Kat and I watched Michael Moore's new film last night.
I will never look at solar panels, windmills or electric cars the same again.
It's available free on YouTube or on their website (planetofthehumans.com)
Planet of the Humans - I loved the lettering done in the exact style of the original Planet of the Apes.
I watched the response to critics segment with Moore and company this morning. It pops up after the film if you use the Tube.
Spoiler Alert - it does not end with Goddamn you all to hell!
but it probably should...
Interesting... I thought the "Planet of the Humans" movie was very misleading and does a real disservice to concerted efforts to fight climate change using renewables and greener technology.
For a balanced, critical review of some of the problems with the movie, see the review on Vox:
https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238597/michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-climate-changeAnd for a more entertaining but very accurate take on the problems with the movie, see the following review - the reviewer's comparison of bicycles and cars (as a stand-in for the movie director's lame take on green energy versus the fossil fuel industry) is particularly good and reinforces the absurdity of the movie's premise:
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/planet-of-humans-review/Basically, the movie suggests that green energy is "bad" because it uses destructive resources, but this use of resources pales in comparison with the existing fossil fuel driven industrial complex. And the director *never* admits that point, which seems very misleading to viewers. As the second article above explains, it is like saying that bicycles are "bad" because their construction requires use of "bad" resources, so really they are just as bad as cars. This is clearly not the case given the much less intensive production chains that manufacture of bicycles requires, and the benefits over time of riding bicycles rather than spewing CO2 and other pollutants into the atmosphere from cars.
The director also suggests that green energy or renewables are dumb or pointless because they can't even power more than a toaster, i.e. limited energy use. This is just plain wrong, and really borders on the director lying to viewers - he draws information from old renewable tech rather than the newer developments in the last 5 years, and he fails to acknowledge strides in more efficient and long-term storage capacity, much more efficient energy generation from solar, development of storage grids and transmission to account for off-peak times of energy use in certain areas... and the list goes on.
Basically the director states that "you need to look closely to see the real effects of green energy"... But ironically he has not done due diligence himself to present a more fair assessment of the value of using green energy to reduce overall CO2 emissions. The reality is that in comparison with what we are doing now focused on fossil fuel industry, renewable alternatives scaled effectively and extensively could indeed draw down global emissions by 50% or more. We just need the social and political will to push those technologies, and certainly the humility to revise or reject certain attempts that backfire and do not work well.
Anyway, check out the above articles, and sorry for the rant... I get kind of worked up about information like the Gibbs / Moore film that seem accurate on the surface but contain a lot of misleading information, lies by omission, and promote the defeatist vibe that is so easy to fall into these days.
