Planet of the Humans
- Thread starter ABMax24
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
It certainly is a controversial film that has provoked a lot of angst and pushback from the green community. There are several criticisms of it, and it does skip many positive progressive developments, but it does expose the raw nerve of our impact on the planet and the weakness of dependency on us working our way out of this situation based on technological solutions. A missing element from the film is modern nuclear options.
I definitely question a lot of the information presented in the first third of the film. Topics like solar and wind never repaying the energy used to build the equipment, and power plants emitting as much CO2 when idling vs at full load are clearly wrong.
Topics like large scale biomass plants in Europe where the fuel is sourced globally though are conversations that need to be had. There is a big difference in cutting deadfall and scrap wood to heat a home compared to clear cutting forests to fuel converted coal powerplants.
Nuclear is an option, but that seems to open a can of worms that's hard to close again. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima have severely tainted the image of Nuclear. A little over 10 years ago Bruce Power proposed building a nuclear plant 2 hours north of here to help power the Province and the growing oil sector. It didn't get past the proposal stage, locals came out in droves protesting the plant. The problem is most of the fear comes from a lack of knowledge, most don't know that there are hundreds of nukes globally that have operated safely for decades.
Topics like large scale biomass plants in Europe where the fuel is sourced globally though are conversations that need to be had. There is a big difference in cutting deadfall and scrap wood to heat a home compared to clear cutting forests to fuel converted coal powerplants.
Nuclear is an option, but that seems to open a can of worms that's hard to close again. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima have severely tainted the image of Nuclear. A little over 10 years ago Bruce Power proposed building a nuclear plant 2 hours north of here to help power the Province and the growing oil sector. It didn't get past the proposal stage, locals came out in droves protesting the plant. The problem is most of the fear comes from a lack of knowledge, most don't know that there are hundreds of nukes globally that have operated safely for decades.
I think some of the info is dated. It's as if they started filming in 2010 and never finished until recently. But the core message of the film is sound, if not controversial. I try to keep an open mind about this film, even if it is a poke in the eye. Though I can see why the movie has struck a nerve, I wasn't offended by it. Moore has an uncanny ability to dig at the underlying story that we don't want to see. He was telling everybody that Trump was going to win the election and he was jeered and booed out of the room by liberals.
We've all seen our fair share of greenwashing, it happens. And it is no surprise that major green organizations have some dirty oil in their portfolios. It certainly is no secret that the EV industry is running on a lot of dirty cobalt or that several green schemes over time have not panned out. That's a fact, but not a condemnation of the movement. Moore points out that a lot of our solutions still take a ton of resources to make happen. This is true. It's worth thinking about this and discussing it. Unless we as a civilization start learning to live with less, including less people, the end result is pretty clear. "Exponential growth inside a finite system leads to collapse"
Here is a review from last summer:
www.counterpunch.org
We've all seen our fair share of greenwashing, it happens. And it is no surprise that major green organizations have some dirty oil in their portfolios. It certainly is no secret that the EV industry is running on a lot of dirty cobalt or that several green schemes over time have not panned out. That's a fact, but not a condemnation of the movement. Moore points out that a lot of our solutions still take a ton of resources to make happen. This is true. It's worth thinking about this and discussing it. Unless we as a civilization start learning to live with less, including less people, the end result is pretty clear. "Exponential growth inside a finite system leads to collapse"
Here is a review from last summer:
Consuming the “Planet of the Humans:” The Most Important Documentary of the Century
Back in 2007, the environmental organization 350.org was founded by author/academic Bill McKibben. The name refers to the theory that 350 parts per
www.counterpunch.org
I disagree. Michael Moore doesn't get out of bed for anything less than a total condemnation of whatever currently bugs him the most.
So there's serious structural flaws in the way the home team's stadium is built and it needs to be addressed. Agreed. But it's also bottom of the 9th for the planet and we're down by several runs, and rather than at least trying for a base hit, Michael Moore would rather strike out on purpose, sling the bat at Bill Mckibben's head and then take a bullhorn into the dugout and holler "the stadium is poorly constructed!"
So he's started a necessary conversation, good, but perhaps a moment of silence for all the flawed eco-warriors who had to get burned at the stake to make it happen.
You can't prevent people from making films like this. I know there are groups asking for this to be pulled, you simply can't do that. Censoring media that is critical of renewable energy creates the image of a lack of transparency, and many people will rise against the movement based solely on that. Full transparency is needed to learn from our mistakes and improve for the next generations of the technology. If the renewable energy industry can't argue it's motives based on scientific fact then maybe it should look within and fix those issues first.
Never said it should be censored, I dont think it should. I also like that I'm not censored from saying Michael Moore isn't fit to carry Bill Mckibben's sign at a rally or share a set of handcuffs with him when the cops shut it down. McKibben's put his life to the servive of prying the human mind open to the reality of climate change. He's been vocally opposed to biomass burning for years, yet the documentary says that only after its initial screening did Mckibben reverse his opinion. That's bad faith journalism.
The point is taken, we've got a reckoning to attend to with certain structural flaws in the way renewable energy is being sold and prompted. This documentary will do more than anything to encourage me to get educated about those flaws. And then I'll also show up at the polls in November, but I worry about the Sanders supporters who will take this documentary, and specifically its wrongful character assassination of McKibben, as the final straw of disgust that'll keep them home on election day.
As an outsider I believe many voters are going to vote on economics and jobs rather than environmentalism given the current economic climate. Bernie is going to have to find a way to tie the 2 together to beat Trump.
But I have zero confidence in the American political system coming up with any meaningful solutions to global warming in at least the next decade. Judging by Tesla's stock price lately I'd say even Wall Street is doing a better job, it appears investors are starting to strongly support renewable and alternative energy companies.
Im surprised the "biomass" people havnt figured out wet wood doesnt burn so well ,or its just cheaper to burn 10 times as much than it than it is to dry it. Or you just add tire chips to it to get it going(nevermind the black rain). Also the film finally addresses the herd of elephants in the room which is endless population growth. With out a solution to that(and it doesnt offer one), all else will get smothered under it. Although the rate of growth has slowed.
Last edited:
CaptSpiff
Minister of Fire
Was that from the early 70's ?Geez, just ran across an old Time mag cover warning of the ice age
I watched it. The first part about wind and PV being as bad as coal....seemed very sloppy and misleading. All human industrial activities emit carbon and other GHGs, the devil is in the numbers. And there were no numbers, just a young 'visiting scholar' dumping coal on his desk in his little office. Same with EVs. They have a big 80s style montage of clips of factories, and mining operations and foundries, with chemical names flashed on the screen with ominous music. Meh. I'd prefer a third party, independent lifecycle analysis, please, that crunches the numbers. Oh wait, those say that lifecycle carbon emissions of PV are a tenth or less that of coal electricity, and EVs emit half the carbon of ICEs, and falling as the grid gets greener. And a lot of the materials in them are recyclable, meaning the next generation of EVs will be even lower. Wind is bad because the machines are big, and made of fiberglass, and only last 20 years? The lifecycle analysis says they are lower carbon than solar.
They find a solar farm in Lansing MI that is the size of a football field and powers 10 homes! And the cells are crappy flexible cells with 8% efficiency. If they are donated by the local Dow Plant (aka the solar shingles that never sold) they would prob have a lifetime of 10 years too, They skewer Obama for not delivering a green economy, by solar grew 40x while he was in office, and most of it was crystalline silicon, and not some Dow hobby project.
And Ivanpah....deserves to be skewered. As we discussed here many times.
They show a clearcut area of ground in a VT forest, but the camera angle makes it impossible to guess the scale, until the pan onto a bulldozer, and the site looks like it is an acre or so. Before the scale-dozer, with the slow pan, it looked like a vast barren landscape.
So yeah, there are boondoggles. Like a lot of crappy wind projects in NE. And the German's. Again misleading to show a pie chart that has Germany at 3% renewable energy....but the DO deserve to be skewered on their coal use, which was higher than the US the last time I checked!
And they skewer Branson and the whole biodiesel debacle (complete with orangs). This movie has a LOT of forest destruction as a theme. But honestly, do we care if a logging co bulldozes a forest, of if CO2 driven AGW causes the forest to die and burn 10 years later? The net effect is the same. Except the latter will wipe out habitats on a continental scale, and those energy projects....not even close.
Overall, the project analyzed all seemed to be 8-10 years old, which is approximately 1 million years in Renewable Energy. Also known as the golden age of greenwashing. So yeah, they found the bad projects. And missed the entire industry that has grown **since then** to power an additional 5% of the US economy.
We could say that if we had build a RE powered economy, and were still razing forests to BUILD MORE to satisfy more demand, then that would be crazy. But RE is still small (like 15% if we exclude Biomass and include large hydro). Are we going to drop demand*population by 50% over the next 20 years? That would be a huge success......and let's start worrying about overbuilding RE when we approach 50%, not when we are at 15%. We can do BOTH.
I agree with the later premise that we shouldn't trust energy companies and large corporations to do the right thing...that is why we watch them. And making Bill look like a stooge is silly. He knows the numbers and watches that stuff like a hawk. and is as radical as the maker of this film. Population and demand for energy services are both driving eco destruction, limiting the growth of both is a key part of the solution.
They find a solar farm in Lansing MI that is the size of a football field and powers 10 homes! And the cells are crappy flexible cells with 8% efficiency. If they are donated by the local Dow Plant (aka the solar shingles that never sold) they would prob have a lifetime of 10 years too, They skewer Obama for not delivering a green economy, by solar grew 40x while he was in office, and most of it was crystalline silicon, and not some Dow hobby project.
And Ivanpah....deserves to be skewered. As we discussed here many times.
They show a clearcut area of ground in a VT forest, but the camera angle makes it impossible to guess the scale, until the pan onto a bulldozer, and the site looks like it is an acre or so. Before the scale-dozer, with the slow pan, it looked like a vast barren landscape.
So yeah, there are boondoggles. Like a lot of crappy wind projects in NE. And the German's. Again misleading to show a pie chart that has Germany at 3% renewable energy....but the DO deserve to be skewered on their coal use, which was higher than the US the last time I checked!
And they skewer Branson and the whole biodiesel debacle (complete with orangs). This movie has a LOT of forest destruction as a theme. But honestly, do we care if a logging co bulldozes a forest, of if CO2 driven AGW causes the forest to die and burn 10 years later? The net effect is the same. Except the latter will wipe out habitats on a continental scale, and those energy projects....not even close.
Overall, the project analyzed all seemed to be 8-10 years old, which is approximately 1 million years in Renewable Energy. Also known as the golden age of greenwashing. So yeah, they found the bad projects. And missed the entire industry that has grown **since then** to power an additional 5% of the US economy.
We could say that if we had build a RE powered economy, and were still razing forests to BUILD MORE to satisfy more demand, then that would be crazy. But RE is still small (like 15% if we exclude Biomass and include large hydro). Are we going to drop demand*population by 50% over the next 20 years? That would be a huge success......and let's start worrying about overbuilding RE when we approach 50%, not when we are at 15%. We can do BOTH.
I agree with the later premise that we shouldn't trust energy companies and large corporations to do the right thing...that is why we watch them. And making Bill look like a stooge is silly. He knows the numbers and watches that stuff like a hawk. and is as radical as the maker of this film. Population and demand for energy services are both driving eco destruction, limiting the growth of both is a key part of the solution.
Last edited:
walhondingnashua
Minister of Fire
As a biology and environmental science teacher in Coal/ Natural Gas/ Trump country Ohio, a film like this, done in this way will hurt the cause that Moore is trying to "help" then benefit it. Yes, alternatives are far from the perfect solution that they are often sold as, and I do not sell them as perfect. However, they, even with their flaws, are better than the other options that we know are terrible. Being as aggressive as this film is towards alternatives and people like McKibben feeds Trumpers and fossil fuelers and Fox a reason to argue back. This film does not encourage educated, open and constructive conversation, it encourages criticism of the better options and those who have done the best they could for a cause in the system they were stuck with.
Moore types are necessary to point out extremes and flaws, but he has a history of being a truth bender and fact picker, just to make a case for whatever point he is making. His points are valid, but his methods of presentation or detrimental to those really trying to do something progressive. He is a complainer with no solution.
It's very typical of America today. "I hate politicians, Obama, Hillary. They are paid off too." and I agree with those statements. I am a Bernie supporter, but while all the extreme Bernie supporters, or the Micheal Moores of the world are doing that, they gave the country to a problem far worse. Obama took plenty of wall street money, and then doubled wall street regulations once in office.
The Moore types are cutting off the countries nose to spite its face. He has made the job for people like me, trying to truly move the country in a direction that is better for the environment more difficult for his own fame and to pat himself on the back.
Moore types are necessary to point out extremes and flaws, but he has a history of being a truth bender and fact picker, just to make a case for whatever point he is making. His points are valid, but his methods of presentation or detrimental to those really trying to do something progressive. He is a complainer with no solution.
It's very typical of America today. "I hate politicians, Obama, Hillary. They are paid off too." and I agree with those statements. I am a Bernie supporter, but while all the extreme Bernie supporters, or the Micheal Moores of the world are doing that, they gave the country to a problem far worse. Obama took plenty of wall street money, and then doubled wall street regulations once in office.
The Moore types are cutting off the countries nose to spite its face. He has made the job for people like me, trying to truly move the country in a direction that is better for the environment more difficult for his own fame and to pat himself on the back.
Similar threads
