Michel Moore's new movie is an Inconvenient Truth

[RVonse]

I happen to stumble upon Moore's latest documentary "Planet of the Humans" on YouTube here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

The content of this film was a big surprise for me. Moore actually was agreeing with many of the same points the right has been saying all along about renewables. Namely that they won't be practical and that green energy is a scam.

So it is actually the liberals who are critical of Moore and this film. Yet Moore is about as far left of the political scale as you can go!
While I do not consider myself either far left or right, IMO Moore is mistaken when it comes to solar collector and wind technologies that I beleive can someday be practical. But that is only my opinion and something fair and open minded people could debate.

What blows me away most of all is how little impact this (extremely controversial) film has made in the main stream media. No mention anywhere and as though the film never was produced. It is obvious the people who really run things want this film cancelled and not discussed or debated!

 

[TSwizzle]

{snip}IMO Moore is mistaken when it comes to solar collector and wind technologies that I beleive can someday be practical.{snip}

The current "Flex Alert" and inevitable rolling blackouts in California says otherwise.

 

[repoman]

The director of the movie is about 10-20 years out of date for the technology, but in general he is correct.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I read a summary on Wikipedia.

It seems like the main point is that corporations (and capitalists) have subverted mainstream environmentalism to their benefit and continue to pose environmental risks (though perhaps different) to the world. It kind of makes sense from a far left perspective that centrists try to use business to expand on a left-leaning political idea like environmentalism but then get corrupted and subverted in the process. BUT, is the evidence anecdotal or is it statistical, does the centrist path leads to an overall better outcome than the alternative, and do Moore and Gibbs give us as a society a practical alternative or just criticize everyone? I'd like to see a list from the thread or op author, like this: society should do A, B, and C because of X, Y, and Z.

 

[Swammerdami]

I watched this film; there was an annoying and bad tendency that rendered many arguments useless.

He kept repeating something like "Harvesting renewable energy XXX requires CO2 emissions and other resource costs."

Fine. But doesn't quantity matter? Is the wind power using up 5% as much carbon, per kilowatt-hour, as coal-fired plants? Or 110%? Moore and the other producer are silent about such numbers, seeming to consider them unimportant!

 

[Gun Nut]

I watched this film; there was an annoying and bad tendency that rendered many arguments useless.

He kept repeating something like "Harvesting renewable energy XXX requires CO2 emissions and other resource costs."

Fine. But doesn't quantity matter? Is the wind power using up 5% as much carbon, per kilowatt-hour, as coal-fired plants? Or 110%? Moore and the other producer are silent about such numbers, seeming to consider them unimportant! INCONVENIENT

FIFY

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I watched this film; there was an annoying and bad tendency that rendered many arguments useless.

He kept repeating something like "Harvesting renewable energy XXX requires CO2 emissions and other resource costs."

Fine. But doesn't quantity matter? Is the wind power using up 5% as much carbon, per kilowatt-hour, as coal-fired plants? Or 110%? Moore and the other producer are silent about such numbers, seeming to consider them unimportant!

Sure. I'll go one step further. Offhand, it appears to make sense to look at the entire lifecycle of the alternative product. So, starting from its manufacturing process, then including its usage (as you suggest), finally to its end and what to do with it....as compared to the traditional resource/product over that same lifecycle. What are the numbers...and what do we need the numbers to be...and are they improving...

 

[RVonse]

do Moore and Gibbs give us as a society a practical alternative or just criticize everyone? .

No solutions given except that population and consumption are more the problem then c02. But they never talk about how that would happen. Forced birth control or something even worse?

 

[J842P]

do Moore and Gibbs give us as a society a practical alternative or just criticize everyone? .

No solutions given except that population and consumption are more the problem then c02. But they never talk about how that would happen. Forced birth control or something even worse?

The solution was nuclear two decades ago. Now, well, we've made our bed.

 

[Trausti]

do Moore and Gibbs give us as a society a practical alternative or just criticize everyone? .

No solutions given except that population and consumption are more the problem then c02. But they never talk about how that would happen. Forced birth control or something even worse?

The solution was nuclear two decades ago. Now, well, we've made our bed.

If we did that, then there'd be no basis for the panic porn, demand for more taxes, and greater government control over our lives.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Declining birth rates may have some beneficial effects on the environment.

 

[Wiploc]

Forced birth control or something even worse?

Or maybe something even better?

We should nudge people toward having fewer children. My own idea is to make college free to the children of women who don't have children until they are 27 years old.

I'm sure we can, as a community, come up with better ideas. For one thing, I like Bernie's idea of making college free for everybody. I made up the 27-year-old cut-off line; it might be way too high for what we need.

My point is not that I have a great idea that would fix the problem. My point is that other motivations can be tried before force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I watched this film; there was an annoying and bad tendency that rendered many arguments useless.

He kept repeating something like "Harvesting renewable energy XXX requires CO2 emissions and other resource costs."

Fine. But doesn't quantity matter? Is the wind power using up 5% as much carbon, per kilowatt-hour, as coal-fired plants? Or 110%? Moore and the other producer are silent about such numbers, seeming to consider them unimportant!

Of course. Standard propaganda techniques. His movies have only a passing acquaintance with the truth, but would be useful aids in a psychology class.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The solution was nuclear two decades ago. Now, well, we've made our bed.

If we did that, then there'd be no basis for the panic porn, demand for more taxes, and greater government control over our lives.

I’m sure they could come up with something but we would have solved climate change at least.

 

[J842P]

The solution was nuclear two decades ago. Now, well, we've made our bed.

If we did that, then there'd be no basis for the panic porn, demand for more taxes, and greater government control over our lives.

Nah man. Conservatives just never gave a shit at all. We could have used that perspective at one point. Now it's too late.

 

[RVonse]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqSTX2yDNc[/YOUTUBE]

Michael Moore squealing to Matt Tabi about all the crazy liberals who shut down his video!

(I guess he now knows how Trump must feel like dealing with the big tech censors....)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I watched this film; there was an annoying and bad tendency that rendered many arguments useless.

He kept repeating something like "Harvesting renewable energy XXX requires CO2 emissions and other resource costs."

Fine. But doesn't quantity matter? Is the wind power using up 5% as much carbon, per kilowatt-hour, as coal-fired plants? Or 110%? Moore and the other producer are silent about such numbers, seeming to consider them unimportant!

Funny, I was driving a lot yesterday and it occurred to me that maybe small wind turbines could be placed along highways to recover energy waste (car propulsion) from air displacement. Then on YouTube I see that a small company in England has apparently figured it out, by creating devices that'd go on existing poles on medians to collect energy. It isn't a huge amount, but it is something. The one issue that came to mind with my idea was that there would be significant resources needed to build out, but by using existing light pole AND WIRING, that part of the equation gets reduced substantially. All green energy needs this to be accounted for. So Moore is correct there, from build to disposal. But this is a dynamic equation that keeps changing.

Of course, that is also the energy front end of things. Dealing with climate change is a multifaceted program that requires reduction of power usage via efficiency as well.

 

[KeepTalking]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqSTX2yDNc[/YOUTUBE]

Michael Moore squealing to Matt Tabi about all the crazy liberals who shut down his video!

(I guess he now knows how Trump must feel like dealing with the big tech censors....)

Man, it's a shame his video got shut down so hard by big tech that it has had over 11 million views YouTube...

ETA: Oh, and you can watch it on Amazon Prime as well, such untold censorship!