Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans Documentary

[codfather]

Originally Posted by kermitology

The movie has been ripped apart as being out dated since he’s been trying to get it released since 2012.

Just one example:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1253805911665188864

There are some fair points regarding the interviews being old and outdated as well as criticisms in the film regarding the tiny solar plant that can run 10 homes in Lansing or the solar farm in Dagget that is now just a sand pile (it's been replaced with a new solar farm already) but what is really telling is all the stuff not being criticized.

Anyone ripping this film is doing so primarily on the basis that the interviews are old and some of the 'gotcha moments' like the question about what powers Lansing and provides energy to the plug in electric volt (95% coal) are no longer accurate while ignoring the still relevant and still awful stuff such as the extraction of rare earth metals and the toxic pools being dumped onto the desert. Or the fact that biomass generation is insane and the burning of creosote and pcp soaked wood in some of these plants.

This documentary isn't without it's faults but it definitely highlights some issues with renewables that a lot of people either aren't aware of or simply want to ignore and hope others don't notice.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

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.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1255529695954821120

Right, and thats all well and good I suppose if your takeaway from the entire thing was just an isolated 'gotcha!'

But it seems to me that the underlying premise is a real inquisition about what truly constitutes 'Green Power' and 'Renewable Energy.'

Your electric car is swell and all but if you have to incinerate orphans to power it then maybe its a little less good?

Should we really be concentrating on whether our processes are consuming more power than they're creating and how to rectify that? Are there agendas at play that dont necessarily coincide with the ethose of clean, renewable energy? If something seems inherently stupid on the face of it, like burning wood for power, is there more to know here? Should we look deeper? Maybe wood shouldnt be classified as 'renewable' because while thats effectively true its not really in keeping with the spirit of what is attempting to be accomplished.

The hypocrisy and inaccuracy of the effectiveness of Solar and Wind power and yet the relentless promotion of these methods as solutions as opposed to complete boondoggles?

I find that last one most interesting, largely because of the time gap in the film because the issues presented about Solar and Wind, despite being 10 years old, are no closer to being resolved. Those particular methods seem like a practical joke and the people who fell for it are so embarrassed at the prospect of being outed as idiots they have to constantly continue to double-down on it.

Or we can just focus on the historical inaccuracy of the electrical source concerning how a Chevy Volt was charged in Rural Michigan a decade ago. Thats whats really important here.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think I will watch the whole movie, but yeah, a lot changes in 10 years.

For anyone that watched it, did it talk about micro hydroelectric generation, and small domestic wind and solar generation?

I don't think the future of renewable green energy should be massive wind and solar farms, but rather small scale generation of power for personal and community use. Anytime a new subdivision or large structure is, part of the design should be to include a plan to to produce power, whether in the form of solar panels smaller wind turbines, and/or low intrusive micro hydro production and vortex power. Everything should be aiming for self-sustainability.

There are similar concepts already applied in Ontario and BC, but rarely. We have so many things flowing that require energy to pump, but we are doing little to recapture that energy and somehow apply it.

The problem of course is that the provinces generate a lot of money by controlling the energy.

[Fuzz]

It's also cheaper and more efficient to build large scale, as opposed to small local or individual projects, and far easier to manage a power grid that way.

[Ford Prefect]

Michael Moore is a slut who adopts opportunistic points of view for profit ... even if they contradict previously held viewpoints he's pushed. So even things he gets right I can't swallow coming from him because he's just an opportunistic whore.

[CaptainCrunch]

Sure, but most celebrity film makers are sluts. Moore, Al Gore, When Leo made his documentaries.


Its all sensationalist and there's no such thing as truly balanced, factual documentaries in the main stream.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's also cheaper and more efficient to build large scale, as opposed to small local or individual projects, and far easier to manage a power grid that way.

True, but you put the cost on to the developer. This is already done in some respects for different things. For example, developers used to get permits to develop and the municipality would adapt infrastructure to new developments.

But now in most large Canadian cities, the developer is responsible for upgrading things like flood control, storm drainage, access to the drinking water system (sometimes even have to build pump stations), and sometimes even building new bridges or more traffic lanes in the City.

I think you can do the same thing by forcing them to make the developments more energy sufficient by producing their own energy.

The technology needs to be developed more, but single houses have been built that are energy neutral. The technology should be scalable (not sure if that is a word), if we apply the funds to develop the technology.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

True, but you put the cost on to the developer. This is already done in some respects for different things. For example, developers used to get permits to develop and the municipality would adapt infrastructure to new developments.

But now in most large Canadian cities, the developer is responsible for upgrading things like flood control, storm drainage, access to the drinking water system (sometimes even have to build pump stations), and sometimes even building new bridges or more traffic lanes in the City.

I think you can do the same thing by forcing them to make the developments more energy sufficient by producing their own energy.

The technology needs to be developed more, but single houses have been built that are energy neutral. The technology should be scalable (not sure if that is a word), if we apply the funds to develop the technology.

But if it is a large developer, it would make more sense, and be cheaper, for them to build a solar farm away from the development. Rooftop solar is expensive, limited by direction of the roof and pitch, and requires expensive control electronics in every home. That, and the distributed nature makes it tougher for municipalities to wire and manage the grid. So sure, you say "you need to offset each home with 1MW," or whatever, but do it in an empty field outside the city. Wind, solar, grid storage, take your pick. But having non-ideal panels and small batteries scattered all over makes little economic sense.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by codfather

There are some fair points regarding the interviews being old and outdated as well as criticisms in the film regarding the tiny solar plant that can run 10 homes in Lansing or the solar farm in Dagget that is now just a sand pile (it's been replaced with a new solar farm already) but what is really telling is all the stuff not being criticized.

Anyone ripping this film is doing so primarily on the basis that the interviews are old and some of the 'gotcha moments' like the question about what powers Lansing and provides energy to the plug in electric volt (95% coal) are no longer accurate while ignoring the still relevant and still awful stuff such as the extraction of rare earth metals and the toxic pools being dumped onto the desert. Or the fact that biomass generation is insane and the burning of creosote and pcp soaked wood in some of these plants.

This documentary isn't without it's faults but it definitely highlights some issues with renewables that a lot of people either aren't aware of or simply want to ignore and hope others don't notice.

There was one line in the movie that was along the lines of... (paraphrasing)...

'how could we think that industrial processes would get us out of the problem of industrial processes'?

So absolutely true.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Michael Moore is a slut who adopts opportunistic points of view for profit ... even if they contradict previously held viewpoints he's pushed. So even things he gets right I can't swallow coming from him because he's just an opportunistic whore.

what does this have to do with anything, even though it's based on nothing and highly probably untrue to begin with? This has almost nothing to do with the movie which I'm willing to bet you have not watched.

You could have posted a picture of a cat, and it would have added more value to this thread.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by codfather

There are some fair points regarding the interviews being old and outdated as well as criticisms in the film regarding the tiny solar plant that can run 10 homes in Lansing or the solar farm in Dagget that is now just a sand pile (it's been replaced with a new solar farm already) but what is really telling is all the stuff not being criticized.

Anyone ripping this film is doing so primarily on the basis that the interviews are old and some of the 'gotcha moments' like the question about what powers Lansing and provides energy to the plug in electric volt (95% coal) are no longer accurate while ignoring the still relevant and still awful stuff such as the extraction of rare earth metals and the toxic pools being dumped onto the desert. Or the fact that biomass generation is insane and the burning of creosote and pcp soaked wood in some of these plants.

This documentary isn't without it's faults but it definitely highlights some issues with renewables that a lot of people either aren't aware of or simply want to ignore and hope others don't notice.

People are also ripping it for a lack of facts and balance, though to be fair that's Moore's M.O. and it didn't bother me on subjects I agreed with. Clearly there are things that are outright bad with some renewables and others that bear some critical evaluation. The uncritical viewer will walk away with the impression that all renewables are a scam though, and I have friends who have jumped at the opportunity to do that. What's drowned out is the core message (watch some interviews with the filmmakers) that all technologies have downsides, consume more resources, and leave bigger footprints than the earth can sustain. The fact that some renewables might be net positives in that equation is not considered by the film.

[Thor]

Modern nuclear energy says hello yet again, wish it wasn't so hard to get people to listen to the experts that we should be using this as a stop-gap as we transition from fossil fuels to modern tech that can eventually take over decades into the future.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Thor

Modern nuclear energy says hello yet again, wish it wasn't so hard to get people to listen to the experts that we should be using this as a stop-gap as we transition from fossil fuels to modern tech that can eventually take over decades into the future.

I watched this movie and basically through the entire thing that's all I could think. We all know that there are issues with nuclear as well, and nothing is perfect, but there just seems to be a lot less with modern nuclear than we have with these other "solutions".

It's a weird movie though. I've never heard of that guy before, but the way he says "turbine" was irritating and he's not a great presenter. And the ending was just bizarre...like I honestly don't really know what that was all about.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Thor

Modern nuclear energy says hello yet again, wish it wasn't so hard to get people to listen to the experts that we should be using this as a stop-gap as we transition from fossil fuels to modern tech that can eventually take over decades into the future.

Nothing is a magic bullet. Everything has a cost. The true answer is a mix of fossil, renewable and nuclear.

[Corral]

The world as we know it will crumble with the exhaustion of recoverable fossil energy. What began as the industrial revolution with coal, will end badly. The fossil fuel era will end as all others likely have. Either the source of energy gets increasingly inefficient or otherwise fails to meet demand. War and destruction follow.

The promise of some transition to renewables or nuclear to continue on current trajectory is pure fantasy.

What is most tragic about this era is the rampant destruction and pollution of the natural world. Mass extinction at our hand. Sad

[pepper24]

Terrific film and shows a lot of hypocrisy from the green left and not surprised that people like Chris Turner and Elizabeth May are against it. It exposes a lot of their BS.