• Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #1

iam.mike

Partner / Administrator
Staff member
Free to watch (1 hour, 40 minutes).

This is a very interesting, well done, and thought-provoking movie about the alleged motivations behind the push of the green energy movement.

Would love to hear people's thoughts after watching.

Oh, and please watch it here on AAAC if you can, as that will make our advertisers happy :)



About the Movie

Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America.

This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late.

Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption. Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business.

Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars?

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.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #5

iam.mike

Partner / Administrator
Staff member
the 'data' he shows is 20 years out of date
That's what it definitely looked like in the film, with the old footage that was being used.

Note: I did not say it was an accurate film, nor that it correctly portrayed the current environment of the movement to green energy (mostly solar, wind, & bio-fuel).

I'm definitely in favor of doing anything we can to be good to our environment. At the same time, I also believe that any large industry, especially ones that are over-sensationalized/hyped by the media, are industries that either are or can be corrupted in some way, in the favor of profit.

That said, the film definitely raises interesting points -- ones that may or may not be true today.

It left me with the following questions

1. What amount of resources go into full supply-chain of manufacturing, installing, and running today's solar panels and windmills?

2. What are those resources? How many of those resources are "green" vs not-green?

3. Of the resources that are non-green, if we accelerate the production of green energy, does it exponentially increase the amount on pollution caused by the supply-chain producing those resources?

4. If the resources to produce solar panels and windmills are not green, what is being done to make the entire supply chain more eco-friendly?

5. After they are fully installed and operational, how much energy do they produce themselves, without any assistance from supplemental (non "green") power sources

6. Same questions for bio-fuel, with the additional question of how much does deforestation (trees needed to make woodchips) hurt our environment?

If is sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other, I just thought it was interesting.

I'm always interested in hearing every side of an argument.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #6

iam.mike

Partner / Administrator
Staff member
Here's a video that shows the opposite pov, and challenges the film's findings.


I find it all very interesting.
 

Oldsarge

Moderator and Bon Vivant
You might find this article interesting, too. Mikey's dim bulb spin won't change the reality of the energy business.


As our use of electricity becomes more and more efficient and as sustainable energy production drops further and further in cost, Moore's stupid film will become something future generations will point to and shake their heads scornfully. Phrases like "Whadda maroon!" will be heard.
 

eagle2250

Connoisseur/Curmudgeon Emeritus - Moderator
Watched Planet of The Humans a few days back and commented on it in the Greatest Films thread. My critique stated my impressions I think rather clearly.

The war to save our beloved planet is reportedly lost and there is really nothing to be done at this point to change that, but only to delay the inevitable.

Why wait for the bitter end...wonder if NASA is accepting applications for adventurers to fly to and colonizr Mars? LOL. ;)
 

iam.mike

Partner / Administrator
Staff member
@eagle2250 - I definitely did not walk away from the film, even if they wanted me to, with an "earth is dead" feeling and "renewables are the devil" feeling.

Quite the opposite actually.

I think their position on humans killing Earth and renewables not helping us was a bit over the top.

Everyone wants to sensationalize their position, to get their point across. This film's creator did what every other film creator does, as does the media -- tell their truth, through their lens.

Of course, we're smart enough to NOT to take everything they say at face value, and as the 100% truth.

In principle, I think some points are valid:

- Is consumption a problem? Maybe, maybe not

- Are green technologies (and the entire ecosystem that brings them to market) as eco-friendly and efficient as they should be. Maybe, maybe not

- Are there as many people trying to exploit the green initiatives, just the same as those in non-green initiatives? Probably.

Again, I'm not suggesting I agree or disagree with anything in the film.

I simply thought it was thought-provoking.
 

IT_cyclist

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
Look forward to checking the film out.

My take prior to viewing:

  1. My roof will need to be replaced within the next~5 years.
  2. I fully intend to do a solar roof when I replace.
  3. I live in a state that gets most of its electricity from coal.
  4. I intend to have a number of batteries to store power and have the ability to run "off-grid" if needed.
  5. State actors and other have or will have the ability to disrupt our electric grid.
  6. See #4. And #3.
  7. When SWMBO is home, our usage is 2x to 3x what it is when I am "Batching it."
  8. I'm still trying to convince SWMBO that it is OK to put on a sweater rather than turning up the heat. (And that when it is SOOOO warm outside that we should open a window -- while still running the heat, that it is not really that warm out) And that 75 degrees F is NOT an 'OMG-- iT is SOOOOO HOT' situation. But That's a losing battle.
  9. And that we don't need to run EVERY SINGLE light in the house all the time.
  10. This pandemic has shown us that we don't HAVE to commute to work EVERY SINGLE DAY.
 

Oldsarge

Moderator and Bon Vivant
When my late wife got promoted and we decided she needed a new car one of the vehicles we looked at was the Mercedes C class. It was well within our budget but when I looked at the gas mileage I was appalled.

Instead I insisted that we go look at the Ford Escape Hybrid. She liked it. We bought it. Later I heard her bragging to her friends that I wouldn't let her buy the Mercedes because it wasn't green enough. That made me feel good.

I was, I guess, Green before it was cool? But really?

I was probably just cheap and at best 'Green-ish'. I object to feeding oil company stockholders.
 

richard warren

Senior Member
Moore has made the astounding discovery that rich people inevitably capture any government program and turn it to their advantage (that is, they capture the ones they don’t just create an initio for their own benefit, such as the welfare state invented in Germany in the 19th century whereby the rich use the resources of the many to pay the poor to keep them quiet).

And he is apparently dumb enough to think the answer is more government programs, which of course will be captured in the same way (or more likely will be invented by the rich in the first place to suit themselves).

Government is inevitably corrupt. A small government is a nuisance and a threat. A large government is a disaster.

The irony is that people like Moore who think they are revolutionaries (if they are honest, a question much in doubt) are in fact working for the system, the rich, the establishment, the man or whatever you want to call it.

Why else would the system reward Moore and his ilk with money and prestige?

As to the whole green movement, it appears nothing more than a way to distract young people from the economic violence being done to them by accelerating monetary expansion which has de industrialized the US and left young people markedly poorer than preceding generations and with no route to the prosperity they were led to believe is possible through the faded American Dream.

And of course a way for rich people to get richer and powerful people to get more powerful.
 

Oldsarge

Moderator and Bon Vivant
Remember, Moore started out as an average Joe and after several (dubious) 'documentaries' has now become quite rich, a celebrity and a member of the very class he claims to be revolting against. Instead, he is merely revolting.
 
I have some strong views on the “green agenda” which I will revisit after watching the film later this week.

Buying used is far more green than buying new, particularly in the case of autos. A 10 year old clunker is a far more green choice than a sparkly new hybrid.

The numbers on this when taking into account the natural resources used, pollution generated, labor applied, and meager lifespan oil savings of building a new hybrid vs. a clunker are beyond dispute.

In reality, buying a hybrid is more a matter of virtue signaling and the success of feel good marketing than scientific analysis.

I buy a lot of vintage and lightly used goods. Except for the energy required for me to go to goodwill and for them to run their store, the “new” carbon generated is rather minimal.

My eBay purchases require delivery, and that generates a tiny carbon footprint in comparison to large factories in Asia turning out new disposable product daily.

In many cases, “greens” prove to be “watermelons”, green on the outside, red on the inside.

Since the collapse of communism, a substantial portion the green agenda has been focused on continuously bashing and working to undermine western economic progress, which despite creating many real environmental problems, has been a major benefactor of the world living standard.

I can’t wait to watch, Mr Moore’s thoughtful presentation with a wide open mind! :)

Cheers

BSR
 

iam.mike

Partner / Administrator
Staff member
The numbers on this when taking into account the natural resources used, pollution generated, labor applied, and meager lifespan oil savings of building a new hybrid vs. a clunker are beyond dispute.
I'm also quite curious as to the disposition/waste of old electric car batteries. If Google is not misleading me, a Tesla Model S's battery weighs 1,200 lbs, or 60% of a ton.

That's allotta batteries.

  • Are they recycled?
  • If so, how much of them are recycled?
  • How do they dispose of the rest?
  • What amount of non-green resources are used to recycle and/or dispose of the batteries?
  • Are there any additional dangers associated with the disposal of the parts that cannot be recycled, moreso than non-battery-powered vehicles?

I am not for, nor against electric-powered (or electric-assisted) vehicles.

Though I am curious as to what the true total (fully loaded, everything taken into consideration) eco/cost benefit truly is of electric cars vs gas-powered cars.

I find myself having to be quite neutral on so many things because it takes so much effort & research to be truly & deeply informed/educated on a particular subject matter.

Too many people base their opinions on too little information.
 
I'm also quite curious as to the disposition/waste of old electric car batteries. If Google is not misleading me, a Tesla Model S's battery weighs 1,200 lbs, or 60% of a ton.

That's allotta batteries.

Are they recycled? If so, how much of them are recycled? How do they dispose of the rest? Are there any additional dangers associated with the disposal of the parts that cannot be recycled, moreso than non-battery-powered vehicles?
It is the “embodied energy” argument. I have used it for years in the conservation of historic resources.

An old building is full of invested embodied energy. This includes the energy required to produce all the materials, preparing the site, the delivery of the materials to the site, the actual construction of the building, the maintenance invested over X number of years, etc.

The initial energy investment in the structure has been recouped numerous times and the building is still in a position to produce

In theory, and as a comparison, a new building must be created entirely from zero, with all the energy requirements still to be expended to bring it to reality.

The same is generally true with cars.

The invested energy to produce a 2004 Toyota Corolla, by 2020 has been recouped a few times over.

The energy required to build a 2020 Toyota hybrid from scratch is so extensive, it takes beyond the projected operational life span of the vehicle to recoup, particularly given the requirement to replace the batteries.

I have seen this study and will try to dig it up for you.

I am a firm believer in conservation and a clean environment. Hard core, rooted in a Teddy Roosevelt NPS- FDR CCC program type National prioritization in addition to my desire to promote a natural heritage that can be left to my great grandchildren.

At a minimum, they should be able to hunt the same fields and fish the same streams as me.

My main concern is that people who are equally or more concerned about the environment are given the information to make informed decisions and not making poor choices which undermine their goals.

An approach based on data and not based based on slick marketing and feel good activism is preferred.

Cheers,

BSR
 

IT_cyclist

Active Member with Corp. Privileges
I'm also quite curious as to the disposition/waste of old electric car batteries. If Google is not misleading me, a Tesla Model S's battery weighs 1,200 lbs, or 60% of a ton.

That's allotta batteries.

  • Are they recycled?
  • If so, how much of them are recycled?
  • How do they dispose of the rest?
  • What amount of non-green resources are used to recycle and/or dispose of the batteries?
  • Are there any additional dangers associated with the disposal of the parts that cannot be recycled, moreso than non-battery-powered vehicles?
My favorite pizza delivery outfit accepts batteries for recycling. I wonder what the driver would do if I pointed to a Tesla battery pack and said "please take that back to the store." It might be worth buying the Tesla, driving it for ~10 years to get the answer to that question.
I'm friends with the owner, so I suppose I could ask him, but that would spoil all the fun.
 

Gurdon

Moderator
Free to watch (1 hour, 40 minutes).

This is a very interesting, well done, and thought-provoking movie about the alleged motivations behind the push of the green energy movement.

Would love to hear people's thoughts after watching.

Oh, and please watch it here on AAAC if you can, as that will make our advertisers happy :)



About the Movie

Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America.

This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late.

Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption. Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business.

Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars?

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.
Mike,
I think you have it right in this paragraph:

"Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption. Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business."

There is, of course, more to discuss. However, you started things off by highlighting the fundamental problem.

Gurdon
 

iam.mike

Partner / Administrator
Staff member
I think you have it right in this paragraph
Well my friend, I can't quite take credit for that paragraph -- since I did not write it, but I'm glad that part connected with you :)

That said, I do think human (over)consumption is a problem in many parts of the world, including United States.
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.

Deals/Steals

Trad Store Exchange