Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans Documentary
Didn't see a thread for this, here is the latest documentary from Michael Moore.
Quote:
No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine"). This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late.
Featuring: Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Richard Branson, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Vinod Khosla, Koch Brothers, Vandana Shiva, General Motors, 350.org, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Elon Musk, Tesla.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Frank MetaMusil For This Useful Post:
If there's anything good to come about with this movie is that Elizabeth May has lost her nut.
Its an interesting movie, but I'm going to say the same thing that I've said about Michael Moore is that you have to be careful on taking things at face value. He's the king of subtle editing and exaggeration. You really have to parse his films to find the truth in them.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Michael Moore didn't make it, he's just the executive producer, so I don't think his film making methods are relevant here.
I watched it and thought that, while there are certainly some stretched truths, the main message is entirely accurate. Green power still uses loads of fossil fuels, some to the point where you are just better to burn them for power. The other major point being there is no possible way for green power to replace fossil fuels, with the technology and demands we have. You need base load capacity to be there when green power isn't.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Oh, the other really good point it focuses on is biomass burning, which is just a bonkers idea unless it is using total waste product. Harvesting and burning full trees to burn for energy (instead of natural gas) has got to be the most counter-productive activity imaginable.
Watching the enviros uhm and ah over it was kinda funny "well I like to burn wood to heat my cabin, so I can't really denounce it without looking like a hypocrite" was a pretty bad look.
Michael Moore didn't make it, he's just the executive producer, so I don't think his film making methods are relevant here.
I watched it and thought that, while there are certainly some stretched truths, the main message is entirely accurate. Green power still uses loads of fossil fuels, some to the point where you are just better to burn them for power. The other major point being there is no possible way for green power to replace fossil fuels, with the technology and demands we have. You need base load capacity to be there when green power isn't.
Yeah with the unsustainable population growth I just don't see how we can ever truly go green. When you look at the population graphs going back to the early 19th century where there was less than 2 billion of us to now at 7.5 billion you can understand that our issues are a lot bigger than just fossil fuel dependency. There's simply too many of us.
Oh, the other really good point it focuses on is biomass burning, which is just a bonkers idea unless it is using total waste product. Harvesting and burning full trees to burn for energy (instead of natural gas) has got to be the most counter-productive activity imaginable.
Watching the enviros uhm and ah over it was kinda funny "well I like to burn wood to heat my cabin, so I can't really denounce it without looking like a hypocrite" was a pretty bad look.
I'll start by saying I haven't seen the film.
Biomass is almost exclusively waste materials, so if they aren't representing it that way, it's false. It's not the best, but it is at least carbon neutral theoretically as plants capture carbon from the atmosphere as they grow and then when they're burned the same carbon is returned to the atmosphere. However, scale it up and you are producing a lot of pollutant particulate matter into the air, so that would need to be managed to ensure air quality. Overall, it's just one solution of many that need to be implemented to reduce carbon load. Notice how I said reduce and not eliminate? We simply need to get to a manageable load for the planet to manage in a carbon cycle. What we are doing now can't last, full stop.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
Biomass is almost exclusively waste materials, so if they aren't representing it that way, it's false. It's not the best, but it is at least carbon neutral theoretically as plants capture carbon from the atmosphere as they grow and then when they're burned the same carbon is returned to the atmosphere. However, scale it up and you are producing a lot of pollutant particulate matter into the air, so that would need to be managed to ensure air quality. Overall, it's just one solution of many that need to be implemented to reduce carbon load. Notice how I said reduce and not eliminate? We simply need to get to a manageable load for the planet to manage in a carbon cycle. What we are doing now can't last, full stop.
Well you should watch the film before commenting then, because they are burning pristine logs of biomass, because they ran out of waste fuel. They also burn tires and other garbage. Note that these aren't waste to energy incinerators with proper filtering.
Here:
Quote:
As sawmills shut down, in part due to a lack of fibre, less wood waste is available, so it may be that B.C. pellet producers are resorting more and more to harvesting "marginal" forests and diseased trees.
The question is whether those trees have any value for more high-value manufacturing, like lumber or pulp and paper.
"I think it's an open question whether there is enough wood waste or 'residuals' in existence to feed these plants," Connolly told Business in Vancouver. "Our concern, as an organization, is that there will be logging of standing forests to feed, basically, their vacuums."
Is any documentary such as this really worth watching? Basically all of them are full of half truths pushing their own agenda.
Regardless of the source, there are agenda's behind everything we read in regards to this topic and the public is left to pick and choose what half truths they feel is the most believable or suits their own ideology.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
From a pure enjoyment perspective, this was really low on the list for Michael Moore films. I don't know, it started getting pretty boring about 45 mins in. It also reverted to the usual anti-corporatism that I was hoping they would avoid. Would have been better to wrap up the film on other alternative energy topics that show promise from a long-term perspective (e.g. geothermal, thorium, etc.) but need more R&D.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
Yeah with the unsustainable population growth I just don't see how we can ever truly go green. When you look at the population graphs going back to the early 19th century where there was less than 2 billion of us to now at 7.5 billion you can understand that our issues are a lot bigger than just fossil fuel dependency. There's simply too many of us.
You need to make a very hard decision on increasing nuclear power and supplement that with truly green generation to ever make this move from fossil fuels fully sustainable. There is simply no reliable or cost effective way that the earth is going to run electric vehicles and power buildings, handle heating and cooling needs for 7-8-9 billion people that I can see without it.
__________________
I hate to tell you this, but I’ve just launched an air biscuit
You need to make a very hard decision on increasing nuclear power and supplement that with truly green generation to ever make this move from fossil fuels fully sustainable. There is simply no reliable or cost effective way that the earth is going to run electric vehicles and power buildings, handle heating and cooling needs for 7-8-9 billion people that I can see without it.
And oddly enough, Canada would be well suited for Nuclear power.
Maybe we can even retrofit the West Edmonton Navy with some Nuclear Submarines and finally drive back the Seals who have established a firm beach-head near Sbarro's!
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
It did a good job of exposing the truth, that Wind and Solar are severely limited and not a full blown viable solution. The intermittency of both are obvious problems but this film also addressed another huge problem which is the enormous footprint the require and their absolute joke of a lifecycle time. They junked a huge chunk of a very biodiverse desert for something that didn't even last two decades.
But no amount of marketing could change the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables. Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear plants, and wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells, to produce the same amount of energy.
Efforts to export the Energiewende to developing nations may prove even more devastating.
The new wind farm in Kenya, inspired and financed by Germany and other well-meaning Western nations, is located on a major flight path of migratory birds. Scientists say it will kill hundreds of endangered eagles.
Kenya won't be able to “leapfrog” fossil fuels with its wind farm. On the contrary, all of that unreliable wind energy is likely to increase the price of electricity and make Kenya’s slow climb out of poverty even slower.
The result in both countries is the same as what they showed in the doc, you ultimately have to have reliable coal or natural gas back up generators. That's fine for Germany, but for Kenya it would have been better and more efficient for them to just start off with natural gas power plants instead.
Biomass is a joke, the fact that in the 21st century you could actually have environmentalists supporting logging trees for power generation is insane, but it shows how unhinged they've all become. Looks good on that McKibben dickhead that's been blocking KXL for years. I'm not bothered by the anti-capitalist stuff since I like capitalism, but the montage they showed really hit home that the marriage between big business and "green" energy is complete, and it's a smart business plan for them because it gives you unlimited cover. The amount of people that accept any and all wind and solar claims uncritically because they want it to be true, and the amount of government funds and subsidies that get shoveled into this never ending money pit make it a great business arm. Even on this site people keep parroting claims that Alberta should become a "green energy leader" even though it's mostly a sham and we're fortunate enough to have actual energy beneath our lands.
I hope this film gets wide exposure and exposes this green racket for what it is, a movement of people either on the take or too naïve/ignorant to care. The best way to tell the difference is to ask a "green" energy enthusiast if they're in favor of nuclear energy. The majority of those people say no, and it shows their hypocrisy because they don't actually care about a logical plan to lower emissions, they care about inserting their preferred methods, or barring their hated methods. For all of Obamas grand talk about solar and wind or whatever, the biggest gains in the US lowering their emissions in the last decade was from switching over from coal power plants to cheap plentiful natural gas. Actual, reliable, scalable gains that you will never get from wind and solar. Did this satisfy losers like McKibben, the guy shouting from rooftops that we absolutely positively have to lower emissions below 350 or we're all gunna die? No, he and every other enviro org are staunchly against the fracking that made that gain possible.
Looking back on it, it's honestly amazing that nuclear isn't eating everyone's lunch right now, oil gas solar wind, all of it. You have powerful scalable power with no emissions. Every so called environmentalist should be all for it, but they're not. Tells you how they actually feel about this problem they're so passionate about.
Last edited by DiracSpike; 04-30-2020 at 10:16 AM.
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
i was chuckling on twitter in that it seemed that many of the greens were suggesting the film should be banned - yikes, a movie about green power banned - is this where we are.
ask the folks in ontario how their foray into green energy has worked out. Sometimes it seems all that is missing from the green power is Lionel Lanley
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
I am hearing from some critics that some of these interviews in the film were conducted in 2012 or older. Some of the arguments is that these interviews/facts/data are years old. Anyone else hear or read something similar? I'm not an expert.
i was chuckling on twitter in that it seemed that many of the greens were suggesting the film should be banned - yikes, a movie about green power banned - is this where we are.
ask the folks in ontario how their foray into green energy has worked out. Sometimes it seems all that is missing from the green power is Lionel Lanley
Ah yes, the very liberal intellectual philosophy...
"The're saying things we dont agree with! Silence them immediately!!"
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
The comparison I've seen circulating is that this movie is so old, that it would be like having done a report on cellphones in 2000 (just a few years after the first iPhone), and then releasing it in 2010 with the claim that smartphones are too expensive, have too little storage, and people prefer real keyboards.
There is an entire field of science dedicated to what is called “Life Cycle Analysis”—estimating the cradle-to-grave impacts of mining for, manufacturing, using, and disposing of things like solar panels or electric vehicles. That science makes exactly zero appearances in Planet of the Humans. Instead, we are treated to a series of “revelations” that most people should be well aware of.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans Documentary
