
Michael Moore and Driessen agree! Wind, solar and biofuel energy are devastating Planet Earth
Guest post by Paul Driessen
Never in my wildest dreams did I envision a day when I’d agree with anything filmmaker Michael Moore said – much less that he would agree with me. But mirabile dictu, his new film, Planet of the Humans, is as devastating an indictment of wind, solar and biofuel energy as anything I have ever written.
The documentary reflects Moore’s willingness to reexamine environmentalist doctrine. It’s soon obvious why more rabid greens tried to have the “dangerous film” banned. Indeed, Films for Action initially caved to the pressure and took Planet off its website, but then put it back up. The film is also on YouTube.
Would-be censors included Josh Fox, whose Gasland film Irish journalists Phelim McAleer and Anne McElhinney totally eviscerated with their FrackNation documentary; Michael Mann, whose hockey stick global temperature graph was demolished by Canadian analysts Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre, and many others; and Stanford professor Mark Jacobson, who just got slapped with a potential $1-million penalty (in legal fees) for bringing a SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) and defamation lawsuit against a mathematician who criticized Jacobson’s renewable energy claims.
These critics and their allies are rarely willing to discuss any climate or energy issues that they view as “settled science,” much less engage in full-throated debate with “deniers” or allow former colleagues to stray from the catechism of climate cataclysm and renewable energy salvation. They prefer lawsuits. But they sense the Planet documentary could be Fort Sumter in a green civil war, and they’re terrified.
Their main complaint, that some footage is outdated, is correct but irrelevant. The film’s key point is the same as my own: wind, solar and biofuel energy are not clean, green, renewable or sustainable, and they are horrifically destructive to vital ecological values. The censors believe admitting that is sacrilegious.
Director-narrator Jeff Gibbs never talks to coal, oil or natural gas advocates – or to “renewable” energy and “manmade climate crisis” skeptics. Instead, he interviews fellow environmentalists who are justifiably aghast at what wind, solar and biofuel projects are doing to scenic areas, wildlife habitats, rare and endangered species, and millions of acres of forests, deserts and grasslands. He peeks backstage to expose bogus claims that solar panels actually provided the electricity for a solar promotion concert.
After speaking with “renewable” advocates in Lansing, Michigan, and learning that the Chevy Volt they’re so excited about is actually recharged by a coal-fired generating plant, Gibbs visits a nearby football-field-sized solar farm. It can power 50 (!) homes at peak solar intensity. Powering all of Lansing (not including the Michigan State University campus) would require 15 square miles of panels – plus wind turbines and a huge array of batteries (or a coal or gas power plant) for nights and cloudy days.
The crew films one of those turbines being erected outside of town. Each one is comprised of nearly 5,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earths, fiberglass and other materials. Every step in the mining, processing, manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and (20 years later) removal process requires fossil fuels. It bears repeating: wind and sun are renewable and sustainable; harnessing them for energy to benefit mankind absolutely is not. (Go to 36:50 for a fast-paced mining tutorial on where all these “clean, green” technologies really come from.)
Then they’re off to Vermont, where a wooded mountaintop is being removed to install still more wind turbines. Removing mountaintops to access coal, bad; to erect huge bird-killing wind turbines, good?
An aerial shot features 350,000 garage-door-sized mirrors sprawling across six square miles of former Mojave Desert habitat – with the giant Ivanpah “solar” power plant in the center. The system gets warmed up each morning by natural gas-powered heaters, so that it can generate a little electricity by sundown.
This “environmentally benign” solar facility now sits where 500-year-old yuccas and Joshua trees once grew. “Outdated” footage shows them being totally shredded to destroy any evidence they ever existed.
Gibbs and Moore next discuss ethanol – and the corn, water, fertilizer and fossil fuels required to create this “clean, green, renewable” gasoline substitute, which emits lots of carbon dioxide when burned.
Even worse is the total devastation of entire forests – clear cut, chopped into chips, maybe pelletized, and shipped hundreds or even thousands of miles … to be burned in place of coal or natural gas to generate the electricity that makes modern homes, factories, hospitals, living standards and life spans possible. The crew gets “five seconds” to leave a denuded forest and “biomass” power plant area in Vermont – or be arrested. Haunting images of a bewildered indigenous native in Brazil and a terrified, mud-covered orangutan in Indonesia attest to the destruction wrought in the name of saving Earth from climate change.
You’re left to wonder how many acres of corn, sugarcane or canola it took for Richard Branson to fly one biofuel-powered jet to mainland Europe. How many it would take to produce the 96 billion gallons of oil-based fuel the airline industry consumed in 2019. How many decades it will take to replace the millions of acres of slow-growth forest that are incinerated each year as a “carbon neutral” alternative to coal.
“Is it possible for machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilization?” the producers wonder. “Renewable” energy systems last only 15-20 years, and then must be torn down and replaced, using more non-renewable resources, “if there’s enough planet left,” they say. “We’re basically being fed a lie.” Maybe we’d be “better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place,” than doing this.
Indeed. But bear in mind, the devastation that so deeply concerns Moore and Gibbs is happening in a world that is still some 85% dependent on oil, natural gas and coal, 4% on nuclear and 7% on hydroelectric. Imagine what our planet would look like if we went 100% (pseudo)renewable under various Green New Deals: millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of batteries, thousands of biofuel plantations and denuded forests, thousands of new and expanded mines, and more.
But where some see devastation, others see opportunity. Or as Arnold Schwarzenegger says in the film, where some see the Mojave Desert as miles and miles of emptiness, he sees a vast “gold mine.” Al Gore sees endless millions in profits, a lovely seaside mansion and cushy private jets. Koch Industries sees bigger solar and biofuel empires. The Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists envision raking in more millions off climate doom and renewable salvation, while 350.org founder Bill McKibben can’t seem to remember that the Rockefeller Brothers and other fat-cat foundations gave him millions of dollars, too.
But Moore and Gibbs aren’t indicting free market capitalism. They’re indicting government-mandated and subsidized crony corporatist opportunism. And the solution they ultimately proffer isn’t recognizing that climate change has been “real” since Earth began; that humans and fossil fuels play only minimal roles amid the powerful natural forces that brought glacial epochs and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Periods and Little Ice Ages; or that modern nuclear power plants generate abundant CO2-free electricity.
Instead, they propose that we humans must “get ourselves under control.” This means not just slashing our living standards (may we all have “carbon footprints” as small as Al Gore’s) and “de-developing” and “de-industrializing” the United States and Europe, while simultaneously dictating to still impoverished nations how much they will be “permitted” to develop, in accordance with former Obama science advisor John Holdren’s totalitarian instincts. It also means having far fewer humans on this glorious planet. (How exactly that is to be achieved they don’t say, though several twentieth century dictators offer ideas.)
This is where Planet of the Humans takes a troubling, wrongheaded, neo-Malthusian turn. But these final minutes should be viewed attentively, to understand what still motivates far too many “environmentalists,” who too often get lionized or even canonized for their devotion to Mother Earth – even if the price is measured in billions left in unimaginable poverty, malnutrition and energy deprivation, and millions dying long before they should.
Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs have done us a great service in exposing the environmental degradation from pseudo-renewable energy. Now they just need to reexamine neo-Malthusian doctrines as well.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ● Black death and other books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Folks have to realize that green energy is bait and switch. It’s a fraud. They suck people into agreeing to get rid of fossil fuels on the pretext that there is a better option. Once fossil fuels are gone, the hammer will drop and people will be forced into the situation where sufficient energy will not be available. Society will collapse.
Fraud is a crime. People should go to jail.
commie: stupidity is not a crime but nature, according to Darwin, deals with it. It’s not hereditary for very long.
If you google Ivanpah, you get no mention that it is now “a solar dead zone”, as stated in Michael Moor’s film.
And:
http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/the-top-five-things#.XrVnyWhKjIV
By the way, thing #6. not mentioned is that Ivanpah is now a solar dead zone. . . check it out on google earth. . . most of the mirrors are scattered about and not aimed at the towers. I can’t find any link that tells the truth about Ivanpah now!!! Does anyone have any first hand information about the current status of the 2.2 billion dollar Ivanpah plant?
– JPP
Jon,
I checked it out, it looks like two of the three towers are down.
Do you have a link?
Is the 3rd tower functioning?
Not from what I see on Google earth!
– JPP
Jon,
Try this; https://earth.google.com/web/search/Ivanpah+Solar+Electric+Generating+System,+Nipton,+CA,+USA/@35.5568311,-115.4705249,926.08799898a,840.32481734d,35y,127.60361736h,45t,0r/data=CigiJgokCbUOnWgk6UFAEXr89P7khUFAGSbAy-RmtFzAIdifms6LDV3A
Try this; https://earth.google.com/web/@35.53739951,-115.45874431,898.52511737a,22812.90632357d,35y,359.99999914h,0t,0r
Keep in mind these shots could be one to three years ago, or recent.
Looks like the solar array in the center might be at less than half power, if it is operating.
The other 2 are not operating. (When this photo was taken).
– JPP
Looks like a future superfund site.
“Each one is comprised of nearly 5,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earths, fiberglass and other materials.”
Are you sure? 5M lbs is 2.5M Kg or 250,000 tonnes. Even here in the UK there’s only about 1,000 tonnes of concrete in every turbine base.
It looks to me as if the weight has been over-calculated by three orders of magnitude or more.
Doesn’t mean they’re any less stupid, though.
If 2.5M Kg equals 250,000 tonnes, then one ton equals 10 Kg. I think the person who is off by two orders of magnitude is you.
Without the conversion to metric, 5,000,000 pounds would be 2500 tons.
Yep, you’re all right and I’m wrong. I can only put it down to brain fade…
Blame it on the Chinese Disease, everybody else is blaming everything else on it!
2,500 tons.
Whats a few orders of magnitude between friends?
Beyond that, the conversion from pounds to kilograms is closer to 2.2 than it is to 2,
5,000,000 pounds equals approximately 2,270,000 kilogrames and 2,270 tonnes.
2.5M Kg.
1000 kg = 1 tonne
2.5M kg/1000 kg = 2500 tonnes.
Are you aware that the electoral college is a state-level organisation and is one of the political distinctive that preserves the United States of America as opposed to the Federal Republic of America or the peoples’ republic of america
David,
You triggered me on one of my pet peeves. Most people fail to understand what “federal” means. It seems to have become a synonym for a central higher authority with states being relegated to subdivisions or districts.
In fact, the United States of America as originally conceived was a federal union of sovereign states. Federation is the voluntary association of entities that choose to cooperate on certain things while retaining local authority over the rest. The United States of America could reasonably have been named the Federal Republic of America, which implies by the word “federal”, that its constituent parts retain sovereignty and are not mere administrative districts of a central government. It could not have been properly called the Republic of America, implying one single state with sovereignty over all matters throughout its territory.
It’s not hard to understand why people have lost a proper understanding of what federal means. Generations of politicians have worked hard to destroy federalism and have sought to force a one-size-fits-all approach to all government policy and a Washington knows best interference in local decision-making. It serves their purpose to blur the meaning of federal and to transform the concept of state into administrative district. It is a subtle idea, to have a truly national government but which is limited in scope of action, leaving most government decisions to the states. Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional, predicated on an overbroad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
“voluntary association” There is the rub, it stopped being voluntary long ago.
2hotel: The States are free to do what they’re told.
Yep, obey their commands or the citizens get punished, all the while professional politicians continue to profit whilst pretending to “defend” states rights and citizens rights.
It was a voluntary and conscious act to form a permanent union in the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union of 1777, unanimously ratified and in force as of 1781. The Constitution ratified in 1789 only adjusted the form of that perpetual union.
You can argue that one generation cannot bind future generations. I would tend to agree. Lincoln didn’t agree, though.
The South’s cause was not just. Slavery is a stain on our nation’s history. But if secession is not a natural right, then the American Revolution was also illegitimate.
It is now a suicide pact and we are all going down. We can’t get rid of our enemies who have infiltrated our government at every level, and they have been handed the ultimate weapon with this idiotic flu response. It is going to get ugly.
Paul, Moore and Gibbs have a long record of being anti-capitalist. Full stop. That is very clear from Gibbs commentary throughout the film. Although Josh Fox is a bad piece of work some of his criticisms of the film are valid. After all, These two are always loose with the facts in every film they make. We know that and it’s the main reason we don’t like these guys. I’m sure that nobody could see what Moore/Gibbs were doing in this film better than Josh Fox who employs the same tactics. Fox and others of his type are just outraged that the low-life tactics were turned on them. While we greatly enjoy the teeth-gnashing this film has caused on the other side we shouldn’t mistake what Moore/Gibbs represent for an unspoken agreement with anything we stand for.
“There is no such thing as bad publicity.”
-The Salesman’s Credo (as practiced by Michael Moore)
The last time I saw Michael Moore he was prancing about with his pal Bill McKibben at a Green Town Hall promoting the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, hosted by the avowed social justice warrior and crypto-totalitarian Amy Goodman of the lunatic left-wing Democracy Now ! PBS propaganda news channel.
A well put article of the damage and uselessness of green renewable energy production supported by conventional reliable energy.
Maybe someday there will be economical and reliable replacement of conventional energy but not now.
re: “Maybe someday there will be economical and reliable replacement of conventional energy but not now.”
What if … there were a device, about the size of a refrigerator, capable of over 50 kW output (representing at least 200 Amp at 240V service to a house) … this would represent first-off a reduction in size from an equivalent diesel genset plus required fuel reserve … the ‘noise’ output of such a device would be that of fan noise, no low-toned diesel exhaust ‘note’ from an 1800 RPM internal combustion engine. Such a device would use either MHD (MagnetoHydrodynamic) for direct generation of electricity or a heated to incandescence brilliance graphite (or Tungsten) ‘bulb’ in conjunction with high-efficiency high temperature PV cells and electronic DC to 60 Hz ‘inverter’ using the new high efficiency SiC (and diamond) insulated power FET technology …
MHD demo:
What if we lined up a bunch of unicorns and collected their farts?
If this device you keep trying to sell actually worked, you would be making them by the millions and have become a billionaire by now.
re: “If this device you keep trying to ”
MarkW, the ‘house fly’ on WUWT, have you contacted Dr. Nansteel on the veracity of this topic, or are you a total idiot, nincompoop and moron after all? There is NO reason for you to continue this stupidity, MarkW, none whatsoever.
I would appreciate in the future, MarkW, that you avoid me and the discussions on this topic as you are clearly possessed by insanity (and maybe an evil spirit as well) and no good will ever come of your continued badgering and haranguing.
Posted AGAIN for MarkW: Dr. Mark Nansteel, Ph.D. Look him up, or write him, MarkW, and ask him about the subject about which you continue to misunderstand, bad-mouth and harangue.
Biography
Mark Nansteel received the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering from the University of California at Berkeley in 1982.,He was an Assistant Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, from 1982 to 1988, and an Associate Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, from 1989 to 1997. During this period, he carried out research in buoyancy-induced convection, two-phase flow and thermal conduction. Dr. Nansteel is a member of The Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and The American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Tell Zoe that it works like a blanket. Maybe her Mom will let her invest.
Once again, if this thing worked, he wouldn’t have to be trolling for suckers, er I mean investors.
Create a working model, allow anyone in the world to examine it and prove me wrong.
You won’t because it doesn’t work, it’s just a scam to fleece the unwary.
Where I’m currently lockeddown in Limousin, France. A region famous for being rural and its cattle and sheep, but which is undergoing trial by green revolution. We have wind generators being erected left, right and centre. We don’t get many windy days but we get migrating European Cranes spring and autumn. The cows and sheep are being replaced by crops for biofuels. About 9km away there’s a gasification plant to convert crops to methane, currently maize and rye. This change in farming methods has involved the purchase of large tractors and trailers, and the ploughing up fields that had been grass for a long time, and removal of 50-100 year old trees and hedges (and the associated wildlife) to make fields large enough to suit the new equipment. I’m not sure of exactly what, but these fields now require more chemical fertilizers and pest control.
There’s a big environmental debt to be paid back for both of these green follies
If these Greens would learn the right use at least of a pocket calculator….
One of the main themes among the critics of Planet of the Humans is that the footage is in some cases 15 years old and that solar and wind have seen significant efficiency gains since then. While debatable, even if true it misses the point. Solar and wind are not constrained so much by efficiency as they are by capacity factor. And biomass has ALWAYS been a bad idea.
you’re DEAD wrong- biomass (woody biomass from good forest mgt.) is a GREAT idea
Why is it a great idea ?
Air pollution is is a good way ?
Are you a Green voting one ?
Would explain your comment.
Biomass production is part of good forestry because the forests are loaded with many low value trees which have no market other than for biomass. You can’t grow good trees which can make high value sawtimber without removing unhealthy/damaged trees. As for air pollution- that’s vastly exagerated. What industry has ZERO air pollution? Not many. Modern biomass burners have smokestack installations to minimize pollution. People like no pollution- they hate animals being butchered on farms- they hate mines- they hate industry but they love the modern life style. If you like wood products- learn to like modern forest management. And, here I’m talking about forestry in North America- not the tropics. Forestry is also pretty good in Europe- where it’s a huge industry needed to provide products to several hundred million people. Not using wood means using more cement and steel- which have a higher carbon footprint. As for being green- I’m a green forester for 47 years. I hate industrial scale wind and solar- so I’m not a “greenie” who is a climate change fanatic. I think climate change is nothing to be worried about. Just read a new report from climatologist Patrick Michaels: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/CEIMichaelsDayaratnaEPAsEndangermentFinding.pdf
You can see what good forestry- including biomass – looks like in Massachusetts- on another forester’s Facebook photo album: https://www.facebook.com/pg/MikeLeonardConsultingForester/photos/?tab=albums
to: Joseph Zorzin
re: “Modern biomass burners have smokestack installations to minimize pollution. ”
SOMEONE is deluded; what is creosote, where does it come from, and what causes it, what sort of ‘harm’ does it represent?
Creosote is a category of carbonaceous chemicals formed by the distillation of various tars and pyrolysis of plant-derived material, such as wood … . Additionally, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that coal tar is carcinogenic to humans and that creosote is probably carcinogenic to humans. EPA has also determined that coal tar creosote is a probable human carcinogen.
Without scrubbers on the ‘smokestack’, you’re putting that stuff into the air we ALL breathe.
“_Jim May 8, 2020 at 3:34 pm
to: Joseph Zorzin
re: “Modern biomass burners have smokestack installations to minimize pollution. ”
SOMEONE is deluded; what is creosote,…”
You will find it in some medicines too.
I have not seen the film, but have heard about it. While it is relieving to hear that Moore has changed his mind, I caution that this is Michael Moore, perennial leftist, we are dealing with. I am willing to apply the Dan Bongino rule of giving this PLENTY of time before jumping on the applauding bandwagon. You just cannot trust the left these days.
Moore has changed nothing other than his line of attack, and is successfully sucking a whole new wave of people into his stupidity. And it makes him money, which is his only goal in the final measure.
Off in the distance, separate and apart from Moore and this post and most of the comments is the truth. That truth is that utility scale solar with or without storage is now accelerating as it’s LCOE falls below various fossil fuels and wind. (Rooftop solar was never competitive.) You can either wake up to these nonlinear market trends and truth or look backward or stay in some echo chamber with betamax, mainframe computing, landline phone equipment, and nuclear cost excuses. The truth hurts sometimes but it does not slow down for stragglers or debates. Markets tend to do the same thing with more signal noise.
Really? Solar is replacing gas/oil/coal/nuclear and reality is wrong? OK.
Solar is so efficient that it takes 10’s of billions of dollars in subsidies every year to keep it going.
The only thing solar power is efficient at is transferring money from people who work, to people who buy politicians.
PS, It doesn’t matter what the cost of energy is, if it isn’t available when people need it.
When you add in the batteries and the fossil fuel power plants that are needed for when the sun isn’t shinning, Solar becomes very, very, very expensive.
Anyone who doesn’t take into consideration the cost of the entire system is either extremely ignorant, or extremely corrupt.
If the costs of wind and solar are falling as precipitously as claimed, why aren’t we seeing lower electricity bills, even those with municipal utilities? Why does Germany have the highest electricity costs in the world?
Kevin: And why are the renewable subsidies not kaput if LCOE is so good? Let renewable compete as long as my taxes, which are heavy, are not used to monkey with the market.
Maybe your tax form should have boxes that you can check if you feel strongly enough to pay for renewables or not depending on your wont.
Why? Because the high cost players and rooftop installers make a lot of noise with lobbyists with such stupid claims as high number of jobs in the sector despite the push to reduce labor by the super league players with robotic factories and larger format panels.
Resour: In other words it’s a scam. Benefiting the few at cost to the many.
Can’t explain the Germans except they were early adopters at much higher prices in solar.
I do see prices falling for municipal ppa contracts even with mid sized solar projects, not the lowest lcoe prices of the very large utility scale. These are taking place in states that are not driven by mandates but with market forces alone.
Better get up to speed on those new trends or you will be behind.
It is a rather extraordinary film, I must say. Yep… took the hour-and-a-half to actually watch it. Another half-hour to replay bits I had noted on a piece of paper for review.
For years and years I have been unabashedly criticizing the solar-and-wind-and-biofuels industries for their mendacity with regard to what they cost to make, what irrenewable resources they need to install, what environmental damage, both before startup, and even during they incur, and lastly the ‘legacy of removing them when spent’ costs, either sunk, or rusting in the wind decades off.
My circle of friends includes a lot of people from Marin, Berkeley, Palo Alto, Santa Clara and Lafayette (CA). I went to school at UCBerkeley, back in the late 1970s. Chemistry, computer science, ordinary physics, materials science. Fun stuff, for a 1970s nerd.
Before it was ever popular to say so, I was strongly and deeply hopeful for a day when solar power (hadn’t imagined the wind-power machine scaling!) would substantially add to The Grid, and to at least some degree, mitigate the ever growing demand for power generated by more conventional means. My frat brothers and I had endlessly loud-and-sometimes-amusing discussions about its potential.
We ended up realizing — not unlike the conclusion Moore pulls at the end — that the problem is threefold.
№ 1 — demographics — population size incurs its own still-rising demands.
№ 2 — diurnal production-consumption mismatch — the sun shines … similar to, but not really ideally matched to human civilization’s consumption pattern. The pattern can be changed, as anyone who has lived amongst the dirt-poor villages of India, México, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, … can imagine. When you have no power-on-the-wire at all, well … you do what you do when the sun shines.
№ 3 — civilization’s mineral resources — we came to realize that there literally is no economic replacing much of what we completely take for granted, with petroleum, natural gas and coal resources. The keyword is “economic replacing”. There have been myriads of demonstrations of syn-fuels, syn-chemistry and so on. But their economics, even in the 1970s and 1980s was totally in question. Now they are known to be economic farces.
Yet, even so … the Ecology Movement had found enormous public traction in doing things to remediate and reverse mankind’s depredation of Planet Earth. Satellites watched and exposed the endless deforestation of … everywhere. EPA-like agencies, Sierra-Club-like agencies, endless recipients of both taxpayer and private equity funding arose, gained law-support for their actions, and charged ahead.
After all, there was (and remains if we are honest) and ENDLESS supply of 15-to–25 year olds going thru high school and college, who become (remarkably naïvely) enamored with Go Green, and imbibing the Koolaid that is ladled out to them in gushing tanker-carloads, each and every year.
Thing is, the Koch brothers (generically as well as specifically), and all similar denizens of the profit-sphere have learned one of the great absurdities of public psychology: it may take nefarious redirection of monies thru channels that happily will rebrand the ‘investment’ under a super-righteous rubric … for to tap the flow for their own pocket lining, but the so-called GREENS are more-than-happy to take almost any funding so as to pave the path to their undermined agendas.
IT WAS PARTICULARLY TELLING that none of the ‘interviews’ of charitable funds recipients could actually comment on the very practices (biofuels, in particular) that were destroying the forests, the glades, the greenlands that their charter(s) are defined to defend.
That just about took the cake, for me.
Because it IS human behavior in a nutshell: the louder and more vociferous the special-interest group, the more it can be undermined by creative investment (and pölïtically motivated appointments to its leadership) by monied interests.
And never let a great Government Program go untapped, either. Right?
IT WAS ALSO AND INDICTMENT of The Left’s Green New Deal thinking, to see that the billions-and-billions of Government funds have been almost entirely redirected to invest in green-sounding technology that actually destroys more forest, greenlands, oceans and everything else, than they can conceivably answer for. And that the Green Groups are complicit in the mendacity by way of taking endless, likely rather small, money drops from the same interests, quite at odds with their charters.
I started out this month … depressed.
Depressed by many things.
Covid, you name it.
Now … I am depressed by how quickly smart people can undermine good-intentioned groups … by dripping money in their general direction, through shell corporations that “launder the message”.
Sad.
VERY sad.
⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
“Even worse is the total devastation of entire forests – clear cut, chopped into chips, maybe pelletized, and shipped hundreds or even thousands of miles … to be burned in place of coal or natural gas to generate the electricity that makes modern homes, factories, hospitals, living standards and life spans possible.”
That’s total and absolute bullshit. I’ve been a forester for 47 years. Most biomass harvested from forests comes from managed forests. Anyone writing such a comment without doing their homeword doesn’t deserve to be considered a journalist. The person shown in the movie sneaking on to the biomass facility in Vermont is a well know forestry hating activiest. I’ve debated him in emails for years. He called me once and I told him that that he’s a phony- on his web site he only shows photos of giant clearcuts in southern swamps. I asked why he doesn’t show photos of well managed forests where SOME of the wood goes to biomass. He replied, “I’m an activist so I don’t need to show both sides of the story- I don’t need to be fair. To see photos of great forestry in Massachusetts where SOME of the wood goes to biomass- check out the Facebook photo album of another consultant in this state: https://www.facebook.com/pg/MikeLeonardConsultingForester/photos/?tab=albums
However, I personally detest industrial strength wind and solar “farms” but I’ll save my comments on that subject for another day.
“Most biomass harvested from forests comes from managed forests.”
How much is most? Jeff Gibbs talked on a global scale in the film.
Global? It is not being done on even a regional basis. The whole greendream has always been a fantastical fantasy. And no, Mikee has not seen the light, ain’t nobody took him outback and had a come to Jesus with him. He is still the screaming leftist, America hating and anti-human piece of sh&t he has always been.
It’s being done on a regional basis in New England and the American southeast. In the southeast, people bitch about forest being clearcut for biomass- which is a lie. Though there are clearcuts- as part of long term management on a large scale, only a small percent goes to biomass. Roughly 3% of all the wood cut in the southeast goes to biomass. In New England- there is a vast potential for biomass but there are forestry hating lunatics here who don’t want it because they think we foresters we’ll clearcut. Clearcutting is fairly common the far north of New England- but not the rest of it. I find it amazing how so many people think they know what’s happening in the forests because of something they read- without trying to find out from those who actually work in forests.
Worked in and around the timbering industry in several states. I see massive amounts of “biomass” being dumped and left to rot. Right here in PA regulations applied to pipeline companies required them to have timber operations clear much of the trees dropped along their routes, lots of ash, fir, maple, wild cherry etc etc taken to mills. Still tons of “biomass” material left to rot. Unless a law is enacted by Congress requiring all this waste to be used it will never be efficient or practical. And that will never happen because greentards fight it at every step. Their solution is to end all timbering/forest management.
Oh, and clear cutting, sometimes that is what has to be done, depending on the situation. Not using it all is the problem.
2hotel9,
I’m no fan of Moore. If you didn’t watch the documentary, you’re talking out your ass.
So, I should watch a pack of lies to be legitimate to you. Sure, buddy, whatever.
What do you have to loose? It’s free. Scared?
Pl;ease, fill your head with lies, seems you enjoy that.
I’ll clarify- most biomass in North America- comes from managed forests. Of course there have aleays been people who hate managed forests- but of course, they just LOVE their wood homes, wood furniture and paper products- though they fail to understand where the wood comes from- like children who think that milk comes from the grocery store- not farms- and people who love meat but hate the idea of cattle being butchered. If anyone likes wood- I hope they get to like well managed forests.
Joseph,
I get your point. On the other hand;
Carbon Loophole: Why Is Wood Burning Counted as Green Energy?
https://e360.yale.edu/features/carbon-loophole-why-is-wood-burning-counted-as-green-energy
Thanks for confirming my comments with an very good overview !
Krishna,
My pleasure.
So I see again, that air pollution doesn’t interest you just a bit.
PS
Forest management ?
Ask Romanians:
Deforestation
Stealing Romania’s last forests – for energy?
Deforestation in Romanai
Forestry was the first casualty of green propaganda in Australia.
We alone amongst nations of men have a continent to ourselves, yet we import timber and every summer watch forests burn to the ground, along with much of the wildlife, through lack of management and a pervasive belief in wilderness.
Some indigenous people here even espouse the wilderness rhetoric. I, for the life of me, cannot see the difference between the idea of wilderness in an Australian context and the discredited colonial notion of an Australian “terra nullius”, a land without people. It is as if these indigenous activists are denying the existence of their own preferred ancestral people (I say “preferred” because these activists routinely avoid any mention of their own obvious European ancestry).
As for biomass, the green ideologues here are at their most convoluted on this issue. They may support the principle but will not support it in practice under any circumstances, including the use of waste material from logging for high-grade sawn timber. Nor will they support in practice any firewood collection by rural dwellers of lower socio-economic status.
Every tree or fallen branch is sacred because trees are their cathedrals.
The problem with Moore is that he has been too heavily influenced by the prevailing orthodoxies of the his “side” of politics (this is not an uncommon failing and one that is demonstrated on these pages often enough).
This tendency seems to have increased in tandem with his fame, rather unsurprisingly, for political fame and independent thought are uneasy bedfellows at best.
Great post, Mr. Driessen, up to your usual standards.
The green movement is wrong on so many levels. Vote accordingly.
Show me one level they are n o t wrong.
Krishna,
I have to go back to the U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970. Great strides in reducing HC,CO, and NOx.
Nobody worried about CO2 back then.
As far as the forest to energy conversion goes I think that the statement from the film, if true, pretty much says it all. ” If you burnt all of the trees in the US they would only supply electricity for one year.” Thus it is pretty obvious that this is not sustainable on a large scale since even the quickest growing trees take 10-20 years to grow back. As far as selective culling the less desirable trees for wood to power , it is not practical since the costs are higher than the fuel value of the wood.
From the article: “Instead, they propose that we humans must “get ourselves under control.” This means not just slashing our living standards (may we all have “carbon footprints” as small as Al Gore’s) and “de-developing” and “de-industrializing” the United States and Europe, while simultaneously dictating to still impoverished nations how much they will be “permitted” to develop, in accordance with former Obama science advisor John Holdren’s totalitarian instincts. It also means having far fewer humans on this glorious planet. (How exactly that is to be achieved they don’t say, though several twentieth century dictators offer ideas.)”
The solution to humanity’s problems is: nuclear energy.
Burn fossil fuels while transitioning to nuclear energy. It’s the only way for society to continue moving ahead.
Dear Mr. Abbott,
You are completely right: “The solution to humanity’s problems is: nuclear energy.”
However, it is very sad, that this eventually trivial fact should be discovered again in the XXI. century. May I recommend, please, the famous roman (Hari Seldon’s “place of birth”) “The Foundation”? Surprisingly could I. Asimov forecast the future very well also on this field. Looking back to the history in the last 40 years, many topics in Asimov’s roman was rather well written even 69 years ago. I would say, Asimov was a real visionary.
Hari: Was Trump the “Mule” of the Fdn Triology?
Dear meiggs,
I don’t think so. Instead my first guess would be, that Trump would be sent by the central (hidden) group of psychohistorians to save the world in Terms of the Foundation-Trilogy. Why? My “theory” (one can call it as a “conspiracy theory” and call me a “troll”): The globalists could convince Hillary, that a limited nuclear war could be won. If Hillary would have been elected, she has already would initiated such a “limited nuclear war”. However, a “limited nuclear war” doesn’t exist, only a global nuclear war. This fact was known also for the psychohistorians and somebody (Trump) has been sent to protect the world from a global nuclear war. If Hillary would have been elected in 2016 it could easily happened, that we could not write today here in WUWT, because we and WUWT (and our civilisation) would not exist any more after a global nuclear war. Of course this is only a speculation. However, it is very curious the sudden emergence of Trump from nothing. It could also be possible, that the real patriots of the US Army have recognised, that in a nuclear war there could be only losers, so they wanted to preempt a global nuclear war, and they supported Trump on their way to be elected as a president. It was also noticeable, that at the beginning of t Trump’s presidency the US military had key executive positions. Again, this is only a personal speculation. The most important from the point of view of the WUWT-community would be the fact, that Trump has decided to leave the Paris Climate Agreement. I am strongly convinced, that this has been a right decision. I hope also, that Trump could win a second term as a president, and there will be an offen-ended public discussion on the climate and CO2 hysterie. I think also, that such a discussion would be extremely important also for the EU and for my country (Germany) to avoid a voluntary harakiri (de-carbonisation and de-industrialisation).
Hari: Hillary and shades of Dresden.
The film is an excellent illustration: The maffia buys into the politics to generate huge extraprofit (s. “Green New Deal”). The Godfather was only an amateurish dilettante beginner compared to Al Gore, McKibben, Greenpace, etc. A classical example would be the EV-hype with the equation from the view of the customer: The customer pays substantially more for 25-30% benefit (value) compared to ICEs. Of course most of the customers would not be not happy with such a “deal”, so some “motivation” would be necessary from the politics: For example sanctions against ICEs.
Sometimes I have the feeling, that Al Gore, Greenpace, McKibben et al. (and all climate and CO2 hysterics?activists) would be Russian and/or Chinese agents, because the voluntary de-carbonisation and de-industrialisation (eventually harakiri) of the western countries would be clearly a substantial advantage for Russia/China, and this advantage would be free for them.
Hari: Correct. We’ve had power projects whereby the same folks say permit to build will be granted if union labor is given the work but if not we’ll be bludgeoned with the Serraa Club on environmental grounds… Their agenda has nothing to do with “the environment.” Control of “the planet” perhaps but more to the point control “your life” is their main aim.
Anyone following the measured CO2 emissions? Starting January/February, China and then the rest of the world have cut fossil fuel use. Production has been slowed and consumption even slower to the point oil tankers are being used to store the oil. Oil futures are selling at negative rates and current gasoline prices in the Northeast USA is $1.90/gal or lower.
If humans are affecting the CO2 emissions, the plots are not showing it.
Jack: Human CO2 contribution is noise compared to natural sources, esp when looking at such a short time. The warmists are caught in a bit of a pickle at the moment…they’d love to say that the cold weather is due to less CO2 but there’s more not less. They love to point to a drop in the CO2 numbers…but they can’t…even if there were a dip the over all number is “hi” do how do they argue? It’s not the concentration, just the rate of change of concentration that drives the weather? Most people with a high school grasp of science could see through that though they might yet be afraid to point out that the king is wearing no clothes. So they are very, very quiet about it at the moment. But wait for the first warm weather to happen and they’ll be screaming from the roof tops…it’s summer time again….I mean it’s the end of the world…again…soon…
Jack,
All I see are estimates. In the long run, what little gain there is will be exploited by the greens.
Renewable by definition is free. It isn’t cheap. It can’t cost anything.
Dear Mr. niceguy,
Unfortunately there is a big difference between theory and practice. For example the price of electricity has doubled since the introduction of the “free renewables” in Germany. So in the practice the “not free” electricity is much more cheaper then the “free” electricity…
Few people realize how close the US is to being taken over by the few that control every aspect of the media and educational systems. Except for the election of President Trump we are very close to a choiceless one party system where the illusion of free choice is replacing actual free choice. In reality Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama were all members of the same “party”. All were working toward a One World Government and the destruction of US sovereignty. The destruction of our industrial base and the selling of US secrets and production methods to China was all aimed to collapse the system.
Mail in ballot push is a part of that tactic. Strip Americans of their voting rights by suborning the process into the control of a tiny minority who can not be held accountable.
MR166: It’s already happened long ago. Now you see consolidation phase. Plenty of morons out there that believe in the one party system. They are getting “stimulus checks” at this very moment from the Feds.
I see Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have released a statement that we need a one world government to fight coronavirus.
These guys are plugged in. They know global warming is wrung dry. We need a new looming catastrophe to take them and their fellows where they want to go.
You do understand, do you not, that to “lionize” something it is to turn it into an actual lion? I can’t even see the attraction in turning them into figurative lions. Is it a good thing? (Of course, you can argue that it means whatever you want it to mean. To which I reply, “Meltrinuk boorash drogogog moo.” …Which in English means, “Language is systematic.” If it is not systematic, it is not language.)