Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian even mentions nuclear energy in a vaguely positive light (unlike the Moore film).
Planet of the Humans review – contrarian eco-doc from the Michael Moore stable
4 out of 5 stars.
Peter Bradshaw @PeterBradshaw1
Wed 22 Apr 2020 18.32 AEST
Last modified on Wed 22 Apr 2020 19.32 AESTJeff Gibbs’ film, produced by Michael Moore, takes a pop at green, liberal A-listers such as Al Gore – but doesn’t dare criticise Greta Thunberg
…
Gibbs has a cheeky habit of going backstage at music festivals that solemnly declare themselves to be using 100% renewable energy, only to find that the fancy array of solar panels behind the tent is enough to power a single bass guitar. The rest of the energy is provided by just plugging into the shameful old electricity grid, provided by fossil fuels. He sees it as symptomatic of the mainstream environmental movement, running on delusional piety.
All the green, liberal A-listers – Bill McKibben, Al Gore, Van Jones, Robert F Kennedy Jr – are attacked in this film as a pompous and complacent high-priest caste of the environmental movement, who are shilling for a fossil fuel industry that has sneakily taken them over. (Although it should be said that, for all his radical bravado, Gibbs does not dare criticise Thunberg.)
…
Gibbs doesn’t mention nuclear and – a little lamely, perhaps – has no clear lesson or moral, other than the need to take a fiercely critical look at the environmental establishment. Well, it’s always valuable to re-examine a sacred cow.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/apr/22/planet-of-the-humans-review-environment-michael-moore-jeff-gibbs
What is happening to the Guardian? The other day they praised seafront property development, now they’re praising a movie which trashes renewables.
Have greens secretly hated renewables all along, and suddenly feel able to talk about it? Or are they just softening us up, because they are about to spring something even worse on us?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I just watched Planet of the Humans.
2/5 maybe.
Not really scientific of course, anecdotal impressions outweighed considered rational analysis with a quantitative aspect.
Yes the central point is correct and important – wind and solar are not going to significantly change CO2 emission.
Despite the millions of green idealists who believe this – they need to be disabused of such illusion, hopefully Moore’s film will just about succeed in this despite its failings.
The biggest problem with the film is that its conclusion was to try to resurrect Paul Ehrlich.
All the Ehrlich falsehoods of infinite consumption of finite resources and exponential growth, make a ghastly zombie return.
“Infinite human consumption on a finite planet spells disaster”.
There was a population control message, potentially more dangerous than any green energy message, however illusory.
Here Moore and Gibbs parted company with the facts.
Check up on Hans Rosling – population is not increasing exponentially, its levelling off and will do so more quickly if economies are not interfered with.
The human race actually passed “peak stuff” a decade ago. Total raw material consumption is no longer increasing globally.
And Mike – please do some research on forestry, trees are not fossil fuels.
THEY REGROW.
The film portrayed all tree cutting as destructive leaving behind only blasted Tolkenian wasteland.
NO – properly managed forestry does not decrease the area of forest or degrade the environment, it’s like a field of wheat. Its harvested, it grows, its harvested again.
Production quality was very poor and amateurish but this was perhaps deliberate.