle East and African nations, should absolutely not model what European leaders have done to their own countries because they have put their countries, in my opinion, on a path of economic and industrial and food collapse.
And if they don't reverse course, then their own people will suffer.
You know, frankly, These leaders in these European countries to stop lecturing the world and start solving their own domestic problems first.
Yeah, the world is under great strain right now, as you point out.
But this conference in Colombia saw more than 50 countries attending, from Tuvalu and Iceland to Canada and Brazil.
Why would they all take part in a green transition conference now, especially as the U.S. is changing its respective course completely under the Trump administration?
Who knows what the future holds?
Well, I believe that there are systems of control from Western civilization that depend on.
Engineered artificial scarcity of abundance.
And frankly, by promoting a green agenda, this is one way that they can maintain energy scarcity and food scarcity and wealth scarcity.
For example, telling Colombia, do not tap into your national wealth, it's a blatant strategy to say you should choose to commit economic suicide and remain trapped in poverty rather than allowing your people and your country to benefit from the resources that, frankly, God put there for you.
So it's just completely insane to follow that.
That advice of economic suicide.
Unsurprisingly, none of the world's top oil producers, including the US, Russia, Gulf states, and Venezuela, even attended the Columbia conference.
What does that fact say about the point of any discussions about fossil fuels there?
Well, that clearly there's a bifurcation of the worldview understanding.
Countries like Brazil, countries like Argentina, countries like Russia and China simply want to engage in trade of energy, trade of goods and services and manufacturing.
But then there are these Western countries that, for whatever reason, they want to continue on this climate.
Model that is a model of scarcity and engineered poverty for their own people and for people of other countries.
It makes no sense to me.
As an American, it makes no sense to commit economic suicide.
And so I would encourage every country around the world to use the resources that you have responsibly to benefit your people, to grow food and to build your economies and have functioning industry and conduct trade with all the other countries around the world that have products and services and sources of energy and fertilizer that you can benefit from domestically.
And of course, you're joining us from Texas, a crucial state for producing the WTI brand of oil.
At the same time, the city you're in, Austin, has become a magnet for big tech and cutting edge companies, many of them pursuing green economics.
How does it all work out together?
Well, it's interesting because here in the United States, especially in Texas, where there are many data centers that are planned, the green agenda has been thrown out the window for the construction of these data centers.
Data Centers Ignore Green Agenda00:01:02
For example, some new data centers are very, very large, they're using gigawatts of power.
They're run by gas turbines.
So they just bring in the gas, they generate the power and power their own data center with gas.
They don't publicize it, but that's what they have to do.
The entire Eastern power grid in the United States is already at its limit and cannot handle one more data center being connected to the grid.
So the message is if you want to build a data center, you have to bring the power yourself or you have to build a nuclear power plant, which in America takes 15 years.
Five years of that is permitting, by the way.
So it's not feasible, especially in the AI race.
Who's going to win the so called AI race to super intelligence?
Well, it's not going to be the country that doesn't have power, that's for sure.
A pleasure speaking to you today.
Many thanks for your time.
We've been talking to Brighton Platforms founder Mike Adams.
Thank you.
Start your day right with our organic, hand roasted whole bean coffee.
Low acid, smooth and bold.
Lab tested and ethically sourced.
Taste the difference only at healthrangerstore.com.