Michael Moore Documentary: Planet Of The Humans
- Thread starter Solitaire
- Start date
The very early hippie beginnings (Wikipedia, Danish) of the windturbine industry in Denmark (Wikipedia, English):
I have watched another 25 minutes of the 'documentary', from 45:00 to 1:10:00, which means that I still have 30 minutes left.
It begins with this Thanos-Inspired nonsense:
”There are too many human being using too much, too fast.”
”We have to have the abilities to consume reined in. Because we are not good at reining them in if there are seemingly unrestrained resources.”
”And there’s no going back without seeing some sort of major die off in population.”
”(slow tempo music) So why are bankers, industrialists and environmental leaders only focused on the narrow solution of green technology? Is it the profit motive? And why, for most of my life, have I fallen for the illusion that green energy would save us? (waves lapping on shore)”
This is another obvious lie: Bankers and industrialists obviously aren't "only focused on the narrow (Why narrow??!) solution of green technology? Is it the profit motive?" Yes, what they are focussed on is obviously what brings in profit, which is why it usually isn't green energy. And when "environmental leaders" focus on green energy, it probably isn't the profit motive.
After this, we move on to biomass - and the reason for the focus is probably that biomass actually is a pretty ****** source of renewable energy, which is why many countries are phasing it out, but the documentary doesn't tell us this!
1:03:50: “Biomass, especially when you add in biofuels, is by far the largest portion of green energy around the world, even in Germany, source of the solar miracle.” No, that's a lie!
At 1:03:59, this is accompanied by a graph of biomass/biofuel, solar and wind in Germany, but for some reason they don’t mention wind in the commentary. I mean, why don’t they mention that wind is double that of solar in “Germany, source of the solar miracle”???
But what is worse, I tried to find the graph online, but instead came up with this one from 2017: Renewable Energy (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Germany), which shows that they are not only working on becoming “less dependent on imports of fossil fuels” but renewables now make up one third.
And when you look at the percentages of total energy consumption in Germany that individual sources of renewable energy make up, it is as follows:
Windpower: 16.3
Hydropower: 3.1
Biomass: 6.9
Solar/Geothermal: 6.1
Municipal waste: 0.9
A very different picture from what we see in Michael Moore’s fake-news ’documentary’, which seems to deliberately play down wind power by focusing almost exclusively on solar and biomass. The German text also says:
"The share of wind energy in Germany's gross electricity consumption now stands at 18.6%. According to plans drafted by the Federal Government, offshore wind capacity is to reach 15 GW by 2030." That will bring wind up to 40%!!! of Germany's gross electricity consumption! Why doesn’t Moore’s movie mention that?
It makes me wonder how old the graph shown in the 'documentary' is!!! It doesn't say so, which I find very manipulative!
Then it tries to make environmentalists seem to be dishonest about their attitude to biomass even though what it actually shows is that they are conflicted: A lot of them appear to have found out that biomass is probably not as good a source of alternative energy as they once thought, and one of them says so outright, which makes the commentator say this:
1:09:40-1:10:20:
"Her honesty was refreshing. But as for the rest of them, I wondered: What are they hiding? And why are they hiding it? Is it their ignorance? Or is it something else? What if they themselves have become misguided? What if they have made some kind of deal they shouldn’t have made? And are leading us all off the cliff?
My questions: Why do you think that they are hiding anything? What is that "something else" supposed to be? Yes, what if they have become misguided about biomass? Then they need to get back on track, obviously! What kind of deal are you implying that they have made? Why do you think that they are the ones who are leading us all off the cliff?
I'll try to force myself to watch the rest of this ****** 'documentary' today just to get it over with.
ETA: oddball posted this link to the 'documentary' on Youtube.
It begins with this Thanos-Inspired nonsense:
”There are too many human being using too much, too fast.”
”We have to have the abilities to consume reined in. Because we are not good at reining them in if there are seemingly unrestrained resources.”
”And there’s no going back without seeing some sort of major die off in population.”
”(slow tempo music) So why are bankers, industrialists and environmental leaders only focused on the narrow solution of green technology? Is it the profit motive? And why, for most of my life, have I fallen for the illusion that green energy would save us? (waves lapping on shore)”
This is another obvious lie: Bankers and industrialists obviously aren't "only focused on the narrow (Why narrow??!) solution of green technology? Is it the profit motive?" Yes, what they are focussed on is obviously what brings in profit, which is why it usually isn't green energy. And when "environmental leaders" focus on green energy, it probably isn't the profit motive.
After this, we move on to biomass - and the reason for the focus is probably that biomass actually is a pretty ****** source of renewable energy, which is why many countries are phasing it out, but the documentary doesn't tell us this!
1:03:50: “Biomass, especially when you add in biofuels, is by far the largest portion of green energy around the world, even in Germany, source of the solar miracle.” No, that's a lie!
At 1:03:59, this is accompanied by a graph of biomass/biofuel, solar and wind in Germany, but for some reason they don’t mention wind in the commentary. I mean, why don’t they mention that wind is double that of solar in “Germany, source of the solar miracle”???
But what is worse, I tried to find the graph online, but instead came up with this one from 2017: Renewable Energy (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Germany), which shows that they are not only working on becoming “less dependent on imports of fossil fuels” but renewables now make up one third.
And when you look at the percentages of total energy consumption in Germany that individual sources of renewable energy make up, it is as follows:
Windpower: 16.3
Hydropower: 3.1
Biomass: 6.9
Solar/Geothermal: 6.1
Municipal waste: 0.9
A very different picture from what we see in Michael Moore’s fake-news ’documentary’, which seems to deliberately play down wind power by focusing almost exclusively on solar and biomass. The German text also says:
"The share of wind energy in Germany's gross electricity consumption now stands at 18.6%. According to plans drafted by the Federal Government, offshore wind capacity is to reach 15 GW by 2030." That will bring wind up to 40%!!! of Germany's gross electricity consumption! Why doesn’t Moore’s movie mention that?
It makes me wonder how old the graph shown in the 'documentary' is!!! It doesn't say so, which I find very manipulative!
Then it tries to make environmentalists seem to be dishonest about their attitude to biomass even though what it actually shows is that they are conflicted: A lot of them appear to have found out that biomass is probably not as good a source of alternative energy as they once thought, and one of them says so outright, which makes the commentator say this:
1:09:40-1:10:20:
"Her honesty was refreshing. But as for the rest of them, I wondered: What are they hiding? And why are they hiding it? Is it their ignorance? Or is it something else? What if they themselves have become misguided? What if they have made some kind of deal they shouldn’t have made? And are leading us all off the cliff?
My questions: Why do you think that they are hiding anything? What is that "something else" supposed to be? Yes, what if they have become misguided about biomass? Then they need to get back on track, obviously! What kind of deal are you implying that they have made? Why do you think that they are the ones who are leading us all off the cliff?
I'll try to force myself to watch the rest of this ****** 'documentary' today just to get it over with.
ETA: oddball posted this link to the 'documentary' on Youtube.
Last edited:
There are some really nice pie charts in this pdf file showing data for renewables in Germany from 2017 (also). It shows that wind provided 2.8% of Germany's overall energy consumption and that biomass was indeed the largest renewable and provided a whopping 7.1%, with all renewables accounting for 13.1%. If I added the numbers correctly, it also appears that fossil fuels made up 80.3%.
Solar only provided a measly 1.3% compared to wind's 2.8%, though, so I guess you got Michael Moore there! (A fellow by the name of Jeff Gibbs actually wrote and directed this thing, btw.)
These numbers show the sort of reality that, I think, the documentary was trying to drive home - that the people in the green movement are not fully informed (to say the least and so to speak) and don't realize just how bad the situation actually is.
If you only pay attention to electricity production, the renewable numbers might look like they are getting you somewhere, but unfortunately electricity made up only about 17.4% of (in this case) Germany's energy pie.
"Bioenergy in Germany Facts and Figures 2019":
http://www.fnr.de/fileadmin/allgeme...e_basisdaten_bioenergie_2018_engl_web_neu.pdf
Solar only provided a measly 1.3% compared to wind's 2.8%, though, so I guess you got Michael Moore there! (A fellow by the name of Jeff Gibbs actually wrote and directed this thing, btw.)
These numbers show the sort of reality that, I think, the documentary was trying to drive home - that the people in the green movement are not fully informed (to say the least and so to speak) and don't realize just how bad the situation actually is.
If you only pay attention to electricity production, the renewable numbers might look like they are getting you somewhere, but unfortunately electricity made up only about 17.4% of (in this case) Germany's energy pie.
"Bioenergy in Germany Facts and Figures 2019":
http://www.fnr.de/fileadmin/allgeme...e_basisdaten_bioenergie_2018_engl_web_neu.pdf
Last edited:
Thanks! It makes sense to assume that wind is a bigger percentage of electrical power than of heating or transport (as long as most vehicles aren't electric). I will have to take a closer look at that.
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
That it's still not worth watching. The fact that I don't charge for my leisure time doesn't mean it's free.
It is. And even when it isn't, it's cherry picking instead. I mean, why pick Germany as the country to compare with?
Renewable energy in Denmark (Wikipedia - English) Chock-full of facts and figures, graphs and pie charts.
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
The choice of Germany seems to have been cherry-picking. They picked the country with the worst stats.
I watched the video. The part that seems like it might be cause for concern is the heavy reliance on biomass, mostly wood, as "renewable" energy. I have serious doubt as to whether this is really being done on a sustainable basis. Wood biomass is not renewable or sustainable if it consists of clear cutting large areas of forest at a higher rate than they can possibly be regrown. I also don't believe that wood burning done in a sustainable manner will produce enough energy to bother with. The other problem with biomass, af many types, is that it competes for limited resources with food, fiber or wood and paper production.
Haven't watched the movie. But on this particular point I note that Germany is a much larger, much more populous, more heavily industrialized country than, say, Denmark, and is therefore more representative of the entire world. What they do/don't do in Germany is probably more transferable to the U.S. than what they do/don't do in Denmark. I'm sure a solar power advocate could point to, say, a project in Arizona as a success story, but that would be cherry picking, too.
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 14,103
All anti-humanists of this ilk are, in essence, blaming the condition of the environment (and its future condition) on less-developed nations where population growth is highest, despite the fact that it's developed nations with lower population growth that do the most damage.
These people aren't environmentalists. If they were, they'd be interested in real solutions. Dismissing renewable energy sources because they require resources to build is the act of a nihilist, shrugging and saying "**** it" since our environmental problems can't be solved instantly. They're no better than the climate deniers.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
The first half has some interesting food for thought. The second half seems to be a bit of a hatchet job attacking people like Bill McKibben and Al Gore.
Here's a response by McKibben in Rolling Stone:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...kibben-climate-movement-michael-moore-993073/
Here's a response by McKibben in Rolling Stone:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...kibben-climate-movement-michael-moore-993073/
It's very obvious that chopping down forests isn't really sustainable, and it is a well-known fact that wind power is much more efficient than solar, so it is cherry picking to focus on the two and more or less ignore wind. Stressing that it requires energy and other resources to build wind mills and ignore that you can say that about any kind of power plant makes the bias of the documentary even more obvious.
I have watched the last thirty minutes of the documentary now. It doesn't get any better, but I still found it worth watching. We hear more about the way that (pseudo-)environmental organizations are entangled with business interests, but I don't think that this comes as much of a surprise to most people. That guys like Branson and other billionaires are interested in promoting the idea of biofuels to justify the airline industry is fairly obvious, and we are probably all familiar with advertising from fossilfuel companies like Shell that is meant to make it seem as if they have environmental concerns.
It is obviously a very bad idea for the world (but not for stockholders) to cut down the rainforest in Brazil to turn it into woodchips to produce bioethanol and to plant sugar-cane fields to make even more.
Goldman Sachs and GE are mentioned, and a short clip of horse cadavers being turned into animal fat - also to produce biofuel - is probably meant to gross us out. It serves no other purpose.
1:22:55 ff
The weird thing is that the documentary actually points out the role of capitalism in the destruction of the environment, and yet it insists that the problem is people. As if eliminating half the number of people on Earth (in the gentlest possible way, of course) would somehow make Branson or the Koch brothers more environmentally friendly. And in the ending of the documentary, the narrator begin to sound like xjx388 in the thread about coronavirus and capitalism:
The bitter end: 1:28:44-1:33:56
If capitalist corporations are destroying the environment, and they are, and if they are bribing environmentalists and scientist, which they are, then we don't need to "get ourselves under control". We need to get them under control!
(somber music)
Last edited:
If capitalist corporations are destroying the environment, and they are, and if they are bribing environmentalists and scientist, which they are, then we don't need to "get ourselves under control". We need to get them under control!
(somber music)
Nope. It's industrial systems that are providing us with materials and energy cheaply enough to permit us to heat private homes to be comfortable in shirtsleeves in temperate-climate winters, bathe in heated water every day, own and operate cars, vacation by plane, eat "fresh" produce from distant continents in the dead of winter, eat meat frequently, and purchase (and tolerate) goods that are cheaply made and designed for frequent replacement instead of maintenance and repairs. It doesn't matter whether those systems are owned and operated by the Kochs or the Lorax. As long as they continue doing what they do, the environmental devastation will continue too. They're unsustainable in and of themselves, not because of whom the people running them are bribing.
Capitalism contributes enormously to the problem by being incredibly good at providing us stuff we couldn't afford in an equitable sustainable world. To that extent, yeah, capitalism is "the problem" and if we switched to some other economic system that would provide us with a lot less and suppress any resulting complaints about that with sufficiently effective brutality, the environment would benefit. (But only if its efficiency weren't also much less, so don't look to the Soviet Union or present-day China for an environmentally better approach.)
The idea that we can achieve environmental sustainability by changing some detail of how the economy operates, such as the government or the laws or the economic system, without significantly changing its outputs (i.e. the flood of stuff that keeps 7.8 billion people alive, some of them in relative comfort, and a few of them in absurd luxury as described above), is the impossibility that festers in the heart of present-day environmentalism. It produces endless vehement arguments about the best way to fix the environment without giving up anything we really like. Everyone on any side of such an argument is a fool or a charlatan. Michael Moore and all his critics not excepted. Real environmentalism would be if those of us who actually are in a position where it's possible to significantly reduce our consumption without risk to our own life or heath, actually did so.