So, I didn't wanted to put the movie title into the title of this thread, mostly because I think we need to look at a greater picture then just what's in that movie. I've watched Michael Moore's "Planet of the humans" and as probably most have heard it's been attacked by a lot of environmentalists because it paints a wrong picture. You don't have to watch it, he basically says that green energy and electric cars are not green because they are made out of resources that have to be mined. Also, in the green energy sector he points out that some forms of green energy is really not green at all (biomass & even solar). As for building solar panels, wind mills and electric cars. Yes, they are all built from resources that come out of the ground, some have to be mined and refined and that is not necessarily green. And he's not wrong! However, I feel like he's really not pointing out that coal plants, nuclear plants and fossil fuel cars and plants have to be built as well. And that uses those exact same resources. What it comes down to is that no matter what we build, it is built from resources from this planet, which in the end, almost always comes out of the ground. But the "green" alternatives stop or limit the amount of CO2 once they are built and therefore have a better CO2 footprint over their lifetime. However, I think he's correct with one thing: Biomass power plants. I get the idea of net-zero emissions because the biomass regrows fast, however I debate that it's still the wrong thing to do. Just wanted to hear ya'lls thoughts.
I had no interest in the video until I read this: Climate experts call for 'dangerous' Michael Moore film to be taken down | Climate change | The Guardian Climate experts call for 'dangerous' Michael Moore film to be taken down Planet of the Humans, which takes aim at the green movement, is ‘full of misinformation’, says one online library . . . I've had respect for Michael Moore in the past even though he errors on the polemic side. But I have a strong bias towards accurate facts and data and the critics are right: only costs are covered - like those to claimed Tesla only lost money while ignoring they had to build factories and train staff. So the startup costs were treated as a "loss" when in fact they were manufacturing investment. NO generated power listed - in effect this video claims there is no wind, solar, or biomass energy generated. Not one kWh, Joule, or BTU ever listed. So if you only count the costs and not any benefit, it is at best cheap propaganda. claims the author has 'green credential' - ring hollow from the beginning. It isn't attending an event or watching someone else that makes one environmentally aware and efficient. Even building a house (now abandoned?) in a woods doesn't work. A retired engineer, I need accurate facts and data. overt hatred of the rich and Al Gore in particular - when it became a hit piece on those who have achieved wealth and use it for projects the author doesn't like, it become a 'troll farm' piece. When I saw another posting about the video, I wasn't interested in watching. After spending ~50 minutes playing it at 2x, I agreed with the critics. No, it should not be banned but it should be reviewed with critical comments showing the problems. I'm only surprised FOX hasn't picked it up as many of those rich Democrats are on the FOX hit list. Bob Wilson ps. A retired engineer, I don't care for the term "green" as it has lost any credibility and more often used as a slander ... like "liberal."
Hmmm I have an idea, may be we could all travel like this, no belching smoke, no mining lithium, make Michael Moore happy https://amishamerica.com/how-do-amish-travel/ But wait, don't you need to take something out of the earth to make the buggy, paint the boat.........
Leah Stokes wrote a piece on Vox that covers the environmentalists' problem with it. The title is not nuanced but it's still definitely worth the read in my opinion. Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s a gift to Big Oil
Agree with your thoughts on biomass power plants. I feel a properly-grown forest -- not a tree farm -- offers a lot more environmental benefit. In my area, biomass power was championed by vested interests, ie, a company with huge land holdings upon which it created large swaths of monoculture woods (slash pine) in North Florida. I believe there are studies out there that back this up, though tbh I'm super busy right now so I can't search for them.
Watched about half the movie until I realised how one-sided it was and the arguments were not supported by numbers.
In my obsessive cruising around covid news bits on youtube, "planet" keeps coming up in the suggestions, so I'm giving it a cursory watch this morning, before finding this thread. It does seem a bit narrow / alarmist, but there's no denying that there are too many of us. _H*
there's not too many of us. there is a realization that no, we can't all have the western lifestyle running on fossil energy. thing is people speak of the tings being changed as if they have been fully changed and made no difference. yet so we should just give up. keep our selfish way of life. like impotus. biggest pig at the trough wins. that's what's ruining this world.
It's amazing how much of a difference it actually makes. Apparently there is a study out there that says because of COVID-19 there's been a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions. That's huge. Even if it's not 20%. And a big part of transportation like trucking isn't even shut down that much.
The 20% figure could be huge compared to the end of 2019. Automobile emissions have greatly decreased in the first 4 months of 2020 due to Covid-19. I could feel the air was much cleaner. But perhaps, this will not last long when the Covid-19 epidemic ends.
Well, don't forget that the US also had the largest 2019 C02 emissions decline in the world. 2020 would likely have been better again even without the virus. Much of that is due to fracking resulting in the cheaper availability of NG for power generation. That should also help EV adoption with keeping electricity costs lower. https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/17/good-news-usa-has-largest-co2-reduction-in-the-world/
Don't forget how the air quality has improved in some of the world's major polluted cities. Some people are seeing clear blue skies for the first time. How do you enter that on a spreadsheet? Probably the greatest argument in favour of the electrification of urban/suburban transportation.
And you don't think shutting down polluting factories, and coal burning plants had anything to do with that? Don't get me wrong. I am a huge supporter of EVs, and long before I bought my car, have had e-bikes (own 4 of them now). And I really notice the difference during a walk, when an EV car goes by vs a pick-up truck or sports car. But there is more we need to do to bring down all the pollution in the world. That includes doing a better job incentivizing (not penalizing) corps and the public to adopt electric cars and other pollution reduction advancements. Cap and trade, and paying people to plant trees doesn't cut it. It allows major polluters to keep on polluting (instead of cutting back), and penalizes many others (who can't) unfairly. Even the CAFE standards fall short by encouraging car manufacturers to keep on producing fuel guzzling high hp pick-ups while penalizing those that don't sell them (whacky averaging formula).
Pretty much all car companies are paying ex. Tesla for CO2 credits hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Good for Tesla. But I think they should be penalized more. It's cheaper for them to pay Tesla and make money with gas guzzlers than to invest into electric cars. It's ridiculous!
Coal is effectively a dead industry now. I wouldn’t be surprised if almost all the coal plants were shut down before 2030. It also seems like renewables will make up about 30% of the grid by 2030 - maybe even more - so I’m not as concerned there either. Transportation is the one that matters the most and I would argue that there’s not enough infrastructure to convince most people that an EV will work for them.
