I agree with Earth Girl. For all its flaws, which you have done a great job of highlighting, the Planet Of The Humans film does exactly what you say you want us to do, namely Just Have A Think. The central message of the film is that "We must take back control of our environmental movement and our future from billionaires and their permanent war on Planet Earth." For 25 years, I have been hearing well-meaning environmentalists promoting Natural Capitalism or Green Capitalism or Conscious Capitalism or Responsible Capitalism, and now Green Growth and a Green New Deal. Look where that has got us so far! We need to be aware of how capitalism and capitalists have co-opted the environmental establishment and mainstream environmentalism and co-opted so much of all our thinking (or lack of thinking). And we need to think much more deeply about what all this so-called green energy is going to be used for, as well as how it is produced and who is profiting from it. The film could have been so much better, but it raises important questions that we all need to think about. Is it possible for machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilisation? Is so-called green renewable energy really aimed at saving the planet or at saving our unsustainable way of life? How do we rein in our abilities to consume and rein in our energy consumption? How do we create an economy and a society that enriches life rather than destroying life? Are we in denial of our own civilization's mortality and of the possibility that our human presence on this planet is already far beyond sustainability? As the social psychologist Sheldon Solomon says in the film: "If we are to make progress, whatever that word means, or even to persist as a form of life, we're going to need to radically overhaul our basic conception of who and what we are and what it is we value." I don't hear many leading environmentalists asking those questions. With some notable exceptions, including the ever wonderful Vandana Shiva who features in the film, they seem to be too focused on courting big business and big finance to join their green technology revolution.

@nirvonna

Жыл бұрын

Have you heard of paragraphs?

@michaelp.9921

2 ай бұрын

Hear, hear!

All of what is in Planet of the Humans is indeed very true, The efficiency gains in Solar and Wind over the last decade don't make up for the fact that indeed these devices are very short in lifecycle duration compared to Fossil Fuel and Nuclear power plants. The Land occuption of Wind and Solar is huge compared with the non renewables and usually are cited far from the consumers of electricity . You start to increase the need for transformer yards , High tension transmission lines to markets and the costs of renewables goes up beyond fossil fuels. Germany is replacing all their Nuclear Plants with Brown Lignite Coal Plants simply because Solar Wind and Biomass is not a sub . The evidence is very recent and clear with Nord Stream 2 and the new combined cycle coal plants.

One thing Micheal Moore's movie tells truthfully though: there are some people on this planet who think the best way to do green energy is by burning trees. And no matter how I try to get into a mindset in which it would be a good idea, I fail. I must be so dumb.

@senianns9522

10 ай бұрын

Did the old solar panels just get thrown away to allow for the replacements to Make SEGA plant Sunray 2? Any answer to that? Answers?

The main point of the documentary was that it takes vast amounts of fossil fuels to create the new energy sources and that no real answer has been provided about how that can change. What it suggested was that we want the lifestyles we already have (for wealthy people in wealthy countries) but 'greener'. This didn't address either issue really.

Here in the United States our educational model is about regurgitated learning! We haven't taught real thinking skills for over 60 years! Hence where we are today! ....

@tmcd4840

3 жыл бұрын

"Hence where we are today! ...." You mean like self driving cars? The first images of a black hole. The worst thing about the educational system in the states is that most of the educators are Neo Liberal modern-day Marxists and apparently full of empathy toward victims and cancel culture. Feelings are more important than learning how to thing logically and rationally. Teaching History is a thing of the past :)

@winstonsalem1996

3 жыл бұрын

I wonder if they'll ever learn.

@YTStopCensoringFreedomOfspeech

3 жыл бұрын

No there is real education out there, but there is a lot of bias education with the goal of pushing narratives. This documentary is a example of not taking all your education based off one presentation. The more you research green energy, you realize this documentary is misleading and full of shit. I could create a video on how horses are better than cars. All I need to do is show scenes of how cars are bad for the environment, car crashes kills lives, how cars cost a lot of money to maintain. Then show how cars wear down and end up in junk yards. Then show a scene of me riding a horse and enjoying it, never showing how slow the horse is compared to a car, or showing all the negatives relying on a horse for transportation compared to a car. That's pretty much what this documentary was in it's implementation of education.

@tmcd4840

3 жыл бұрын

@@winstonsalem1996 Who's they?

@jeromewelch7409

3 жыл бұрын

@@YTStopCensoringFreedomOfspeech they could be a lot of benefits with a return to the horse drawn carriage one story I recall was how you could just tell the horse to bring you home and the horse would just go home self driving horses and we think self driving cars are special. Peace

I went past a windmill site in 2011 & noticed the amount of old wings lying on the ground with grass growing round them. When someone asked don't they recycle them we were told that they can't recycle them. I don't know how long they had been operating but they sure had a build-up of old blades & containers looking very untidy, a bit like an old car yard. So I take what you are saying with a huge block of salt!!!

@KlausBahnhof

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, wind turbines are BS. They are often built in areas where a lot of deforestation must take place in order to accommodate them. Highly inefficient and definitely not environmentally friendly.

@daphne4407

10 ай бұрын

a lot of the time 'can't recycle' means can't afford to recycle cause there's no local facility and its not worth it to ship them to a recycling plant far away

I watched the documentary and yeah he has a few really good points, we waste too much, we consume more then we need to change our way of life and accept a less comfortable life. Like I live in Europe and moved east a year ago, Life here is much less behind what I expected, I was naive and thought the east block Europe was underdeveloped too my shame I must admit many things here in the czech we could learn from in the netherlands. Nothing is perfect and flaws are everywhere but the will an potential is here already, things like a responsible consumer mentality i much stronger here then I ever saw in the netherlands where life was decadent and plentifull and that was normal growing up. Now I realize I do not need a car public traffic suits my needs just fine, I realize that using what you need is not hard at all, it start with buying less.

@crhu319

3 жыл бұрын

Then make a good film about those points.

@basbekjenl

3 жыл бұрын

@@crhu319 Yeah but I guess making a good film is a talent few people have. This guy has a filmhistory of conspiracy theories and chasing wild rumors for a career. I think this was the best he could do even if it wasn't good. The thing is dude made an effort which is more then all deniers do.

@basbekjenl

3 жыл бұрын

@Righteous Agitator I don't speak for anyone but myself, I gave an example from my own experience and voiced my opinion on what I believe we in the rich part of the world can do to help our species be better. If this does not resonate with you that is fine I know my opinion is not a popular one, I have never been popular nor would I ever seek attention, what I do seek is conversation and discussion. Do you Righteous Agitator not believe our decadent ways are wrong? Do you not believe we in our comfort have forgotten to try to improve where possible and strive for a better future? Are you of the belief that problems go away when you ignore them? tell me your opinions and your believes share with the world a bit, tell me a compelling or agitating argument about how I am wrong and you are right.

@Richard482

2 жыл бұрын

My did you move?

@someguy2135

2 жыл бұрын

What would have a bigger impact than car ownership? Going vegan! Going vegan is the single most effective way for each of us to minimize our environmental footprint. "According to the most comprehensive analysis of farming’s impact on the planet, plant-based food is most effective at combatting climate change. Oxford University researcher Joseph Poore, who led the study, said adopting a vegan diet is “the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth.” “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use.”. -Joseph Poore, Environmental Science Researcher, University of Oxford. Joseph Poore switched to a plant based diet after seeing the results of the study. Links at my channel under "About."

One of the things that people have been ignoring from POTH is the interview with Richard Heinberg, and Heinberg's work itself. His analysis from over ten years ago has proven to be pretty accurate, and some of his most important analysis is around how people will try to fix it with technical fixes, but that when you see the totality of the growth problem, it is all out of scale. I hope people will revisit Heinberg's work.

@xenocampanoli815

3 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/jGWgj49qmpmfpJs.html

@KlausBahnhof

Жыл бұрын

Critics have managed to ignore the bulk of the film's message and focused on small details. The film is not perfect, but it's message is broadly accurate.

Bravo. The art of debating is not dead. And if you imagine that the film was like a student's written submission, he'd be laughed out of his tutor's office and told to get up to date references.

@Nphen

4 жыл бұрын

Okay, Jeff Gibbs definitely should have mentioned that the solar festival footage was from 2005. But at the 3 minute 30 second mark in this critique video - the wholesale cost of solar and wind is bandied about - with no correction to that data to add in the cost of needed battery storage. The truth is this: other than a few combined solar/wind/battery installations such as Hornsdale, Australia, there aren't many renewable installations that actually reduce fossil fuel use. Hornsdale is the exception today, not the rule. Degrowth isn't the main answer - research into fusion energy and safer, cleaner fission energy is. It's all about energy density.

@grindupBaker

4 жыл бұрын

​@@Nphen Yes but you assume no future. You assume that the present, the statis, the status quo, must needs be the future. In essence, you assume that humans are without choice, without free will & fated. To be clear with a tiny example you assume that the ===negligible=== effort that humans have put into energy generation other than by burning carbon is all that humans ever CAN do because they are weak creatures, rather than assuming the glaringly-obvious reality that it's actually all that humans have ever CHOSEN to do because they are by their nature spending ~all of their time & energy simply competing with each other. You assume that humans are 7,800,000,000 frogs in the warming water pot that will boil them and since (Donald Trump) they are ~all (Donald Trump) essentially psychopaths to varying degrees then 99.99999% of them will continue consuming all their energy trying to get the most fun for themselves & spread their specific DNA minor variant the most by trying to climb over all the other frogs, who are ~all simply trying to climb over them (Donald Trump, Bond Traders) with only 0.00001% contributing to building a rope ladder out of the hot pot for all the frogs including their competitors then this is the way it must always be, with the present ===utterly negligible=== effort continuing relentlessly into the relentlessly-degrading future. ------------------- Bottom line for me is I haven't a clue because I always found humans to be ~all dull, tedious, pointless, so you might very well be correct with your prediction of total hopelessness.

@dnboro

4 жыл бұрын

@@Nphen "there aren't many renewable installations that actually reduce fossil fuel use. " I doubt that you can substantiate this claim. In many instances COAL is paired with GAS Peakers which are fast to respond to demand changes. Either this, or the Coal station throws away energy overnight because they can't turn up and down as fast as demand changes. In many instances renewables displace the coal generation and the Gas peakers still are used but for different reasons. Total emissions though goes down. As renewable % increases, the need for renewable storage increases if you want to start displacing the Gas emissions also. The lack of renewable storage (batteries and pumped hydro etc) is largely timing - you don't invest in this stuff until your renewables % is higher enough to warrant it.

@tom_ad9343

4 жыл бұрын

@@dnboro You have it backwards, in ALL instance gas/biomass generation replaces the coal (or clean nuclear) generation and variable solar/wind generation merely replace the fuel for the gas plant according to the weather. This basic trend can be see in Germany, Spain, Denmark, Australia, California, Texas, Hawaii or any where else solar and wind are deployed. Notice in this response video, the person didn't cite any grid data since the 2012 paper was published to demonstrate how a solar/wind rich grid reduces fossil generation.

@DavidKnowles0

4 жыл бұрын

@@Nphen Renewables in the UK produce more electricity now than fossil fuel, it hard to see how that could happen without is displacing fossil fuel from the grid. Here the Guardian article on the subject, www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/19/fossil-fuels-fall-to-record-low-in-britains-energy-mix-data-shows

This is how one properly criticizes a film. I have had discussions with others about this film and come out on the side of defending the movie, and I do believe it is not a good, or honest movie. I wish others who have a public platform would put as much work into, and do as well a job as JHT. Thank you Dave, well said.

@captaron

4 жыл бұрын

I think he’s being overly critical, I mean he’s having a go at the age of a video. This is a documentary not a 2020 movie, I lost interest after he kept pointing out technicalities but I’m glad you got some use out of it

@uncas19typhoon

4 жыл бұрын

@@captaron actually it is a 2020 movie as it was released last week. I think he is having ago at the age of the data, not just the footage. I'll say it again Daves 29 minute critic is a better, more accurate piece of communication than the actual movie. Maybe the 2 should be seen together.

@ricos1497

4 жыл бұрын

@@captaron you've misunderstood. It's a 2020 film that uses decade year old information to back up its points without informing the viewer of current reality. It's misleading at best, deceptive at worst

@steveh1844

4 жыл бұрын

R. A. Maldonado id give back the habitat for 2 brown bears to live & thrive than 100k humans.

@c.m.cunningham1175

4 жыл бұрын

They're so many holes in this break down of info! Tesla still doesn't have any solar panels on their factories, or the fact that California gets renewables from Oregon which uses coal to make up the difference!

one clarification: Crescent Dunes is shut down. It was a hot mess, literally, but is not at all representative of solar PV. As stated it was a complicated molten salt CSP plant that shows the same problem we see with nuclear power that uses molten salt. Managing molten salts is tricky, they take an excessive amount of time to cool and heat up, and can cause major month/year long outages when there are problems: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

@stuhasic

4 жыл бұрын

You would think that for a rebuttal produced in May, he would know that Crescent Dunes was a billion dollar failure! www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-06/a-1-billion-solar-plant-was-obsolete-before-it-ever-went-online

@chuzzbot

3 жыл бұрын

Just as a basic concept, molten salts sounds dodgy and over complicated. No matter how many time it is explained, I can't help thinking that it's a nifty theoretic argument, but not worth the effort trying to herd all those cats ( that's how it works btw, lots of cats and some hot salt;).

I just watched the documentary and was left reeling and feeling utterly hopeless and discouraged. I could so easily have spiraled into a deep crisis, but then i came across this and feel reassured that all is not as it seems. Whatever is the truth it is so important to get more than one opinion and try and find you own balance of concern, activism and hope. Thank you

@annapuczyowska8772

Жыл бұрын

Totally the same for me, i was left feeling like well fuck everything then, no matter what I do. No solutions. Not sure what their purpose was eith this documentary.

@Robbo1966

7 ай бұрын

I agree and wanted to check a little further, can't trust any single one source, felt slightly better after watching this one

I really enjoy your channel and thank you for the clarifications. But I feel the movie raises a valid point that I hope you will address in a future video. Solar and wind (and other renewable energy sources with the exception of hydro and geo that are location limited) do not have sufficient EROI to support modern industrial civilization and cannot be made or run without fossil fuels, so they cannot fully displace fossil fuels within the IPCC timeline (50% emission reduction by 2030, 100% by 2050, negative emissions thereafter) to avert climate change induced civilization collapse. As a physics professor, I love that you take a fact-based approach, but why not a realistic fact-based look at solar and wind feasibility towards our long-term goal of mitigating global warming. Despite activism and efficiency gains, adoption of solar and wind has not significantly slowed growth in carbon emissions, which continue to rise except when consumption dramatically drops as in the Great Recession and the current pandemic - the point of the film (reduce consumption in the west rather than continuing to grow living standards globally). Here are a few Fact Checks and questions from your video: When you say the festival eventually ran on solar "with offset credits" meaning not from battery storage but as a grid tied system? You did not mention the festival towards the end of the movie which was more recent and had the same problem, I believe? Haven't PV costs gone down largely due to their cheaper manufacture in dirty coal polluting China where there aren't the same environmental protections as in the US and EU? Solar and wind are the "cheapest source of power generation" if you run them with fossil fuel plants, not if you include battery storage, which brings us back to the film's point that we cannot get off fossil fuels with solar and wind. Efficiency gains in PV are irrelevant to and do not change this point. There is only enough lithium to replace half the cars in circulation with EV's, leaving no lithium left for storage at solar and wind power plants without fossil fuel back up. We all agree that an EV emits less carbon than a gas car, but the point of the movie is that it is not a sustainable solution to get us off fossil fuels due to my previous points. Carbon capture technology has been available for years, but has lacked significant adoption due to the high cost. Plus, it is only partially effective at emissions reductions, so I struggle to see this as a solution within the IPCC timeline. Compare your chart on life cycle analysis from the Breakthrough Institute to this recent 2017 peer reviewed study based on actual data from European solar installations that shows solar has a negative life cycle energy return on energy invested, EROI of www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516307066 Does the life cycle analysis factor in the additional fossil fuel used to dispose of and recycle PV and wind every 20 years (toxic elements in PV, and the plastic wind turbine blades actually cannot be recycled)? CSP EROI is also too low to sustain industrialized society: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516307066 www.researchgate.net/publication/327257954_Concentrated_Solar_Power_Actual_Performance_and_Foreseeable_Future_in_High_Penetration_Scenarios_of_Renewable_Energies The movie does not compare the energy cost to ramp up a fossil fuel plant after a power outage to the energy cost of cycling up and down to cover intermittent solar and wind, so I'm unclear why the author you cite does. The film did not say fossil fuel plants "run around the clock" it said they idle, i.e. provide back up as needed. The point of the film is that corporate claims of 100% renewable energy is an accounting trick that will not eliminate fossil fuel use if you need fossil fuels to run them,since we don't have sufficient storage. Yes you can legislate for more solar/wind use, but they still cannot fully displace fossil fuels without sufficient storage, which we don't have, and the low EROI can't support current economic activity. The movie did not claim 350.org and the Sierra Club have donations from "undesirable corporations" like Monsato, Halliburton, Boeing, Wells Fargo, but that these corporations are in the "green" investment funds that they recommend environmentally conscious investors should invest in - a valid observation. "Too many human beings using too much too fast" is not a statement advocating population control but the obvious fact that developing nations, aspiring to western lifestyles is a problem - we in the west need to be aspiring to a lower consumption lifestyle. I'm an African American female, so it's not just white middle aged men saying it. It took 200,000 years for population to reach 1 billion and 200 to balloon to over 7 billion solely due to the high EROI of fossil fuels (50:1 to 100:1). The film's main point is that we can't keep raising living standards, through raising consumption on solar and wind with EROI of 5:1 to negative when industrialized civilization needs minimum 15:1? The film makers did not suggest "eradicating" people, as you imply. I'm not sure why many are assuming this is their solution to over population rather than the natural reduction in birth rates (already occurring in some regions) as society has less surplus energy to grow if we reduce fossil fuel use and are not replacing it with a similarly dense (high EROI) energy source. The film makers do not imply that the destruction of forests for palm oil is the result of collusion between environmentalists and corporations - the point of the scene is that industrial civilization is the problem and more of it through solar and wind is not a true solution to eliminate carbon emissions in time to avert collapse. I think the film does present a solution, though an unpalatable one. As physicist Dr. Tim Garret and ecologist Dr. William Rees observe only the collapse of industrialized civilization will stop rising carbon emissions - sufficient numbers of us choosing to just stop consuming fossil fuels and the products made with them. The film is questioning the hope that solar, wind and the next technology will allow us to avoid this. This is the reality the film put forth that no one else in the environmental movement wants to address, which I found honest and galvanizing.

@JustHaveaThink

4 жыл бұрын

Hi Phillise. Many thanks for taking the time to compile such a comprehensive set of comments and questions. Apologies for the time it has taken to reply, but there have been many comments for me to read and answer as a result of this video, as you will no doubt have seen, and as you are a Physics Professor, I felt I should afford you the respect of a properly considered and reasoned response. Let me start out by making what I think is perhaps the most important clarification I should offer here, which is that I agree 100% with the assertion in the film that we must urgently address the issue of over consumption, especially in the industrialised West. In fact, I think I made that point very clearly in my presentation. To your point about Life cycle analysis, EROI and IPCC displacement target times and your point about costs including battery storage… The main support that you provide for the assertions you offer here appears to be an EROI number of

@JustHaveaThink

4 жыл бұрын

..CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT BOX... A ‘bolt-on” carbon capture system currently adds about 20% to the production cost of a power plant or industrial facility. But with the correct economy of scale, and improvement in efficiency, this number would reduce dramatically. And when integrated into the plans for any new-build facility, the numbers are even more favourable. The current additional costs that industry is being asked to shoulder should actually be covered by full government subsidy - pure and simple. The final caveat here is that we also need to stop the practice of carbon dioxide capture and utilisation for ‘enhanced oil recovery’. To your point about idling power plants, I would refer you to the points above about distributed smart grids etc. However, it may be that I selected a reference quote that did not properly address the point made in the film - if I did, then I concede I should have been more careful in my selection. To your point about the Sierra Club and 350.org… I take your point here. Having looked again at the film, you are correct, and I agree this is a cause for concern. I think it’s fair to say that I pointed out that the Sierra Club in particular would need to respond to these challenges from the film maker, and I very much hope they do not shy away from this responsibility. To your point about the statement on over population… You are quite right to say It is not just middle aged, middle class white men (like me) who are making these arguments, but it is predominantly that demographic. As a white middle class middle aged man living in one of the most privileged parts of the world, I am of course also part of the problem whether I like it or not, despite making my own little gestures like giving up a car, going vegan, changing to an ethical bank and a green energy provider, and installing solar power in my home. It is fair to point out that the commentators in the film did not suggest eradication, but they didn’t suggest anything else as a solution either, because Jeff did not give them that opportunity, or if he did he cut it out of the film before publishing. I'm quite sure that if any of those folks was asked, they would say that greater education of women and better understanding of birth control in developing nations would greatly help, and I would wholeheartedly agree - I've made programs advocating exactly that. But I could not say that this was their view for sure because they did not say any of these things on camera. The message we received was very simple - 'there are too many human beings on the planet, consuming too much too fast.' So the obvious question can only be..'which ones?' Global population was 3.6 billion when I was born in 1969. Today it is just over 7.6 billion. That is an increase of about 111% in 51 years. Average global fertility has come down from about 4.5 in the middle of the last century to about 2.5 today and is continuing to fall. We are now on track to add another 3 billion people in the next 80 years. That is a 44% increase. By then the fertility rate will be just below 2, which means our species will stabilise or perhaps even begin to decline gently. The challenge is to survive until then. So what to do? I am certainly not advocating keeping sub Saharan Africa, or anywhere else, in poverty. But whatever we do, we will certainly not survive with the current American level of consumption, nor with the European level of consumption for that matter. So what I think should [SHOULD] happen is that while the people of the developing world are bringing themselves up to a just about acceptable standard of living and dignity, we in The West will need to reduce our consumption levels - not to those of India as some have accused me of suggesting, but to some level, significantly lower than we have today, but perfectly comfortable. A level that allows a sustainability of resources that gets us to 2100. Thereafter our population begins to decline a little. That scenario would have no impact on population growth at all. That growth is already baked in anyway, even with better education and opportunities, as a result of normal replacement rates from the existing stock. So, that’s what I think SHOULD happen. If however, you ask me to predict what WILL most likely actually happen, I would say this : the western industrialised world will continue to bicker amongst itself about who has the most virtuous viewpoint about climate change, energy use and population , while doing very little of any consequence about it. We will continue to send billions of dollars and euros to those ‘poor unfortunate people’ in the far-away countries to try to ‘help’ them in their hour of need. That salves the ‘uneasy conscience’ part. Then we will continue to over-consume just as we always have, and as the inevitable effects of climate change begin to ravage those same areas of the world, around the mid latitudes, hundreds of millions of those people will die anyway, from famine, disease, conflict, and sea level rise - we can probably knock off about 50 million from rising seas just in Bangladesh alone . The West will reflect on how terribly sad it all is and that there was really nothing more we could have possibly done to save them...despite our ‘very best intentions’ and our ‘very best efforts’. That way we can say we did our best, and population is reduced by perhaps a few hundred million or so in those slightly inconvenient parts of the world. Then we can all get on with our lives with the problem solved. Everyone’s a winner. (Apart from the dead ones of course.) I am of course being quite cynically facetious here, and I’m not for a millisecond suggesting that the above scenario is an intention in your mind or in the mind of any of those folks who were interviewed on the camera, but it is arguably the 'collective' delusion of The West, propagated staggeringly effectively by the propaganda machines of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agri (you name it), all of whom are ultimately controlled by the 1% who know perfectly well what the next 80 years have in store and have already adjusted their socio-economic forecasts to take the carnage into account. To your point about the final palm oil scenes. You say “The film makers do not imply that the destruction of forests for palm oil is the result of collusion between environmentalists and corporations…” but you have the benefit of being an intelligent, well educated person, capable of superimposing a level of interpretation and moderation on these scenes in your own mind. Many, many people do not have that ability, and they will simply take this last scene as a linear extrapolation of the films running thread. You also say that “Dr. Tim Garret and ecologist Dr. William Rees observe only the collapse of industrialized civilization will stop rising carbon emissions” That’s a great aspiration. We just need a blueprint for the alternative that these two gentlemen propose. And then we need that blueprint translated in to a completely new global socio-economic and political paradigm by about 2030 that caters for the food, shelter, health, security and energy needs of 8 billion people, and we need it implemented in such a way as to allow human beings to live a relatively normal existence in the next ten years while all the new stuff is being built and embedded. If Dr Garret and Dr Rees have those details, then perhaps we have a chance. Just as a final post script, I’ve spent all of this last week reading and replying to a couple of hundred comments on this thread (which I’ve done very willingly by the way - it’s such an important topic), but life goes on and I have to move on with mine, which means preparing from my next programs. This will therefore be the final comment I post on this thread and I will not be returning in the near future to pick up any further replies. I’m happy to continue conversing with you if you want to though. You can find me on Linked in or you can use the email address in the ‘about’ section of this channel. Thanks again, and all the best. Dave.

@phillisetodd

4 жыл бұрын

@@JustHaveaThink Thank you for taking the time to provide so many references for me to consider. Thanks for all of your great work on this channel. I believe Planet of the Humans was attempting to get those of us truly concerned about climate change to have an honest look at the feasibility of running our current industrialized civilization on solar and wind. An EROI of 9:1 for grid-tied renewable energy is still below the 15:1 needed to support industrialized civilization. This EROI drops to barely over 1 when storage is used instead of fossil fuel back-up. Carbon Capture and Sequestration has a similarly low EROI not much greater than 1. Lithium recycling also comes with a large energy cost, further reducing EROI. The following presentation illustrates the concern that captures the spirit of the movie, though in a more carefully constructed manner. kzread.info/dash/bejne/apiH0dl9eanXhc4.html

@AlanBolshevik

4 жыл бұрын

@@JustHaveaThink Is completely correct to say "I am of course being quite cynically facetious here, and I’m not for a millisecond suggesting that the above scenario is an intention in your mind or in the mind of any of those folks who were interviewed on the camera, but it is arguably the 'collective' delusion of The West, propagated staggeringly effectively by the propaganda machines of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agri (you name it), all of whom are ultimately controlled by the 1% who know perfectly well what the next 80 years have in store and have already adjusted their socio-economic forecasts to take the carnage into account." This is our reality. And the conclusion seems obvious to me. Either we accept catastrophic ecological collapse (and all sorts of social chaos and wars on the way in response to the initial consequences like mass "climate refugees" and regular food shortages) or we commit to trying to end the rule of the "1%" - that is to end the capitalism socio-economic system and replace it with something new and ecologically sustainable.

@profkrumdieck

4 жыл бұрын

Excellent points. I also work on EROI and the implications are not well understood it seems.

Let's have a look at what Dave is saying. 2:22 The main point of festivals is that the organisers are claiming to be running on renewables/solar. When they investigate the power source, they're relying on diesel generators connected to the grid. ( It is about deceiving the public on the apparent pitfalls of solar/wind Intermittent because it starts to rain. It is not about whether batteries were available. At 3:22, you still not have grasped the simple point that solar and wind are intermittent power sources. It doesn't matter how cheap they are to produce, or how much in subsidies governments or Oil companies are giving to promote them. The point is they can only work effectively in conjunction with other power supply from Natural gas or Biomass. The film points out that there are some dubious investors; many big corporations companies like the Koch brothers. The increase in wood-burning ( Biomass ) as the replacement for coal is very bad for the environment - They listed not just a few investors but a whole trough full. The basis of many of your arguments seems to be that technology has now improved and therefore the film is out of date and irrelevant. Some of the documentary was filmed in 2010-2015 but it is still very relevant and shows clearly how the environmental movement has been corrupted. Solar is better but not significantly better in my opinion. Smart grids, as you suggest, are part of the modern grid system BUT they just distribute power. Unless the smart grid is connected to where the sun is shining i.e. the other side of the world, then they are just a smokescreen for intermittent power-time to wake up. 16:05: I disagree with the assumption which is because you add power to the grid when it is NOT needed, Then you can take it back when everybody need it. Main power required 5am-9am and 5pm-8pm when the Sun is not strong, especially in winter/cloudy. That is not a fair comparison of the reality of power usage, in fact, the oversupply or surges of power from wind and solar( Midday/windy) is a significant problem. If Elon Musk Giga factory wants to claim it is running on renewables, then he of all people should be able to demonstrate that batteries can do it.

The movie made me want to embrace minimalism and conservation more. Plant trees to cool my home, permaculture rocket stove, etc.

@jjrockjaw

Жыл бұрын

maybe use all the compressed air in your head to power a wind turbine.

As I watch this, I know that old growth hardwood forests are being ground up in North Carolina and sold as wood pellets to Germany. I know that Saudi Arabia discovered an aquifer in the 1990's that was as large as one of our Great Lakes, but now has been reduced by 80% from growing wheat, so Saudi Arabia purchased land in Phoenix AZ to suck water out of that ground as quickly as possible for their farming. Same with California's Central Valley. The war in Syria first started with farmer's loosing their farms to lack of water, and the farmers moved to shacks outside Syrian cities, then moved into Europe during the Syrian war. That's globalization. No resources for the citizen. The global wealthy are grabbing all they can. It's a sickness. But we should not give up. We have to change our thinking.

+Just Have a Think Thank you so much for making this rebuttal of the film 'Planet of the Humans'. Strangely this is the first attempt I've seen to go through the film scene by scene and point out the frankly dishonest approach it took. One small part of the film that I found particularly annoying was the slamming of the Ivanpah solar power plant which had committed the sin of burning fossil fuel (natural gas) as part of its operation. I looked at the numbers and chose those from 2018 in terms of energy from natural gas consumed to electrical energy fed to the grid. It is running at 204% efficiency, the reason for that is the lions share of energy input is not from natural gas but solar. The best natural gas power plants run at 50% efficiency and worse. Oh and that facility came on line in 2014, the concept/design is a decade old and still it should be viewed as a success. These days photo voltaic panels are so cheap that these solar thermal plants no longer make a lot of sense but they still have the advantage of producing power through the night whereas the much cheaper photovoltaic arrays only produce during daylight. I have to wonder what Michael Moore was thinking when he gave his backing to this atrocious piece of work.

I have no difference of opinion with your critique of the film. However, as a retired utility planner and alternative energy researcher I know that the bottom line is that solar and wind cannot exceed about 30% of the grid's generating capacity without significantly increasing electricity cost. This of course is due to the lack of economical storage, backup generating capacity or transmission capacity. In the 1980's I worked for a DOE National Laboratory on battery development and 35 years later we still don't have an economical solution for grid applications. Potential hydro and pumped storage sites are limited worldwide, and long distance transmission is no panacea. The northeastern US and other large metro areas must have backup generating capacity to last a week or so of weather events a couple times each year. Other than nuclear or fossil, there is no alternative to provide that much power on demand without significant curtailment or enormous cost. As I see it, the only technical and economical solution is nuclear.

@allancarpenter3510

4 жыл бұрын

I agree with all you have said. I am also a retired electrical worker, spent all my life working on the grid, I have watched the negative effect of connecting too much rooftop solar to feed uncontrolled into the grid. However it's interesting to look into the future where each house might have an electric car plugged in to a smart charger and smart meter, then we would have storage capacity over the whole community. Of course there needs to be interim schemes to get to that point!

@kpetro1675

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think this rebutal video is concerned with the facts. He's using a tactic that environmentalists typically decry of casting enough doubt against this challenge to their dogma, that they can write off the challenge and go back to their ingorant bliss.

@PistonAvatarGuy

4 жыл бұрын

@@allancarpenter3510 People will be at work when the solar panels on their roof are producing the vast majority of their energy.

@turningpoint4238

4 жыл бұрын

I too have been out of the industry I'm about to mention for sometime. But nuclear isn't the answer, it's far too expensive and the next generation reactors are no better. It has been shown repeatedly that we can quite easily exceed 30% renewable feed into the grid and save the customers money. Here in Australia, SA is a fine example. There are multiple ways this will be implemented and yes in the short term it costs, but over time it pays back directly and thats ignoring the environmental and health savings. Technology is advancing very quickly along with our understanding of the issues and answers. For example long term storage of renewable energy looks like it will be from hydrogen manufactured from excess electricity from renewables ( like fossil fuel generation peak demand infrastructure has to be built, but with renewables with produces power even when not required) and stored for usage later (it will probably also power the ships of the future, but also be used in the feedstock industry (also the excess electricity will be sold off to industries that can use intermittent power such as for desalination)). We've heard over the time that renewables can't feed in more than 12% then that was done then that figure keeps going up.

@michaeljames5936

4 жыл бұрын

@@kpetro1675 Can you be a little more specific? He is not 'casting doubt'. He is slowly, methodically, challenging the issues raised in the film and largely refuting them with actual, present day data. What more could you possibly want? Assuming that the 'facts' used in 'The Planet ...', were so outdated as to be irrelevant and misleading, how would you expect anyone to challenge them? What method do you propose? Where he agrees with the film makers, he says so.

7:35 where are those "old and useless" solar panels now and how much resources it took to manufacture new panels?

@rtfazeberdee3519

4 жыл бұрын

probably recycled unlike the gas/coal burnt to produce electricity

@jthadcast

4 жыл бұрын

the absurdity of them trying to sell replacing pv every 5-10 years as a good thing because improved efficiency ignores the hard facts of waste. waste in the old, waste in today's new, waste in 2025's even better, they can last 10 years but not if you replace them every 5.

@rtfazeberdee3519

4 жыл бұрын

@@jthadcast PV has at least a 25 year life and then can be recycled.

@ianmurray250

4 жыл бұрын

@@jthadcast Early designs of the internal combustion engine needed lots of oil and petrol/gas to move slowly for just a few miles before they broke down and/or overheated. Early designs of panels such as those looked at in the documentary had a maximum generation of 50kW per panel and last 10 years. A few years later the replacement system uses 335kW panels, most likely with 15-20 warrantees on them. Replacing then was sensible, but I would suggest that unless some really major advancement comes along the current panels will not be replaced until they are out of warranty. Either way running costs are almost zero, the largest running cost is usually the pay of the security guards.

@Withnail1969

3 жыл бұрын

@@rtfazeberdee3519 but how much use are they after say, 20 years? they won't be producing much power by that stage.

What is your opinion on the thousands non decomposable wind turbine blades ending up in landfills?

@dragonfastback5440

3 жыл бұрын

And what fraction of the world's non decomposing waste would that be? About 0.00001% of single use plastic bottles?

@stoyanbalev184

3 жыл бұрын

@@dragonfastback5440 I don't see how wind turbines have anything to do with plastic bottles? It's like saying: my single use shopping bag is less than 0.0000000000001% of world's plastic bags, why should I pay 0.25£ for it?

I would also like to ask JHT a question. Are any of the technologies actually helping the situation of our climate and environment? Is there net gain? By all the data I have seen, and it may be wrong, or I may have misinterpreted it, the larger picture is that the situation is not good and overall getting worse. Is that wrong? In the close up view all of the technology seems to be improving and improvement is accelerating, but the larger view is that human impact is still increasingly negative, and accelerating. Is this accurate? I'd really like to know your view on this.

@paintedwings74

4 жыл бұрын

There really is no evidence that we're getting anywhere good in time to make a difference. The larger picture is trending toward bad, more bad, "Oops, we did that wrong, let's turn it around" only to find that it's too late in the larger picture, and also, more bad.

@hormunculus

4 жыл бұрын

I agree with you guys. If environmentalists can't take criticism for not offering all the facts, showing how bad things really are and admitting to failing for the entirety of their existence then we are doomed to watch the world get worse without any real attempt at survival.

@jkvdv4447

4 жыл бұрын

unfortunately I have to agree. I don't know what the solution is, but we don't have the tech yet.

@ahhmm5381

4 жыл бұрын

@@paintedwings74 Maybe. However, it is really hard to tell. Humans keep increasing their consumption, and the reality is true renewable energy is a tiny percentage of our energy grids. This means any gains will be masked by increased consumption, and therefore carbon emissions. We also must not forget that the fossil fuel industry is a behemoth, and dwarfs the renewable energy market, and they will do anything to trot out pseudo scientific studies to shape the narrative. After all, the tobacco industry did something similar, and things looked doomed in fighting them. However, society does go through seismic shifts that can completely alter the political landscape. Lastly, what other choice do we have?

@grindupBaker

4 жыл бұрын

Earth's energy imbalance is an entirely unrelated problem from the numerous other problems. It's being conflated by persons & groups for their various personal reasons. This is, of course, an absolutely wonderful boon for the coal/oil shills so therefore thank you conflators for doing sterling undercover work for the coal/oil shilling irrelevant of whether you're doing this for cash intentionally, for some non-cash reason intentionally, as acceptable collateral damage, or entirely unknowingly because the physical result is exactly the same entirely irrespective of the motive(s). The present 400,000 gigawatts increases at a rate that's increased by your assistance to the coal/oil shills and that's the physical fact of the global warming.

i don't think you've got the point of the film. an example - the solar panels from 2008 for example are outdated - so what? does that mean to be efficient we need to replace those things every 10 years? yay. while shortly afterwards quoting a piece that says those things can work for 20 years. the main point for me is what newer groups have been criticizing about the old-school environmental groups for years - they usually talk about green growth, which is an impossibility, not about an end to economic growth. if we're talking about resources it becomes quite obvious that we can't just replace fossiles fuels with "green" energy (the better phrase would be less dirty energy), and go on like before. we need to drastically reduce energy consumption, industry, individual mobility by ANY kind of car, and aviation. and that can't just be done by improving efficiency - we've tried that for decades, it didn't work. the only sensible way is a rapid transformation of our economic system. especially not subsidizing "bio"fuels to make energy and fuel to power billions of cars and our mass tourism mania. but of course, the latter idea makes a lot of industries happy. industries that have a lot of lobbying power and money... regarding overpopulation - as those people righly say the problem is population x consumption. the weird reflex many people then have, is to take the population-component away completely, because they seem to assume that sounds too right-wingish. unfortunately ignoring a debate because we don't like the sound of it, is problematic, because it leaves a vacuum that's then filled exactly by those on the political right, who don't share that fear. instead it would make sense to reframe the discussion: first of all, a lot of developed countries still try to ramp up their birth rates with policies. which is dangerous, because it's those countries with the highest emissions per capita. the usual argument is that our pension systems will collapse if we don't procreate enough, which is simply BS, because lots of people from the global south will need resettlement within the next decades anyway. but overpopulation is also a problem in developing countries. a problem that is easily addressed by education (especially of girls), access to birth control, and self-sustainability. all of which need to be massively supported by developed countries.

@helenlawson8426

4 жыл бұрын

Totally agree with you about empowering women as the best way of getting the population down, health security must also be part of that and security in old age. If your family is your best chance surviving during old age then large families increase those chances. All this sounds great until you realise those right wingers who are happy to talk about population control are going to freak out and shout 'Communism!!' when the talk gets to 'social' support plans. They're also the first to shout 'Never!' to the idea of sending money to other countries... despite the fact most of that funding goes on these very kind of projects. As for the first bit those early solar panels have no reason to be ditched as they are still very usable and often are providing power and internet/education to poorer populations. Also solar panels have probably near enough peaked now in efficiency so obsolescence really isn't a thing now. There will be a period of growth in mining for materials and yes lets be totally honest in pollution as renewables & EVs get up to a scale that won't involve the collapse of the world we have inherited. One the new technology gets to the required level to take over it will be a cleaner and more importantly cyclic system were mining and drilling is nothing like on the scale it is now... it will though take a couple of decades to get there just because of the scale of the task.

@jochenzimmermann5774

4 жыл бұрын

@@helenlawson8426 > health security must also be part of that and security in old age. If your family is your best chance surviving during old age then large families increase those chances. absolutely. > All this sounds great until you realise those right wingers who are happy to talk about population control are going to freak out and shout 'Communism!!' when the talk gets to 'social' support plans. They're also the first to shout 'Never!' to the idea of sending money to other countries... despite the fact most of that funding goes on these very kind of projects. quite frankly - we spend too much time thinking about those nutjobs in the first place. let them freak out as hard as they can. they're an absolute minority. and the more they freak out, the more they show the rest of us how crazy they actually are. > Also solar panels have probably near enough peaked now in efficiency so obsolescence really isn't a thing now. let's hope so. > There will be a period of growth in mining for materials and yes lets be totally honest in pollution as renewables & EVs get up to a scale that won't involve the collapse of the world we have inherited. One the new technology gets to the required level to take over it will be a cleaner and more importantly cyclic system were mining and drilling is nothing like on the scale it is now... it will though take a couple of decades to get there just because of the scale of the task. yeah. if we transform our economic system. if we continue the current path, it's gonna be the usual scheme - produce more, sell more, make more money. as long as recycling is more expensive than mining, mining will always win... in any case, i just finished watching moores latest podcast with XRs clare farrell. clears up some points that where made in this video here, so i can definitely recommend watching it. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gJV_mMWSnL2-ldY.html

@wertigon

4 жыл бұрын

"an example - the solar panels from 2008 for example are outdated - so what? does that mean to be efficient we need to replace those things every 10 years? yay. while shortly afterwards quoting a piece that says those things can work for 20 years. " The implication is not that we should replace solar every 10 years, but that we should let the solar installations currently up and running go their length, and then run the next batch which will be twice or even thrice as efficient and generate a lot more power. Yes, we currently output CO2 to create solar panels and battery cars. What if that equation could be changed though? What if we melt our steel through solar-powered electricity instead of coal? Then we would have reduced carbon footprint and created a cheaply made solar panel at pretty much the cost of the labor and raw materials. Sounds like a pipe dream? It's happening already: www.okenergytoday.com/2019/09/colorado-steel-mill-to-be-site-of-nations-largest-solar-power-project/ As the grid slowly phase over to *mostly* WSH power (Wind/Solar/Hydro), we will slowly be getting rid of coal burners. But it isn't going to instantly happen tomorrow or even next year.

Has anyone found the link for the life-cycle analysis graphic from Zeke Hausfather at 20:30? Thanks.

2:56 Did he actually say part of the power was generated by ‘offset credits‘?

@JC-XL

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, he was making everything possible to make Jeff Gibbs/Michael Moore film sound misleading. This event is probably still powered from the grid, however, they have an on-site solar farm that supplies a trickle of energy to the grid throughout the year, and then when they have an event they draw a much larger load for the duration of the event, using accumulated credits that the the energy supplier owes them, i.e. they are overall neutral, but not quite.

@chavdarnaidenov2661

3 жыл бұрын

@@JC-XL Well, what the organizers were conveying is the exaggerated idea how powerful several sq.m. of solar panels were. Such childish deceptions are among the things the film was criticizing. And guilty-faced answers about how amplifiers were actually plugged into credits only make matters worse.

@defenderoftheadverb

3 жыл бұрын

@@chavdarnaidenov2661 No, the message is correct, just missing details. I wouldn't call that misleading. If you're thinking of putting in a PV array you always connect it to the grid unless you want to spend up on a Tesla Powerwall or the like.

@chavdarnaidenov2661

3 жыл бұрын

@@defenderoftheadverb Which would mean, a power station emitted CO2 somewhere, in order to "return" the "credit".

@chavdarnaidenov2661

3 жыл бұрын

@Righteous Agitator Look at 2:54.

On the technology front, you are right, but the film has a point when it comes to the lack of political will among elected officials (who are poisoned by corporations) to change the current system. I think you are focusing on how we are able to move to renewables whereas the film is about how we are/will not because of corporate infiltration into the government.

@lrvogt1257

4 жыл бұрын

You're absolutely right about lack of political will but that is not evenly distributed. Republicans, in the main, have decided to support fossil fuels and obstruct renewables. Corporations will always insinuate themselves into government but once again it is conservatives making it increasingly possible to do so.

@mtdewramen

4 жыл бұрын

@@lrvogt1257 it's foolish to think the Democratic party is all that much better on anything than Republicans. Look at any career long dolt like Pelosi and Schumer, their voting record suggests otherwise.

@lrvogt1257

4 жыл бұрын

@@mtdewramen : While Democrats may be a disappointment, Republicans are a absolute menace-on so many issues-so there is still no moral equivalence.

@gregripp

4 жыл бұрын

The engineering is getting better all the time, but the politics stays mired in the fossil fuel past and full of corporate donations.

@kaitlyn__L

4 жыл бұрын

It may be true that the USA will be one of the final nations to transition away from fossil fuels, potentially even after China even though China has relied much more heavily on coal recently. But that doesn't mean other countries aren't taxing carbon and investing in renewables, thankfully. Even without carbon taxation, renewables have reached levelised cost parity with fossils, thanks in large part to these other governments. Many island nations that used to rely entirely on importing fossil fuels for their isolated power grids are basically all showing interest in solar+storage, because it actually gives them energy independence for the first time since electrification. And that's a great thing! More and more countries are phasing out coal plants completely, with sights set on gas in another 5-10 years, while still building more wind and solar, which is looking very promising. Obviously as one of the world's most populous countries the USA makes a significant impact, but already the market forces of that levelised cost I mentioned are making more renewables be built even in some states that are more Republican on the whole, like Texas. So even while the political will is fighting things in the USA, the political will of other countries around the world is bringing costs down and that's resulting in more of the USA transitioning away from fossil fuels even while lobbyists try and fight proper initiatives. Proper initiatives are necessary of course in the long term, but I think that's probably inevitable within the next decade as prices will continue to fall and efficiencies continue to rise. At some point there will be a critical mass of politicians asking why exactly they're paying so much to prop up the most expensive fuel sources, just as they did about the high cost of nuclear power plants a few decades ago. The petro companies themselves are seeing the winds change and investing (albeit very little of their current investment budget) into renewables, so as soon as they can make more money on renewables than petro products their lobbyists will probably change tack too, assuming they haven't been driven out of business by being too stubborn about their business areas by then. None of this would have begun to happen purely by market forces alone, as it is the carbon taxation of most other developed nations and investment in renewables and timetables for phase-outs that have driven the costs so low already. But we're in a potent place now where political pressure will result in an earlier transition, instead of where we were a decade ago where we had to put pressure on to even see the possibility of a transition anywhere in the future. And that's good news, I say, even if it could be even better.

Thank you for this response, very informative. My personal view is that advances in technology can benefit humanity, but at the end of the day our high energy consumption societies need to change lifestyles. Less waste, more awareness, local economies. Not that radical to look at how people lived 100-150 years ago. You mention someone talking about constant extraction for fossil fueled stations vs solar panels that last 20 years. A wee bit silly, they both require constant extraction. One technology requires less, perhaps. Same with lithium ion batteries and electric cars. Constant extraction for a society constantly growing. My favorite technologies involve the Sun. Everyday in the garden I observe thousands of highly developed and incredibly efficient green (yes, literally green ;) ) little solar panels. They don't connect to the grid, but they do produce yummy things to eat without plastic wraps, diesel transport, and labor exploitation.

@tortysoft

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, 100 times yes. Basically we have to stop producing products that are designed to fail and are not designed to be recycled, reused or repaired. Once we do that our power demands can fall massively and our quality of life - for all of us - can greatly improve - and level up. Sounds utopian, but it's being done everywhere and at increasing speed - especially now we are faced with the deep realities shown up by Corona.

@haxi52

4 жыл бұрын

I'm not disagreeing with your point on "we have to change our lifestyles and stop wasting", but i'm curious how the continued use of my phone [battery] and solar panels require constant extraction of resources?

@tortysoft

4 жыл бұрын

@@haxi52 Short term, it doesn't, but, wait 18 months until the next phone upgrade hits the shops and your old kit hits landfill. I love tech, live it, teach it, so I know how to upgrade without waste, so does any engineer. It would require a considerable range of industrial and product design changes, but all are possible today - no new inventions required. Tech can be built to last and have exchangeable, repairable, recyclable parts and at end of life - recoverable raw materials.

@haxi52

4 жыл бұрын

@@tortysoft The OP says "require constant extraction". Its hard to believe any argument that has a 'little white lie' in it. But while we are on the topic of not being wasteful, my last phone lasted 4+ years, before the screen broke and I had to replace it. My current phone is going on 2+ years. I believe all phone manufactures by now have a recycling program. Again I'm agreeing with not being wasteful, but anyone who says this while also supporting the burning of fuels is crazy. All n all renewables are less wasteful and at least that's a step in the right direction. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean we shouldn't change.

@tortysoft

4 жыл бұрын

@@haxi52 My 'new' laptop is over 5 years old, my old one is 9 and my base station is older still. They all just about work, but only because I'm an engineer. It should not be this hard to kit kit going - or to make it go faster !

I watched planet of the Humans, and got angry then started thinking omg what can we do. A very intelligent person posted this link. My faith in human nature has been restored. Thank you.

@elvenkind6072

3 жыл бұрын

I followed the same link. It helped me too.

I think everyone is missing the main point of this film! We cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet 🌍

@0ooTheMAXXoo0

4 жыл бұрын

Luke Campbell we need sustainable energy to sustain at an even level. We are already heading towards a population crash just due to people choosing to have fewer kids which is what happens when standards of living go up. Making the air and rest of the environment terrible (which this film promotes) in order to lower the population of the planet so that then the environment can recover is a terrible plan.

@dergraslutscher5997

4 жыл бұрын

Even with finite growth we will have a climate collapse soon if we continue to burn stuff for power and transportation.

@lukecampbell2039

4 жыл бұрын

Doesn’t really matter, we’ve already crossed many tipping points that prove we are too late.

@rhiannonrussell1039

4 жыл бұрын

@@lukecampbell2039 I hate to admit (to myself, even) that I believe this is true. It's a gut-punch feeling of hopelessness. I am afraid for my kids, I can't believe I even think this, but I have thoughts that I don't wish for grandchildren in the future, anymore. I don't want them to suffer the planet we've left in ruins & humans (that I imagine) will be left to rule it.

@TheGandorX

4 жыл бұрын

If we dont have this climate alarmism and green deception, but instead have sensible environmentalism, efficient farming techniques, clean power production (modern power plants are clean), there is no problem.

Wonderful ! Cheap electricity from solar and wind, nice graph showing how cheap it’s become - dropped by 70% - fantastic!! Problem is my electricity has not gone down and continues to rise so who is kidding who here.

@jackvalior

3 жыл бұрын

have you switch your energy provider? Looking at where your energy coming from and how it is provided can help you reduce your bill. I know a few friends of mine in Australia switched their energy source and energy provider, and their electric bills were down by 60% (this was back in 2018)

@harackmw

3 жыл бұрын

They are used to getting their money, and no amount of energy-saving devices and practices in your household or their networks is going to stop them from getting it. The going green for them is the "geen" of actual profits.

@b43xoit

3 жыл бұрын

Also, the monetary cost might not be telling the whole environmental cost. And it isn't the same as showing long-term sustainability. Maybe some of those "low-cost" methods of harvesting useful energy depend on materials that will run out in a few years. Something like that might fail to affect the dollar cost quoted today.

@josephgreen3839

3 жыл бұрын

Yep data can easily be skewed to bull shit the public. They aren’t trying to save you money though. Just shift it from the oil industries pocket to their own. Via a big lie.

@VarrgasBodgerton

3 жыл бұрын

If you want lower bills, lower your usage. This is about making sure that the world doesn't burn to a crisp just so you can watch an 80inch plasma screen, leaving something for the next generation.

Thanks for taking your time and fact checking this film.

@bestdjaf7499

4 жыл бұрын

@Ronjia-mette Nellemann Bill Gates explains for idiots: kzread.info/dash/bejne/a6yZlaSQgNaohLg.html

How do you square renewables with the aerosol masking effect?

@Oi....

3 жыл бұрын

Divide by Pie, then log e! Hope this helps

Thanks for setting that straight. And in doing so for using clear and unambiguous language without crossing over into insult. Michael Moore for a while has been harvesting on his professional cheap tricks more than he has been grounded in his journalistic professionalism.

The take-away I get from the film is that every single thing we do to try to escape from the laws of Entropy is doomed to failure. To try to get "free" energy WILL of necessity cost more energy than we're currently consuming. That burst of increased consumption as we attempt to switch away from fossil fuels is only adding to our problem with CO2. The bigger problem is that the entire program of switching to renewables has the objective of making it so we don't have to feel the pain of consuming More More More resources--or even smalling ourselves down so we're living within our planet's means. Point by point comments: The opening bit you highlight, 2005, was not to say that solar sucks--it was to say that it had him wondering. It was STILL his intro. No matter how much of an improvement solar has gone through, the production of solar panels causes environmental damage, consumes more energy and mineral resources, it's about More More More. Jeff is not saying that all environmental orgs are co-opted entirely, his point is that many of them have been infiltrated by the same oligarchical influences that have corrupted our government in the US--which is not to say that our government is 100% corrupt, nor are the enviro orgs. No, electric cars are not not-worth-it so far as emissions. To make them, though consumes energy and resources in a More More More fashion. Seven gallons of crude oil go into the making of each tire. How much CO2 is produced in the creation of any car? How much mining for the steel, how much crude oil goes into the plastics that go into the car, how much every damned thing? More More More. Batteries are great. But their construction requires mining of lithium, sending the lithium around the planet via fossil-fuel transportation, then processed using fossil fuels, then sent off for sale using fossil fuels. "Sun Ray I" pulled down and "Sun Ray II" put up--yes, a certain amount of neglected data we could have used. But seriously--what did it cost to put up Sun Ray II? How much fossil fuel in the transportation of components, people-moving for install, how much stuff and energy .... It is, again, More More More. Point being, the problem isn't that we're trying to replace fossil fuels with renewables. That was not the take-away that I get from the film; it's that our consumption of resources is a vast, interconnected, profit-driven endeavour that we're lulled into thinking CAN become sustainable. We are NOT sustainable.

@chickenboy9597

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you your critique of this assessment of planet of the humans is the best I have read.

@pauld6208

4 жыл бұрын

Simple answer which is mentioned in the video: LCA. Three letters that make all that effort in your comment totally redundant. You are just repeating the poor analysis in the Moore and Gibbs film.

@paintedwings74

4 жыл бұрын

@@pauld6208 LCA?

@incognitotorpedo42

4 жыл бұрын

Why are you defending a pack of lies? Just curious. Do you realize that we consume less "stuff" per capita now than 15 years ago? If you really think WE are not sustainable, then you know what you have to do. Be my guest.

@benholland2989

4 жыл бұрын

He talks, correctly, about the species, not you in particular. And he is right. Globally speaking there is more and more depletion of natural res. Every single day.

You just dont understand the main message of Michael Moores Movie ( Yes, its a Movie not a scientific study ).

@incognitotorpedo42

4 жыл бұрын

Care to explain exactly what the fuck the "main message" is? It looks to me like the main message is a godsend to ExxonMobil.

Scientific papers should be open to everyone, not being behind a paywall. Edit: to all that are against free access (I know, weird how do people exist), take your computer or phone and throw it in the lake, because at least some of the technology that you're using everyday was created by, or is using open-source code, and this video together with millions of videos on here are free to watch. Many things on the internet are free, in fact, most of the best things on the internet are free, and that's not a coincidence.

@chrisdavey286

4 жыл бұрын

Some journals are open access, while some are not. Open access journals require authors to pay up to several thousand dollars to publish in, while payed ones require much lower publishing fees. Either way, journals can't operate for free.

@toyotaprius79

4 жыл бұрын

Then they must be funded publically. Like a WHO versino for peer reviewed papers and experiment investing.

@YeeLeeHaw

4 жыл бұрын

​@@chrisdavey286 And in what world is that justifying paywalls? That's just moving the issue one more step. The whole system is corrupt, we all saw what lengths they went to when they jailed Aaron Swartz that later committed an Epstein in his cell because he wanted to make it open to everyone. Science should be open access, it should never be behind paywalls; it's not a business, it's for the greater good of mankind. Most scientific papers only contain a few kilobytes of data as well, it doesn't require massive server costs, like KZread for example needs and it could be decentralized as well in the future. The entire internet is moving in the wrong direction, it is an amazing tool where you can share huge amounts of information practically for free in a blink of an eye across the entire globe to everyone and anyone. I understand some need financial support to keep it rolling, but most of these are just greedy manchildren that don't need the money and has artificially created a middle man that takes profit on work that isn't theirs.

@therealctoo4183

4 жыл бұрын

@@YeeLeeHaw What you're saying is that business is corrupt. It costs money to publish. People are doing work, and need to be paid for it. If not a paywall, who should pay, and how?

@YeeLeeHaw

4 жыл бұрын

@@therealctoo4183 No, I'm not saying that businesses are inherently corrupt, don't put words in my mouth, I'm saying the ones that keep scientific papers behind paywalls are corrupt scum. _"It costs money to publish. People are doing work, and need to be paid for it."_ It cost money because greedy middlemen take the money. Scientists do not get their income from just publishing scientific articles lol.

Thank you for this critical review of Jeff Biggs’ film. One thing I’d like to query about your own data is the bit about population. Yes, the highest fertility rates are also those with the smallest carbon footprint, but that ignores two other relevant elements. Fertility rate is not the same as population growth because of mortality rate. Also some of those countries with low carbon footprints are also those stripping the fertility of the land for various reasons. While non-fossil fuel availability needs to grow at exponential rates - and at reduced costs - we have to consider global population growth and energy demand. And not, as you facetiously put it, regarding eradication, but in finding a way to slow global energy demand. Population growth also affects demand for food, which in turn has an impact on land use and grows energy demand. This is not a simple fossil-versus-sustainable energy debate; it’s a very complex problem of making our planet self-sustaining.

@samdavison-wall4972

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed. It was also very misguiding to make the point that if everyone ate the way people do in India we would only need 22% of the World's available agriculture.. Sure, for now! Mind boggling to make the assertion that we can assume that will be some static figure as the country becomes wealthier and eating habits and lifestyles change.

@PaulMansfield

4 жыл бұрын

If it weren't for people living longer the world's population would be shrinking

@samdavison-wall4972

4 жыл бұрын

@@PaulMansfield I don't really see how that can be the case given the global population projections for mid and the end of the century.

@samdavison-wall4972

4 жыл бұрын

Yep, just looked into it a bit more. The current birth rate is at 2.4 while the natural replacement rate for a stable population is 2.1. You are correct in pointing out that an ageing population is and will play an increasing role in the world's population but we're not yet at the point where it is the sole driver. Astoundingly, Africa is tipped to have 4.3 billion people by the end of the century, an increase of 3 billion, which would also make it nearly as populated as Asia is today. Given the ecological carrying capacity of Africa that sounds like an absolute ecological catastrophe to me.

@DavidKnowles0

4 жыл бұрын

Best way to reduce population growth is through family planning, which require providing education, contraceptives and abortion. If Jeff surely cared about this he would have condemn the US decision to cut funding from charities providing education and contraceptives, simply because they use other money to provide abortions. No instead he attacks how we are currently producing solar panels, the very thing which can provide cheap electricity to Africans, allowing for better education, allowing for children to work in evenings, allowing them to charge their phones.

People should be more aware of Sid Smith, Tim Garrett, Kevin Anderson and the Jevon's Paradox just to mention a few which collaborate the issues brought up in this movie.

@KateeAngel

4 жыл бұрын

William E. Rees has interesting articles on why endless growth is unsustainable

@macrumpton

4 жыл бұрын

did you mean corroborate?

@steveh1844

4 жыл бұрын

hormunculus if you cut emissions by half, but double the population back to the beginning - population is always a taboo subject. Eg light bulbs - make light bulbs more efficient, people will just use more. Uk is one of the most density populated countries and no surprise, it’s the most wildlife depleted. Imagine if elephants were native to uk, they would be extinct because we over ran the landscape. We are animals - sooner we realise this and there’s too many of us, the better.

@jyreHeffron

4 жыл бұрын

@counselthyself ...wow, thanks for the heads up!!!

@hormunculus

4 жыл бұрын

@@steveh1844 Brill! We are in agreement then :)

The film opened very timely dialogue. " Green" can be a vague, often misused , overused term. Fact checking of all sides is very important.

@alokraj3128

4 жыл бұрын

Reptiles change their skins from time to time. This is called moulting. Michael Moore chose this time to moult because he is endowed with more foresight than his brother greens.Now the rest of you greens can choose - do you have foresight are are you diehards? Remember also that a freshly moulted snake is more energetic and vicious

@robertstan298

4 жыл бұрын

It was only time before Big Business successfully coopted the green movement. As it always happens. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what it is, raking in profits is all that matters to those rule us. What a messed up world we live in, and it looks like we're still no way near to getting to a better place as a species. Same old shackles of the ruling class, mass confusion and self-destructive polarizations.

@tortysoft

4 жыл бұрын

@@robertstan298 But... as Big Business is the cause of the problem and the creator of our technological civilisation, then it is essential that Big Business stops destroying itself. Yes, it irritates and disgusts me that they could have done it decades ago and now claim a green banner of virtue, but, such is life. We have a lot more evolution to get through before we are perfect :-)

@KristyandMarcus

4 жыл бұрын

@@tortysoft Big Business is not the problem & "we" will never be perfect, particularly if "we" continue to think like that. "We" are the problem & the problem is that "we" are ignorant, "we" jump to conclusions before we have all the facts, big businesses give the ignorant "we" just what we want, because that's exactly what "we" will pay for,while "we" place the blame for all the problems "we" have caused & until "we" take responsibility (& that's not putting your hand up & saying "we" are sorry type responsibility, it's behaving responsibly type responsibility) nothing will ever be any different. Also, even if "we" do learn to be truly responsible (& also take responsibility, as opposed to assigning it elsewhere), still not a single one amongst us will ever be perfect.

@tortysoft

4 жыл бұрын

@@KristyandMarcus Basically I agree - perfection is a point of view not a physical, moral or credible reality even as a target - but - that does not mean we can not all aim to improve. As we go, things shall change and the goal - whatever it is - shall change. We must be able and willing to change with it. Capitalism has run out of the stuff and the space in which it could grow and big business knows this too. We who use laptops have benefitted greatly and now we know the costs. Things would have changed even without Covid. With it, we have a chance to speed things up - each in their own way but with luck, all in about the same direction.

Thank goodness for The Planet of the Humans movie, without which we may not be having this discussion at all! Outdated or otherwise information is all extremely valuable information helping us make informed decisions. As you say Let's have a think, its time to act differently.

@sebastianwrites

2 жыл бұрын

Josie, how is, if information is incorrectly supplied... then how does this help the cause for the environment? The Planet of the Humans was a film created with the purpose of misleading people, and where the author's and creator's ego was placed ahead of the cause and fight to save the environment. As the comments state below, and elsewhere this film created a lot of unwanted despair, and actually undermined the environmental movement at a critical time for mankind!

Thanks a lot for this video, I'm very vulnerable to depression and I remember I felt almost suicidal when I watched the Micheal Moore film about renewable energy. It helped a lot to watch this one to get some perspective on things. God bless you.

@JustHaveaThink

3 жыл бұрын

Bless you too. I'm so glad it helped a little. Take care :-)

@paulohenriquearaujofaria7306

8 ай бұрын

I made the same KZread way ... I feel better watching this.

@Virgocygni56

3 ай бұрын

have you consulted with a psychiatrist since then?

So glad you made this video, I watched Planet of the Humans at the weekend and was rather upset by it. I have been watching JHAT for a while now and knew I could turn to you for the right view. Thank you.

@hormunculus

4 жыл бұрын

Paol: Read the comments. Be prepared to be upset some more mate. Take care.

@maggieadams8600

4 жыл бұрын

Electric cars may be more efficient that they were 10 years ago, but they still require lithium, steel, foundries, car parks, roads, plastics, front gardens concreted over. The life style of working 40 miles away from where you live, of driving 20 miles to go and exercise, or driving around the corner to buy chocolate is insane, unnecessary, unsustainable. That's not harsh unfair criticism, it's a fair view of reality.

@kaitlyn__L

4 жыл бұрын

@@maggieadams8600 that's why many people push for better rail infrastructure. It's faster and more efficient and safer than cars, and still allows for people to travel. Many people would love to not spend hours commuting, but the only affordable housing is far away from the jobs. Right now the ways people live and move to work are driven by economic necessity, so political pressure must be applied to tackle housing crises, if you want to enable people to enact the changes you want. Otherwise it's simply tut-tutting at people as if they don't know, when many know full well but simply can't afford to live closer to where they work. After all, wouldn't you rather spend your free time at home instead of commuting? It's not like it's a fun lifestyle choice for people - corporate lobbyists pressured city and town planners to mandate single family dwellings, in suburbs, with cul-de-sacs. Thankfully there are city planners who are politically involved and trying to change things, such as KZread's own City Beautiful who has made many videos about how housing and road planning drives up car use but can also bring it way down.

@jthadcast

4 жыл бұрын

the only thing he contradicted was the efficiency of pv cells and the narrative of the film, because 10 years is like centuries ago.

@kaitlyn__L

4 жыл бұрын

@@jthadcast yeah, all the ideas like a solar farm being abandoned when it was actually being upgraded.. that's important as fuck. "A solar dead zone", like.. like a mobile phone dead zone? Even though clearly it was self-evidently sunny when they were filming that? I've seen lots of punters online claiming he's Revealed "solar dead spots" and stuff which was very ????? to me, glad I learned what it actually was.

On watching that movie I was struck by two things: Much of the footage and info seemed way out of date, and they generalized many things like implying that having a gas powerplant idling was the same impact as having it running full capacity. It baffles me that Michael Moore supported this and what his goal was.

@TheBandit7613

4 жыл бұрын

Who says the plant is "idling?" That's what one woman said. It's running all the way. It takes a couple days to shut a plant down. It can't be ramped up in seconds. Solar and wind are a useless feel good waste unless adequate storage can be brought online. Useless.

@dr1ce

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheBandit7613 can you please cite your source that fossil fuel is always running at 100%? That is simply not true and makes no sense

@incognitotorpedo42

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheBandit7613 Solar and wind are not "useless". You don't understand how the modern grid works. The world wouldn't be investing trillions in renewables if they were "useless".

@TheBandit7613

4 жыл бұрын

@@incognitotorpedo42 Yes, they would. Like ethanol, wind and solar are not solving our energy problems. We need real solutions, NOW. We don't have time for feel-good crap.

@astrologerclimatewitness3787

4 жыл бұрын

@@incognitotorpedo42 Yes, they would, invest that... because EVERYONE still wants their trinkets and professional sports... and sh*t... I just cannot understand WHY IT IS that these discussions almost NEVER DISCUSS JUST STOPPING our UN NECESSARY CONSUMPTION... and stopping fossil fuels... and STILL most people do not understand …. AT THIS POINT IT IS NOT ABOUT SAVING CIVILIZATION... We probably cannot even save the planet ……..GOOD GRIEF... it gets sooooo very frustrating trying to bring understanding to what the real issue is... HUMANS WANT IT ALL period... WE ARE STUPID. So, all of you who want renewables NEVER SAY …"oh, lets quit most of industrial civilization... you know?... JUST THINK about ALL the sh*t we could give up... OUR WHOLE CULTURE is soooooo FRIVOLOUS... come on people.... this gets so sickening. We all have to stop being BABIES … the world WAS NOT MADE JUST FOR US... DAMN IT.... like, nuclear power ?? really?>.. so we can have indoor ski resorts?... casinos? … Disney?... I am headed for the toilet now... I am going to be sick …. again.

Thank you so much for this contribution. As a fan of Michael Moore and a climate activist, I was deeply shocked to watch such a nihilistic film that contradicted every solution I have been fighting for in the movements … I saw the film till its very end waiting for a solution. I couldn't find any. It seemed clear to me, right then, that the film was based on total misconceptions which you brilliantly exposed. Thank you for that! let's keep up the fight for a clean future!

"...and certainly don't take everything I've said today on face value either". Great, simply great! Thank you for this more balanced critics of Gibb's documentary. I really appreciate your effort to animate people to think for themselves in any case, and not take over or propagate ideas without proper reflection no matter where they come from.

Thank you Dave, for your sane, reasoned response to a deeply flawed film.

@GraydonTranquilla

4 жыл бұрын

John Miller - and you sir remain a type 1 thinker....lazy brains don’t dig deep down the solid facts....just feel good when a youtube video aligns with your preconceived bias.

@GraydonTranquilla

4 жыл бұрын

Jorn Paul Winkler - The best solutions is the much cleaner, simpler, cheaper and simpler SMRs small modular reactors.....they re-use much of the spent fuel from earlier generation reactors and produce a final waste product with vastly Reduced half-life. i also submitted an engineering electrical proposal for a biomass project years ago.....feedstock was to be pig manure! It never worked out. Very early biomass was almost feasible burning only waste wood chips, sawdust etc. That was piling up at pulp and paper mills.

Dave is probably too modest to re-post this but here is his reply to someone who commented below. I think it deserves to be read; Just Have a Think 2 days ago Hi Sunny. Thanks for your comments. As a proxy to answer your general question about how much land for renewables etc... let's just take as an example how much solar we would need to power the United States - that should be at least a bit indicative of scale. Here's a website that calculated that back in 2018 based on 2013 efficiency numbers. www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/ The answer is that even without any domestic or commercial rooftop solar it would require 21,250 square miles. But on the basis that rooftop solar can actually make up about 34% of generation, then that area drops to 10,000 square miles. The website shows a map of America - look out for the small yellow square on the left hand side - look carefully though or you might miss it. As for population and accusations of genocide, let me say this... As a white middle class middle aged man living in one of the most privileged parts of the world, I am of course also part of the problem whether I like it or not, despite making my own little gestures like giving up a car, going vegan, changing to an ethical bank and a green energy provider, and installing solar power in my home. All very nice but pretty inconsequential in the big scheme of things. It is fair to point out that the commentators in the film did not suggest eradication or genocide, but they didn’t suggest anything else as a solution either, because Jeff did not give them that opportunity, or if he did he cut it out of the film before publishing. I'm quite sure that if any of those folks was asked, they would say that greater education of women and better understanding of birth control in developing nations would greatly help, and I would wholeheartedly agree - I've made programs advocating exactly that. But I could not say that this was their view for sure because they did not say any of these things on camera. The message we received was very simple - 'there are too many human beings on the planet, consuming too much too fast.' So the obvious question can only be..'which ones?' Global population was 3.6 billion when I was born in 1969. Today it is just over 7.6 billion. That is an increase of about 111% in 51 years. Average global fertility has come down from about 4.5 in the middle of the last century to about 2.5 today and is continuing to fall. We are now on track to add another 3 billion people in the next 80 years. That is a 44% increase. By then the fertility rate will be just below 2, which means our species will stabilise or perhaps even begin to decline gently. The challenge is to survive until then. So what to do? I am certainly not advocating keeping sub Saharan Africa, or anywhere else, in poverty. But whatever we do, we will certainly not survive with the current American level of consumption, nor with the European level of consumption for that matter. So what I think should [SHOULD] happen is that while the people of the developing world are bringing themselves up to a just about acceptable standard of living and dignity, we in the west will need to reduce our consumption levels - not to those of India as some have accused me of suggesting, but to some level, significantly lower than we have today, but perfectly comfortable. A level that allows a sustainability of resources that gets us to 2100. Thereafter our population begins to decline a little. That scenario would have no impact on population growth at all. That growth is already baked in anyway, even with better education and opportunities for women, as a result of normal replacement rates from the existing stock. So... that’s what I think SHOULD happen. If however, you ask me to predict what WILL most likely actually happen, I would say this... The western industrialised world will continue to bicker amongst itself about who has the most virtuous viewpoint about climate change, energy use and population , while doing absolutely precisely nothing of any consequence at all about it. We will continue to send billions of dollars and euros to those poor unfortunate people in the far-away countries to try to 'help' them in their hour of need. That salves the ‘uneasy conscience’ part. Then as the inevitable effects of climate change begin to ravage those same areas of the world, around the mid latitudes, hundreds of millions of those people will die anyway, from famine, disease, conflict, and sea level rise - you can probably knock off about 50 million from rising seas just in Bangladesh alone - that'll give us a good head start. Then the West can tell itself how terribly sad it all is and that there was really nothing more we could have possibly done to save them...despite our ‘very best intentions’ and our ‘very best efforts’. That way we can say we did our best, and population is reduced by perhaps a few hundred million or so in those slightly inconvenient parts of the world. Then we can all get on with our lives with the problem solved. Everyone’s a winner. (Apart from the dead ones of course.) I’m not for a millisecond suggesting that that is the intention in the mind of any of those folks who were interviewed on the camera, but it is the 'collective' delusion of the west, propagated staggeringly effectively by the propaganda machines of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Agri (you name it), all of whom are ultimately controlled by the 1% who know perfectly well what the next 80 years have in store and have already adjusted their socio-economic forecasts to take the carnage into account. Those (predominantly) white men know that the general populous operates via the the herd mentality. The ability to hide behind each other. The ability NOT to speak out. You may well be acquainted with the following quote, but for the benefit of anyone else reading this text, Martin Luther King had it right when he said "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people". You may say that Gibbs and Moore are the whistle blowers. I beg to differ. No piece of documentary film making in my memory has done more to destroy the spirit of a movement and diminish the possibility of mobilisation, especially among young people, than The Planet of the Humans. I'm sorry to sound like a ranting old maniac, but I really do believe very strongly indeed that population growth is a complete red herring. All the best. Dave

@realbrave

4 жыл бұрын

Unlimited economic growth and capitalism are the problems, not population. There are enough resources for all of us, but we, in developed countries, hoard the resources and over-consume. Until the economy is redesigned to benefit people and the planet before profits, nothing will change.

@wilgert

4 жыл бұрын

@@realbrave Both are.

@PaulMansfield

4 жыл бұрын

If it weren't for people living longer, the population of the planet would be shrinking

@stauffap

4 жыл бұрын

@@realbrave Popullation growth and population size is a multiplier and sometimes even creater of whatever enviromental problem you are looking at. I find it quite delusional that people honestly argue that population isn't a problem. To say that is ignoring simple math. How many resources the world is using and how much we pollute is a function of how much an individual pollutes and how many individuals there are. So what you should have written is the following: Unlimited economic growth, capitalism and our population size are all parts of the problem. Of course this obvious fact raises the question of the solution. Is there a humane, viable way of reducing the population quickly or at least stop it's growth? Maybe... If we all had children later in life (while having the same amount of children) then we'd actually shrink our global population. If we were able to spread awareness about the impact of population size on enviromental problems this might result in a voluntarily lower birthrate. Education could lower the birthrate. Tackling poverty could lower the birthrates. Sex education and access to family planning methods or voluntary birth control in certain parts of the could lower the birth rate as well. But obviously none of those things are going to happen as long as we are ignoring even the basic math of the problem and can't even acknowledge that 8 billion people consume and pollute more than 4 billion people, who are living the same way. They produce twice as much human waste (feces), they use twice as much water, they use twice as much land to produce food, they are using twice as many pesticides, that might kill twice as many insects. Although the effect on the loss of biodiversity doesn't have to be linear at all. Global warming and the corona-virus show us that such effects don't have to be linear at all. Twice the amount might have 4 times the negative impact. Or there might be tipping points. So whereas 4 billion are still fine, 4.1 billion trigger a tipping point. I find it quite reckless to simply dismiss something that amplifies ALL enviromental problems simply because you have an ideological problem or you don't like to think of a new baby as "bad" or whatever your reason is for dismissing basic maths. You know, the sixth mass extinction that scientists are observing, the crossing of several planetary boundaries, global warming, our pollution of the ocean and our western ecological footprint which is about 3-4 times too high aren't a joke. And maybe just maybe those things are important enough to care a bit more about the facts of the natural world/the laws of nature and caring a bit less about personal feelings that get in the way of accepting the most simple thruths about the natural world. Science isn't easy. It's often a struggle between our personal preferences and biases and what the natural world is actually telling us. A good scientist pays attention to situations in which personal feelings arise and risk getting in the way of looking at the data objectively. Overpopullation inevitably deals with reproduction and that's a highly emotionally charged topic (for animals and human). We shoud be aware of this emotionality and this bias towards thinking that having children is always good and more children are always better etc. That's our emotional tendency and we need to be extra carefull about our biases and about what the science/the data actually says to avoid getting manipulated by our emotions.

@bobbeaudry3283

4 жыл бұрын

stau ffap I agree that population growth is a huge part of the problem. Rather than force people not to have children, how about paying them to get sterilized, after one or two kids, if they want. Especially since so many kids seem to be accidents and not really wanted anyway.

Thank you for posting this. I have been working with solar for 10 years and have experienced 1st hand on the changes in solar technology. My panels now charge my laptop, tablet, phone, and power all my lights on both floors of my condominium as well as a flood light in the back. My battery was recently replaced with the more efficient Lithium Ion Phosphate battery with 2000 charge cycles. Not only is my carbon foot print less but I am not dependent on the power grid. I am not at all worried about power outages. It also does not make any noises such as what a portable power generator that uses fuel makes. Also because of the efficiency of my panels, I only use 4 panels which takes very little area. The Moore / Gibbs film is rubbish.

@marcelchagnon4960

2 жыл бұрын

U are a fool. Forest cutting. Global warming. Etc

@arleenducey8511

Жыл бұрын

Also research Animal Agriculture/diets destroy the earth.

This review covers 90% about how Micheal moore was wrong about wind and solar. (And he most likely is as It is probably our best chance at sustainable clean energy and reversing climate change) The planet of humans documentary however covered 80% of the the effect bio fuel or bio mass energy has on earth and how bio energy is not sustainable and likely worse then coal and gas. This video hardly addresses that even tho the 2020 statics show that more then 60% or renewable energy comes from burning tree, garbage & tyres. (With another 20% of renewables being hydro energy). Which neither side seems to really talk about. Bio energy plants and getting established everywhere with trillions of tax payer money going towards the company profiting from them. If burning trees for energy is our further plan for sustainable energy then we have already submitted defeat on trying to prevent global warming.

The film's main theme is to point out that the main obstacle to mitigating Climate Change is capitalism. Let's focus on that

@ncammann

4 жыл бұрын

www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/30/january/capitalism-is-the-planets-cancer-george-monbiot

@dealspeed6756

4 жыл бұрын

and over population

@holleey

4 жыл бұрын

@@dealspeed6756 no, it's really just the misaligned incentive structure of capitalism. if hat would be sorted, then over population would be no issue at all.

@pattiefrost5223

4 жыл бұрын

Absolutely! To focus and pick apart some info misses the point.

@dealspeed6756

4 жыл бұрын

@@holleey i agree but one of the messages this doc strongly puts out there is overpopulation, I'm not saying I agree with that idea far from it

Thank you so much for this. Planet of the Humans made me furious. It's a disgraceful misrepresentation as you've shown very clearly. So many people would assume a new documentary would contain up to date footage and opinions. This was intentionally produced to mislead.

@Saurondor

4 жыл бұрын

As someone who lives in a solar powered home I found a lot of the information in the movie erroneous. Specially that part with the solar panels and the 8% efficiency stuff. But the point of the movie isn't if the panels are 8% efficient as those or 20% efficient as mine. The point is that they'll never be 100% efficient and certainly never more than 100% efficient. We'll never get more power out of them than sunlight per square meter. Our resources are finite and we need an economic system that reflects that. This video spends the majority of its time nitpicking old footage and only the last few minutes addressing the real issue with uncontrolled consumption and the lack of sustainability, which is the point the movie is actually making. None of the technological breakthroughs pointed out in this video will mean anything nor amount to anything if we keep consuming at the same rate or faster. It will never be enough. There will never be enough sun, wind and tides for uncontrolled consumption. No matter how good technology gets. No matter how up to date the footage and opinions are.

@domm1341

4 жыл бұрын

Sadly, I was one of those people who put my trust in the producers of the documentary. I feel foolish. I am still struggling to understand why they would deliberately mislead?? Anyway, thankfully I follow JHAT.

@Cedarshoot1966

4 жыл бұрын

Right and there will never be enough coal, oil or nuclear for uncontrolled consumption as well. This film epitomizes a circular firing squad.

@Saurondor

4 жыл бұрын

​@@Cedarshoot1966 yea, but the issue is that renewable energy doesn't run out. That's why it's called renewable. It doesn't become scarcer like oil or coal and it doesn't produce ever-more-expensive-to-store residues like nuclear.

@hillockfarm8404

4 жыл бұрын

@@Saurondor While sun and wind don't run out, the resources to capture and store it do.

The larger problem comes from wickedness and greed. Technology is just a sideshow.

@Gordonz1

4 жыл бұрын

Yes but what have people , corporations and politicians that are not criminals done in response . They developed legislation to put price on SOx sulfur dioxide around the world to encourage corporations to tell their engineers to figure out the most economical ways to remove SOx from their emissions. Coal plants are being shut down around the world. They helped with the development of more efficient aircraft, automobiles buildings, computers , appliances, data centers, put Hummer dummer manufacturing out of business, GM now working on electric vehicles, trucks. And California announced it will be not buying vehicles from the corporations colluding with Donald Trump administration who has determined vehicle efficiency does not need to increase in response to worsening climate change warning. As well number of states have U.S. Fed gov in court over the decision and other. The battle is eternal between the negligent criminal corporate leaders and politicians and those who oppose their agenda . Sierra Beyond Coal is another example One chapter if you recall was Greenpeace sailing into nuclear test zones asking WTF are you idiots thinking . U.S. gov asked the same thing We now have NO atmospheric nuclear tests. Thanks to those leaders And that is a short list of what leading citizens , corporate leaders and politicians have done in respond to the negligent, criminal corporate leaders and politicians .

@MICKEYISLOWD

4 жыл бұрын

@@Gordonz1 Politicians did not do this fool. These developments were invented by scientists and engineers working for companies who then turned these products into profits. The other side of the equation is the same scientists also worked very hard to publish papers to warn the world of how we are destroying our habitat threatening not only our own survival but also every species in the world. Politicians have 'politicised' SCIENCE in sometimes a covert manner to throw off this information reaching the public dominion and becoming embedded in the minds of the layperson where it really needed to be!!!

@MrRecrute

4 жыл бұрын

@Mickeyislowd, some politicians, not all by a long shot. The green movement has had some success throughout the world and has political support. Being an absolutist reduces your argument.

@jelambertson

4 жыл бұрын

Pete, I have a legit question. By wickedness and greed do you mean a blanket condemnation of capitalism? The system without which humans would still be in the dark ages and living to 35. Just sayin'.

@colinrobinson1924

4 жыл бұрын

I'd suggest that a large part of the problem is fear of change. That includes fear of technological change, and fear of political change too.

I watched the movie and have done some research on renewables over 4 years. I've been involved in solar energy research for the last year. Many say the information is outdated or even accusing it of being filled with right-wing talking points. But the criticism DOES NOT address those. IT DOES NOT address the main point of the documentary or the most serious issues, for example, the mining for rare earth minerals. It DOES NOT address the problem of "exponential growth on a finite planet". It DOES NOT address the pollution resulting from manufacturing solar panels. It DOES NOT address the animal habitat loss and deforestation from setting up wind turbines. Also, NO ONE seems to acknowledge the very real issue, the coopted green movement for profit and how the message has shifted over the years from "reduce, reuse, recycle" to "business as usual" and a real "we can build our way out of this" approach. The reason why we are not talking about population, consumption, and the suicide of economic growth is that it would be bad for business, especially for the cancerous form of capitalism that rules the world now hiding under a cover of GREEN". ~ Jeff Gibbs It's sad that this channel didn't really get the main point of the documentary: stop deluding yourself. Face the fear. Accept that our life needs to change much, much more drastically than you can even imagine right now. And most of all, don’t fall for illusions of green economic growth. They are sold to you by investors and their political puppets.

@DigitalNegative

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for writing this comment.

@turningpoint4238

4 жыл бұрын

We live in the system we do. We have to use the tools we have or develop new ones to create the answers. Wishing for change isn't enough, we have to use the "capitalist" system and bend it to head in the right direction. A good example of this is the likes of Telsa. Yes fancy expensive cars but better than ICE ones and they are pushing and paying for the technology thats even better. We can't change in one go, it'll take time to kill the fossil fuel industry, it'll be death by a million small cuts.

@Deebz270

4 жыл бұрын

@@turningpoint4238 You are a hopium addict.

@tracyfagan165

4 жыл бұрын

Totally agree with you, and I do believe that is the point of the documentary as that is what Jeff Gibbs and the producers KEEP repeating over and over. The point is...WHAT NOW EVERYBODY? As this is where we are all at..I still think tech has a role to play, but DEFINATELY NOT if it comes from a consumerism, capitalistic, for profit intent. If it's not care, aware and objective mutually based it will not work. Pretty sur this will become apparent in the following couple of years, covid is just the beginning.

@EnvironmentalCoffeehouse

4 жыл бұрын

Yes👏👏👏👏

I am humbled by your persuasive eloquence.

Misses the key point of the film - whatever the quantitative truth about renewables and emissions turns out to be, if humans, and especially humans in the West continue to view economic growth as a positive and use maximum effort to exploit the Earth ,eg, massive mining operations to provide for renewables in an effort to maintain their current way of life, there will be no green future and that is particularly true for our fellow species.

@tannermcnabb4836

4 жыл бұрын

While that MAY be the intended point of the film from the perspective of the people that made it, if the audience is telling you the message certainly seems to be "all is lost/nothing can be done" nihilism using very dated footage, then at some point you have to listen to what the audience is saying.

@degerrit

4 жыл бұрын

@@tannermcnabb4836 totally agree. Especially considering how the film is composed: a climate denier / renewables sceptic can watch the first half of the movie, and basically stop there w/o facing any difficult topics addressing his or her own consumption patterns. How super-convenient of Mr. Moore!

@PistonAvatarGuy

4 жыл бұрын

@@tannermcnabb4836 I agree, but there's is hope in nuclear energy, which is also something that the filmmakers are against.

@thepepperlanders

4 жыл бұрын

"especially in the west" ??? Are you delusional? China now adds the equivalent of a United States in CO2 emissions to the planet every 8 years. Most of the growth in emissions is in the developing world. The U.S. and Europe could go to ZERO and those emissions would be replaced in a decade by the rest of the world. China is also emitting ozone destroying fluorocarbons in violation of current treaties.

@michaelpettit1502

4 жыл бұрын

Michael Duffy I usually don’t reply to people who indulge in name calling but I agree that I also should have included ChinaThat said, this isn’t just about emissions, it’s about consumption causing destruction of eco systems, proliferation of waste etc - a lot more is going wrong than climate change.

Noted. But at the end of the day Michael was very correct in saying "renuable energy is aimed at preserving our way of life not our planet". We need to learn to live with less and somehow slow down population growth in order to save our beautiful planet.

This is one video on this channel that I can whole-heartedly endorse. (That is not always the case.) My main criticism would probably be that there is too much emphasis on facts and sources being outdated. That's not the main problem, and it's a mistake to play it up too much. In 2010, the existing reality did not look as persuasive WRT renewable energy and other solutions, but for anyone really watching, it was clear where the trends were heading, and there was no excuse for the kind of treatment that this film applies. For example, one of the main figures in this film is Ozzie Zehner (probably largely unknown even to most people watching this video), and his one book, which anticipates many of the points in the movie, I think came out in 2011. These claims have been kicking around for quite a while. The situation is a bit analogous to the sensation created by The Population Bomb when it appeared in 1968. The percentage rate of population growth in global population, and the fertility rate, had already peaked and started declining, and numerous countries had already largely gone through their demographic transition. There was no excuse for ignoring those developments, even then. Likewise, there is no excuse for ignoring or disparaging the transitions now under way, which have been a really long time in coming, but which are now essentially unstoppable.

I feel you have completely missed the point of the message. We cannot possibly find a sustainable way to continue our consumption rate. That is all

@achenarmyst2156

4 жыл бұрын

You will find very few environmentalists who wouldn’t agree on that. But it‘s nevertheless BS to discredit the sustainable energy sources we have and desperately need!

@lynnmoss2127

4 жыл бұрын

@@achenarmyst2156 how can it be BS to discredit a source of hope that is false? And unsustainable

@lynnmoss2127

4 жыл бұрын

Achenar Mist your writing is dilute and nonsensical. I am likely older than you, yet our age, or anyone's age, has no bearing on this issue; if anything, the youngsters may have an advantage of a clearer view, but let us not muddy what is at hand here: the argument for casting a critical eye on how our (mostly) self-serving and corrupt leadership is throwing money at smoke-and-mirror solutions. We cannot rely on a capitalist system to be moral. We cannot expect a self-serving design to do 'research' and find solutions that will relieve them of profits, and more importantly, their power. A system that honors only money cannot serve the One. We are all One with the One. This concept may yet be beyond you, and I do not care to work at continuing a conversation with someone not willing to be open. Sorry, I need more practice with that

Thank you so much for this critique of the film.

@michaelbrown865

4 жыл бұрын

Really, you prefer to listen to a stores project manager with no engineering or climate change qualifications, who's never worked in heavy industry or indeed the energy industry ? @t

@haxi52

4 жыл бұрын

@@michaelbrown865 And Jeff Gibbs / Micheal Moore have? Maybe I missed that part. Point is, anyone with a bit of internet access can do their own research to find out the film is outdated, among many other flaws.

@PaulM852

4 жыл бұрын

@@haxi52 What part is outdated of covering thousands of acres in solar farms wiping out desert habitats? What part is outdated of having to replace massive wind ansolar installations after 20 years?

@TheGandorX

4 жыл бұрын

@@haxi52 I have internet access and i do my own research daily. The critique is a mix of nitpicking and lacking in specifics. The documentary makes an accurate point.

@haxi52

4 жыл бұрын

@@PaulM852 The video above notes every time something is out of date, so I won't repeat. All solar panels I can find today, that can be installed on my roof come with a 25 year warranty. Many will last 30+ years. I also get the feeling that solar panels installed in a 'field' would be rated to last longer. Same with wind turbines. Nothing lasts forever everything requires some sort of maintenance, and so the same is said for FF power plants. Parts of these plants have to be torn out and replaced with new parts, even more so because of how many more moving parts they have, plus burning things tend to break more often. In fact the typical coal plant will see on average 15% downtime during the year for said maintenance. A solar panel may not 'work' half the time because the sun doesn't always shine, but at least its not broken, requiring fixing/replacing, just wait for the sun to rise. No solution is perfect, but its obvious which is better.

I appreciate your insightful viewpoint and and am thankful for you posting this. The video really has many parts that are, as you say, "Rubbish"! Using outdated video with no explanation for many of their claims is underhanded to say the least. It is curious that this film didn't post any current data on the worldwide adoption of renewable energies and very disappointing coming from this group of supposed environmentalists. Thanks again for posting this Dave.

I finally watched Planet. I knew it was alternate energy arguments I didn't want to hear. But here's my thought. I watched the windmills go in on a windy hillside over the Snake River where I loved to stop at night to rest on the drive home from Spokane, enjoy the stars and watch the snowy owls soundlessly swoop down the canyon. Now you can't see the stars for all the lights on the windmills and, of course, there are no more owls. I guess if you live in an apartment in the city you are used to light and noise. I listened to the local naysayers when the windmill blades began rolling down our little main street and I argued in support of alternate energy. Today, however, I tend to agree with some of those farmers. We are taking up too much space.That is ultimately the message of Planet. We face not a matter of population density, but of greed,. I was born in 1947. The post WWII boom. I watched the plastic show from Tupperware parties to disposables, from syringes to fence posts. I watched as plastic recycling got undermined. The problem isn't the water bottles in Indonesia but the micro plastics in our water and soil. This conundrum is the same problem as what energy solutions have offered so far: Consumption at the expense of countless other beings. Can we survive without power or plastic? Or will we go on destroying our home? We need to get in touch with the earth and appreciate the miracle of life. Everything changes constantly. So, yes, we're still working on solutions, but the question remains, who benefits as we go down this road? Industry will point out how wonderful the improvements are because they have to sell ideas to fund them. Who profits? And how recyclable is an 80 ton windmill when it no longer works? Maybe the owls will nest there.

Thanks for your great review. I think the film makers were in fact quite ingenious in using old data and not providing any solutions to the problem. The facts can be debunked easily, but the first impact of the message still gets through. They are fighting against the most deceitful enemy at the end of Pandora`s box: hope. Hope that following this path will be enough to preserve our way of living, that it is somehow possible that technology will allow us to continue both to increase our numbers and our consumption. Hope that everything will be fine. Everything will not be fine. We are headed into the mother of all storms and all efforts are being made to avoid it and none being made to weather it the best we can.

@JustHaveaThink

4 жыл бұрын

Hi Alfredo. Thanks for your feedback. I agree with you, but I also think we're suffering from such extreme polarisation (induced , in my view, by American party politics) that we are becoming unable to see a compromise position on anything in modern life. We are indeed headed for a pretty unpleasant ride through the rest of the 21st Century, as you rightly point out. Renewables are the not the complete solution, but they are an essential part of the overall mix.

@PaulM852

4 жыл бұрын

Data that's 5 to 10 years old is not too old. What it shows is a predilection for renewable energy proponents to go into denial, avoid the truth and the facts, and jump headlong into technologies that are unproven, environmentally damaging and loaded with incredibly deep, serious flaws, such as the glaring intermittency problem needing to be supported by matching capacity brand-new natural-gas fired plants. Mr. Must Have a Think loves to cherry pick and completely fails to address the numerous damning flaws to renewable energy.

Thank you for making a factual and rational review of the most infuriating and misleading documentary I have ever seen. You make clear fact based points with current data. I work in the renewable energy industry and appreciated this. Well done. Love your work. 🙌

@JustHaveaThink

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you Franceska. I appreciate that. Keep up your good work too :-)

Thoughtful, respectful and just bang on.

That the whole project is being probed , interrogated and criticized is turning out to be a healthy thing i believe...even though appearing to be destructive at first. Where the film points out that the bulk of our problem resides in our appetite for consuming it's more or less laudable.

That movie really got to you, "that's rubbish man, really rubbish", certainly heartfelt words there at the end. Of course you are right and I don't know if your ending was scripted, I think not, but let's hope Jeff & Moore watch your review. I shall see if I can dig up their contacts and forward your review. An excellent response to their biased and ancient offering.

@jyreHeffron

4 жыл бұрын

I agree... Dave has a wonderfully humble and personal style, I really appreciate his sincerity and clarity...

@paintedwings74

4 жыл бұрын

Seems to me that Dave's one who can't cope with the idea that there is no way to survive our total self-destruction, which is what all the climate and ecological disaster stuff adds up to. It really did get to him, so he focuses on point-by-point problems with the specific details, rather than understanding the ultimate point of the film. That palm oil plantations are not necessary is not the point at the end ... the point is, this is what we keep doing, as humans, saying "This is renewable," or "that is healthy," and then whatever the latest fad is (palm oil was touted as sustainable for a long time there) leads to exploitation and destruction.

@kaitlyn__L

4 жыл бұрын

@@paintedwings74 but climate fatalism pushes you to just think we're all doomed and why bother doing anything anyway. There are still large steps we can take, although it involves becoming politically organised and applying political pressure whenever you can. As said in the video, we can't prevent climate change anymore, but we can try and minimise its effects. We probably lost our chance to actually prevent it in the 80s or 90s, but that doesn't mean we just give up and die now. It's only the interests of large corporations and the capital invested behind them that keep us on these destructive paths, the majority of people support wide-reaching changes, but there is only so much that changing your buying habits alone can do - after all, even with people at home with the pandemic, their electricity use has gone up, but all of the industry on pause has resulted in a net lower power consumption. So until we can change the ways industry uses and sources power, personal lifestyle changes can only accomplish so much. That's not to say they're pointless, absolutely switch your electricity to 100% renewables if you can, in many countries it's cheaper than any fossil provided electricity contract now, but we MUST have the political will too. And we don't foster political will by saying "humans are terrible and hopeless and we'll destroy everything and we should just die and get what's coming to us". That's a false view anyway, since it's only these companies pushing us in this direction, not humanity as a whole. All of humanity shouldn't have to pay the price for the minority of us who run and control large companies with interests in fossil fuels, or destructive farming (soy plantations are just as much an issue as palm oil), destructive mining, and so forth. It may seem like such a large political change is required that it'll never happen, but people probably couldn't imagine the end of feudalism when they were living it either. Many countries no longer have monarchies at all. Large scale political change IS possible, but it's only by keeping up determination and stubbornness, and avoiding giving into grief and fatalism, by which we can achieve it.

@MsReasonableperson

4 жыл бұрын

@@kaitlyn__L I kind of thought that was the point of Jeff's film. We can do something but, to be successful , we need to do that thing or things that will be effective and not pretend that what we are doing now is enough or even very effective over all.

@kaitlyn__L

4 жыл бұрын

@counselthyself oh honey, I'm not in America, I'm in the UK. But I will shamelessly leverage any and all privilege I possess to pressure for changes as much as I can.

Hopefully it’s considered rebuttals like this that will garner more attention than Moore’s pathetic schtick. Many thanks.

@rossmcleod7983

4 жыл бұрын

counselthyself just read his dust jackets. Wish I hadn’t.

@rossmcleod7983

4 жыл бұрын

counselthyself I have some sympathy for that rather poisonous view. Dr. Smil is quite interesting though. I wasn’t aware of him till now. Thanks for the heads up.

@alokraj3128

4 жыл бұрын

Reptiles change their skins from time to time. This is called moulting. Michael Moore chose this time to moult because he is endowed with more foresight than his brother greens.Now the rest of you greens can choose - do you have foresight are are you diehards? Remember also that a freshly moulted snake is more energetic and vicious

Having just had a think I conclude that this video is more up to date and balanced than the movie that it reviews. Well done.

@senianns9522

10 ай бұрын

As an engineer involved with Solar energy for most of my life, I can confirm that to this day the most efficient Solar array systems on the planet , in the most sun drenched areas can only produce a maximum efficiency of 27% --hopefully!

Thanks to Chavdar Naidenov for pointing out the 'offset credits' bit!

Great work. Thank you for doing this. I was gutted when Planet of the Humans came out. Back in 2008 I attended a talk with Michael Moore at the Cannes Film festival where I was in charge of a recycling team for the festival. Moore said he followed a recycling truck in his area and it just went straight to the dump. He was really skeptical of green efforts and said he would one day do a documentary to expose the movement. I guess he finally did it. I lost many of my volunteers that day.

@HiddenAgendas777

4 жыл бұрын

you will be happy with debunk kzread.info/dash/bejne/kXqcqZpxftm6qNI.html

Dave's new film could be titled, "Planet of the Honest Truth"! Thanks again for providing an honest assessment of our current global conditions regarding renewable energy.

offset credits??? if they used CO2 generating power source at the event...it is still that.

@dnickaroo3574

3 жыл бұрын

"The Planet of the Humans" stated that the Solar Energy Events were attended 10 years apart -- that should be stated in this video.

@GurgaGeorgiTaylor

3 жыл бұрын

D Nickaroo ~ just backpedding even in Bitcoin Blockchain isn’t gonna change the FActs! Our Carbon Footprint is the measure & the #’s quadrupled w/actions of Rain firrests and then leaving the land like Rapist would has been done by a FEW and no need to name them WE all know - they’re not just doing it with our resources but enonomy finance dports research etc,, same names snd their buddies all in it as if Somehow they’re immune🩸 Someone pls get /save some kids from Cobalt holes & switch places with whoever put them there!? See if makes it all ok then! Bring all refugees to their homes and back yards ti see if its ok? What year it happens? Ridiculous logic deserves NOT my time or energy!

@yamafanboy

3 жыл бұрын

Shash THAT'S the point everyone isn't getting. At the end of the day nothing is being saved by throwing the word "renewables" around because it may be renewable but it sure as shit isn't sustainable.

The festival example is still relevant. Look what happened in Texas during Feb 2021.

Difficult to know who to trust on either side of this argument, for those who they seek to influence? Vested interests abound!

@lengould9262

2 жыл бұрын

Trust information you personally understand, or from people you have personal reasons to trust. I've worked in the electricity industry for enough decades, and studied enough physics, to know that the speaker here knows what he's speaking about. And is speaking honestly.

@richardmcdonald7565

2 жыл бұрын

No, it's NOT difficult at all, (unless you have no experience with solar energy... and alternative, renewable energy, or science in general, and didn't really listen to the presentation Dave just gave you.) Just THINK about it, Mark

@richardmcdonald7565

2 жыл бұрын

Trolls comments create shadows of doubt. Stop it. believe in the TRUTH.

@MarkDaleADV

2 жыл бұрын

@@richardmcdonald7565 I was speaking about the target audience(For those that they seek to influence) for both the film, and the review of it Richard, not my own personal standpoint.I have my reservations about the film, and about this review, because I personally do have the tools to judge, and I find them both guilty of pushing an agenda. The presenter doesn't appeared to have comprehended the story the film maker is telling, and dismisses some irrelevant points as if scoring points over him, when nothing is further from the truth. If you don't see this then I suggest YOU, should pay closer attention. I acknowledge it is extremely difficult to maintain an open mind, when one has made it up.

I think you may have missed the point of the film-questioning the real outcome of theses 'green' industries- I also had alot of hope, but the extent to which the natural world has been destroyed in the aim of making photovoltaic and 'clean tech'. It's not renewable..it's not sustainable, it's only the 'promise' of keeping our current lifestyle, only short term.

@allanbeesey1006

4 жыл бұрын

It was reported here and elsewhere that the amount used for making solar cells for one construction, is far far lower than ongoing, daily burning of fossil fuels to make heat for electricity.

@bleepbloop101010101

4 жыл бұрын

Renewable energy ultimately comes from the Sun, and these forms of energy conversion aim to harness that. It is by definition renewable, and is the only long term solution. Short term solutions include coal (which is killing us) and nuclear (a much better short term solution) since both of them are finite in human terms. We cannot make more coal or fissionable materials.

@michaelbrown865

4 жыл бұрын

@@bleepbloop101010101 Funny, tbe EU have just declassified oil and gas as fossil fuels, only solids i.e coal and lignite are now fossil fuels, reality is renewables are expensive and the infrastructure is expensive and needs replacing. It's why Germany are falling out of live with it

@bleepbloop101010101

4 жыл бұрын

@@michaelbrown865 Those forms of energy are greater polluters to climate change than renewables in the long run. Renewable efficiency is constantly improving, it makes sense to bring up Germany as a bad example since it started its transition 20 years ago and a lot of footage and information in this doc is 10-20 years out of date too. Current renewable technology is much more efficient and making investments now is more valid. It's funny how this doc never mentions switching to nuclear as the alternative while we improve the feasibility of renewables.

@KlausBahnhof

4 жыл бұрын

@@bleepbloop101010101 Fuck nuclear.

the footage may be old and outdated but that's just how you produce a movie and get what you need to make story without gaps. That doesn't automatically mean his conclusions of the environmental movement is incorrect.

You know if they hired some "debunkers" there is something to be seen in it they dont want you to see.

But the 2005 footage is meant to represent the beginning of the personal history of Jeff Gibbs poking about. It is NOT meant to represent the current accurate data. My take-aways: !1.Gibbs opines changing human uber-consumption will be more effective than more developing green tech. 2. He exposes that some environmental media celebrities appear on the take from large interested corporations.

@captaron

4 жыл бұрын

Not much has changed. Solar is still a supplementary power supported by coal natural gas and/or nuclear. Sure they can have an even powered by solar but this is not the case in cities. Even if solar had the output it can't have it 24 hours so it will require batteries to support the network. Not to mention all the extra infrastructure required to have solar to work with the grids and damages incurred from supplementing the grid.

@rtfazeberdee3519

4 жыл бұрын

ROFLMAO - green tech is mainly for removing pollution, nothing to so with consumerism.

@captaron

4 жыл бұрын

​@@rtfazeberdee3519 lol how do you think they sell green energy. You heard of investors lmfao this stuff aint free...

@rtfazeberdee3519

4 жыл бұрын

@@captaron who said it was free? With some exceptions power can be free if you make the capital investment in solar panels and a battery for your house...

@captaron

4 жыл бұрын

@@rtfazeberdee3519 you said green tech is nothing to do with consumerism lmfao. Sounds like marketing to me. You can even sell your power to the grid...

Excellent dissection without judgement. Being from Michigan, Moore's movies usually make you stop and think but,this view was so fatalist that I seen holes in it after the credits rolled. Seeing now the age of the content and the meandering theme does nothing for credibility. If this film was 10 years in the making surely more recent work was needed. My opinion is that this was old clips thrown together under the guise of a documentary film. Sorry Michael........

@TheSateef

4 жыл бұрын

i was very skeptical watching the movie because of its lack of data presented

@KevinBalch-dt8ot

4 жыл бұрын

The use of 10-15 year old footage is not a serious as it is made out here. While solar panels are somewhat more efficient, they are now only about 20% efficient. The big problem is that the earth rotates and has an atmosphere with water vapor. The drop in panel costs is probably approaching its limits with current technology and slave labor costs in China. By the way, solar is great for rooftops (I have it). For utility scale, not so much.

@jthadcast

4 жыл бұрын

i'm really sick of the "that is old news" critique. the fkn IPCC just produced a report that confirms the majority of what is in that film. they new data didn't help up, things got worse over the past 10 years. remember Paris?

@tortysoft

4 жыл бұрын

@@jthadcast Still, no excuse for not trying.

@coreys2686

4 жыл бұрын

@@jthadcast it diverting attention away from the good that is happening. UK is now going weeks without burning coal for electricity. That hasn't happened since like 1858 or something. Solar and battery storage is good for distributed power. That used to be a thing. If you have solar on your roof that provides enough for you to power you house and store power overnight, or a few days of low light, that reduces the amount of centralized generation you need. Here's a thought for you: You put solar panels on the roofs of the places people work at. They charge their EVs during the day. Most have enough power to drive for several days between charging. When people get home they plug their EV into their home, and that all but eliminates peak demand. Grid level storage is being proven to work. Puerto Rico, South Australia. I think there was a natural gas peaker plant in New Jersey or Boston that was being replaced by a massive battery facility. Gigawatt class. And its doesn't have to be Li-ion either. Flow batteries and molten sodium are excellent for storing energy. Aluminium smelters are basically massive thermal batteries.

To the people who complained about science paper are locked behind paywall, as a scientist in-training, I agree. Here is how you can get around it: 1) Sci-hub: there are a lot of website like this but you can use this to gain access to the articles 2) Contact the Authors: The Authors gets NOTHING from you buying the articles. Only the publisher gain money, not the Author. Any author of their paper would love to hear from you and will be more than willing to give you their original copy of the article. They are allowed to give out free copies, but not publish their own copies.

You showed a nice graph demonstrating that most of the world's population growth is occurring in countries with low per capita emissions. The trouble with that line of reasoning is that most of those people aspire to live like us and one day buy fridges, washing machines, air conditioning etc. If they get their way (and I hope they do) then your argument that population growth is not a big part of the problem falls apart. I don't want to sound too critical because I really enjoy your shows.

@grindupBaker

4 жыл бұрын

Yes....And......"Robert Grant" typed "Infinite growth on a finite world is obviously not sustainable". ------------------- Separate issues. Conflation of the long-term philosophical issue with the immediate need to stop the relentless heating of Earth's ecosphere is an utter joy to the fossil-carbon-burning wealth-deriving persons and those persons wanting to make zero/minimal effort to get the job done because it might reduce their fun, because it does 2 great things for them (1) Causes general confusion of what's it all about (the relentless heating) and (2) Causes delay in getting the relentless heating stopped because it all gets massively more complicated with endless discussion about population, consumption, who is "worth" much more than who else. In other words, human stuff is, by definition, non-solvable because it's internal negotiation but the relentless heating is obvious and solvable. Confusion & delay are the hoped-for goals of the shitty Planet of The Humans movie (the movie shitty, not the Planet, sorry for the Confusion & delay I just caused). Even if it's unintentional due to brain fog of the persons who made/presented that shitty movie, or that their personal aggrandizement or wealth was all that mattered to them, it's still the hoped-for goal. ------------------- All of you who aren't coal/oil shill-fuckwits (or Russian oil trolls, whatever) know perfectly well that confusion by irrelevance, failure to explain fractional importance, other forms of disinformation such as what "uncertainty" means and outright lying in order to cause maximum delay was the strategy outlined in the ExxonMobil memo and funded by the Kochs & others. All that DELIBERATE disinformation might wear thin over time, so now added to it is "Don't make a Herculean effort to stop the relentless heating of Earth's ecosphere because it's actually this long-term, much-larger intractable problem that's the real problem and that's the urgent one to deal with". Since arse holes like Guy McPherson, Michael Moore, Whatsit Gibbs & The Other Idiot know perfectly well that ~no human is going to kill him/herself in order to give the other humans & the other Life a better deal then they know perfectly well that participating in "Divide & Conquer" and causing big confusion by conflating the long-term philosophical goal for humans about Life, The Universe & Everything with the urgent need to stop the relentless heating of Earth's ecosphere by stopping burning carbon will do nothing for at least the next couple of decades and probably more like several decades other than really, really help out the stinking, lying vested interests who don't give a monkey's fuck about the future costs to other humans of what they are INTENTIONALLY doing.

@annefurman33

2 жыл бұрын

8 billion humans are living on a planet which can sustainably support 1.5 to 2 billion. As the forests and grasslands are laid waste, the water is pumped out of the aquifers, and the oceans are depleted, it will be apparent that we have destroyed our biosphere.

According to the IPCC, life cycle carbon emissions per MW-hour of solar photovoltaic systems are four times higher than nuclear. Solar thermal systems are twice as high as nuclear but solar thermal has been a failure where it has been trued on a utility scale. The Crescent Dunes plant touted in the video had a planned capacity factor of 51.9% when designed in 2016 but as of 2018 only reached a capacity factor of 20.3%. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project

@ahaveland

4 жыл бұрын

On the other hand, a solar spill is just a nice day.

@turningpoint4238

4 жыл бұрын

As an ex nuclear operative as far as I've seen nothing leads me to believe fission is the way forward in the foreseeable future. It's to dam expensive and doesn't look like it'll get any cheaper. Were as most of the renewables and associated tech the cost has been falling dramatically and doesn't seem to be slowing.

@groovalotfunk4147

4 жыл бұрын

Geothermal!!! Also we need to end capitalism if we want to survive rather than overproduce and over-consume.

@Noises

3 жыл бұрын

cool, I take it you're volunteering to store the nuclear waste in your back yard then. Or maybe you were planning on moving to Fukushima or Chernobyl to prove how clean nuclear energy is? No? why is that?

I've been subscribed to this channel for some time now and whilst it's not the first channel that I click on to get my hit of KZread entertainment, it is by far the most informative, well researched, meaningful and well presented source of information that matters. I highly value it's content. Bravo and Thank You.

Some of your statistics in the UK are based on people charging at home, which is fair for travellers. The difference is almost zero or equivalent at public charging stations, which is a big problem for anyone who can't charge at home. As an EV driver, I can confirm this, and the infrastructure is just not adequate for the tiny proportion of EVs on the road now. The price of fast charging is often most comparable to the cost of filling up with petrol. For example, if you’re charging a vehicle with a bigger battery like a Tesla Model S (with a 100 kWh battery capacity) at £0.62 per kWh with a £2.00 charging fee, a full charge will cost roughly £64. If time is money then there is little difference you can of course plan more and sit for an hour and sweat over range anxiety every time your on a road trip hoping that when you get to a charger there is not someone already there or it is functioning or you have the right app for charging I have over 6 apps and payment plans just to have a chance of charging at free and working chargers. Great if you can charge at home and have a large capacity battery and your commute is within 80% of your range capacity. I have since moved back to a Hybrid simply to reduce stress and be assured I don't have delays but can plan to use battery 70% of the time.

Your use of up to date facts bring clarity to the argument. The movement of supporters of solar and wind energy, electric vehicles and battery storage are making a difference, while the biomass crowd are fooling no intelligent conservationist. Thanks for this factual correction.

Sustainable = can we replace what we use? For that it needs to be bred or grown. The materials needed for "sustainable" energy systems cannot be grown or bred. They must be mined and/or recycled (where you'll lose material). Not forgetting that mining and recycling requires energy that needs to be added from outside the process because that you cannot capture back/recycle from the previous goods made from that material. Recycling is always a losing method, you cannot get everything back, and that is a problem in a growing population/growing demand for goods. Sustainable as in use of limited resources can work for a shrinking population that demands less of those resources, but not the other way around. Our technology is no solution as it is resource intensive and getting more so.

@incognitotorpedo42

4 жыл бұрын

Our technology is getting less resource intensive, not more. Google "dematerialization". I think you are underestimating the amount of metals and other materials on and in our planet. We've barely scratched the surface. We will eventually shrink our population. That definitely needs to happen, and I hope I live long enough to see it.

@catprog

4 жыл бұрын

So growing your own food is a losing method as it requires energy from outside the system?

Thanks for this. The best take-down of this dismal film that I’ve heard so far and the closest to angry I’ve seen you get. When it’s so difficult to get even-handed and intelligent information, this channel is a real gift.

@ili626

4 жыл бұрын

tim coombe You can criticize the film’s details, but it’s overarching message is correct - we are in a crisis because tech solutions have failed. It doesn’t matter that these solutions have improved since the film was made, because the crisis has intensified during those years as well. It’s a huge failure, because our tech-fantasy has ignored our underlying social realities and basic limitations. This is a social and consumption issue. The whole point of these tech solutions was to mitigate consumption, but they have merely become another industry within our suicidal economic system. Elon Musk knows this, hence his absurd and desperate Mars obsession.

@timcoombe

4 жыл бұрын

Tom, I can’t disagree with you. There were serious points made by the film, but it’s out of date inaccuracies and insistence on attacking the wrong people, Bill McKibben in particular, really got on my nerves. It’s also given the big oil lobby a nice new piece of ammo with which to attack the environmental movement. Totally irrelevant, but the film did use two great pieces of music. The Enemy God Dances with the Black Spirit and In The Court of the Crimson King.

@ili626

4 жыл бұрын

tim coombe That’s a good point regarding giving the oil industry ammo. Yes, it’s unfortunate about the inaccuracies, and overall is harmful. Sometimes it seems that Michael Moore’s strategy - and Jeff Gibbs by extension - is to draw attention through some unconventional or shocking information or slant, at the expense of boring facts. Anyway.. yeah I agree the music selection was pretty good.

@incognitotorpedo42

4 жыл бұрын

@@ili626 I disagree. Tech solutions haven't failed. They haven't been sufficiently implemented. This is a political problem. Tech solutions were not mainly to mitigate consumption, they were to address climate change, which they do. A side benefit of our improving technology is that we now use LESS material per capita than we used to, not more.

@ili626

4 жыл бұрын

IncognitoTorpedo I like your point regarding it as a political problem. That’s definitely true. I think you misunderstood why I say tech was meant to mitigate consumption. I was referring to reducing consumption of fossil fuels. But yes, I agree that the tech that has been developed has not been fully implemented due to regressive politics and therefore it may not be fair to judge that tech as having “failed” on its own. I would include the absence of the latest thorium reactor designs among the tech innovations that have been stifled by powerful regressive political forces. Nevertheless, I stand by my main point - that even if tech was allowed to fully flourish, we would still need to account for inherent limits to economic growth and consumption of Earth’s resources in general for any realistic response to the climate crisis. Unlimited growth just wont work regardless of tech

Are you really contending that the movie was anti-solar power because he talked about how it uses coal and creates CO2? Also, those solar panels do wear out over time and generate less and less power. They said the solar panels operate for 20 years ... how reliable is that number really. A nuclear power plant doesn't need inputs either and operates for 40 years - or more.

@showdybamza8587

2 жыл бұрын

Great point

@justgivemethetruth

2 жыл бұрын

@@showdybamza8587 Doesn't take up nearly the real estate and is much more energy dense.

6:54 Electricity isn't a power source! It's a byproduct of something else! So how is all this electricity for these plug in vehicles produced!

The film could use a good expert team to improve its argument specially on wind and solar. On biomass it's absolutely bang on. We have biomass based fuel production projects in halt due to lack of interest from investors due to public perception issue on such feedstocks (2nd generation i.e. waste biomass) sourcing from soft woods. So right or wrong, the issue is known amongst climate activists and public domain. Same goes with used cooking oil conversion to biofuels. How do you know if the UCO is actually what it claims when it's mainly sourced from non-trandparent countries?

@richardmcdonald7565

2 жыл бұрын

First, you just have a think.... and then you do some research. (we all need to decide what we think, and work to live by our convictions)

(I made a few comments and decided to collect them together here.) I don't see much in JHAT's critique that makes a heck of a lot of a difference, and nothing at all that negates the point of the documentary. I do think the documentary was sloppy - it could've easily been better thought-through and had corrections made, avoiding a lot of criticism. Anyway, here are the things I disagree with JHAT on: 02:58 - About this data from IRENA showing the falling average cost of energy from solar and wind, making it the cheapest electricity source in most places. It's not made clear to what extent this factors-in the energy and resources used to produce and install this technology. (Including mining, environmental damage/cleanup, transport, construction, maintenance, end-of-life recycling, etc., for the _entire_ process. I don't know, maybe that stuff's accounted for in IRENA's figures, maybe it's not - but isn't it important to be clear one way or the other?) And what would be the environmental implications of replacing our entire energy infrastructure with green tech? (By asking these questions, I'm _not_ advocating non-renewables, I'm pointing out the necessity of de-growth. Renewables _can_ be a part of de-growth. But the mainstream is not discussing de-growth - just the opposite.) 14:50 - Here's an article about the Lowell Mountains project from 2013 - it seems fairly well balanced, with points and opinions from both sides. Personally, if someone tried doing that to untouched native flora and fauna where I live, I'd do my best to protect that nature by getting in the way. vtdigger.org/2013/07/04/lowell-mountains-wind-project-the-great-divider/ 24:15 - This bit about population not being such a serious issue because we could feed everyone if food was managed differently, is misleading. It's misleading because it suggests that feeding everyone is the only major issue with a large population. But it isn't. There are other factors like over-exploitation of non-food resources, pollution, and the loss of habitat for wild flora and fauna (accelerating as our numbers grow and the climate changes). We can't exist without biodiversity, and we can't keep using up diminishing resources. It's not just about food. (In before racism: yes, it's westerners like me doing most of the damage... and to name it exactly: colonialism, capitalism, and consumerism are the enemy, not people.) trmusson.dreamhosters.com/didyouknow.html Actually, part of the mess around the documentary is prolly that most people still think in terms of "climate change" being the problem, and "battling climate change" as being the way out. But it's just one symptom of something else: the way we do things. BTW, most of the folks who founded Extinction Rebellion have pointed out here and there that XR is not about the climate. For example: medium.com/extinction-rebellion/extinction-rebellion-isnt-about-the-climate-42a0a73d9d49 23:15 - Look in the mirror: you're a middle-aged 1st-world white guy apparently defending the (continuing) system of colonisation, economic slavery, and exploitation that's responsible for this mess. And you're accusing these other people of racism, based on... what? Where did _they_ suggest anything remotely racist? 24:10 - The interviewees didn't suggest anyone should be "eradicated" - that was an intentionally misleading word. 25:45 - It's disingenuous to imply that the closing scene, showing some of the devastation caused by the palm oil industry, was anything other than tying the big picture (and the point of the documentary) together - the basic fact that we're continuing with business as usual on a finite planet. If this way of life is what we use renewables to support, it's all hopeless. Edit: Some really good related articles recently: "Beyond a climate of comfortable ignorance" (Kevin Anderson and Isak Stoddard, June 8, 2020) theecologist.org/2020/jun/08/beyond-climate-comfortable-ignorance "Unequal Impact: The Deep Links Between Racism and Climate Change" (Elizabeth Yeampierre and Beth Gardiner, June 9, 2020) e360.yale.edu/features/unequal-impact-the-deep-links-between-inequality-and-climate-change "‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists" (June 8, 2020) voiceofaction.org/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/

@michaelbrown865

4 жыл бұрын

He's a project stores manager FFS, he's not qualified to comment on this he's just promoting his own bias www.linkedin.com/in/david-borlace-39a87925/?originalSubdomain=uk

@Deebz270

4 жыл бұрын

Excellent rebuttle *Tmothy Musson.* I especially appreciate the link to XR's - Stuart Basden.

@Deebz270

4 жыл бұрын

@@michaelbrown865 - Thanks for the heads-up on Mr Borlace. It kind of confirmss my growing misgivings about the chap.

@michaelbrown865

4 жыл бұрын

@@Deebz270You're welcome. I'm not anti renewables as i work in both oil and gas and rebewables but we have to be honest and realistic about energy. www.thegwpf.com/economic-emergency-eu-declares-oil-and-gas-are-no-longer-fossil-fuels/

@geraldbalzano431

4 жыл бұрын

@@michaelbrown865 big fuckin' deal, you jackass; address his INFORMATION instead of your lame innuendoes

Excellent critique. Have shared. I am with Ecotricity. Is this the best Eco energy provider in the UK? I am a council tenant with a flat roof. But I've not been able to find a way to get direct solar, Yes. Any thoughts on this?

Thank you for making this video. I was nothing but depressed after watching Planet of the Humans. I knew there had to be more to the story than what was being portrayed. Keep up the great work "Just Have A Think"!!

Those of us who know better were kind of horrified by this documentary. I made it halfway through while keeping a running commentary correcting things. I basically got tired of pausing the video to edit my comment. The problem is that the people who watched the documentary will never see videos like this one. People should not form opinions based on ANY single source of information.

@stephenievee1126

Жыл бұрын

Well I did.

Brilliant stuff once again. What we need now is for all those who watched Planet of the humans to also watch this.

@dnickaroo3574

3 жыл бұрын

We must avoid the truth -- AT ALL COSTS.

Quite possibly the calmest, best researched and presented response I’ve seen

I'd love if you made a follow-up video addressing the top comments.

Tackling over-population does not mean that we have to kill people already alive. It means that we have to tackle uncontrolled birth rate. Jeff is right about the growth of population being the root of all environmental problems.

@alokraj3128

4 жыл бұрын

Absolutely right. The steady population rate is 2.1 births per female. Bring it down to 1.7 or so for a couple of decades - across nations, societies, religions, sub-nations, by law. Do not use force. Just deny social security, affirmative action, subsidies, free education, voting rights, etc to those who disobey. Restore the rate to 2.1 when populations fall to desired level. At the root of all our problems is overpopulation, exacerbated by competitive over-breeding between muslims & christians and proselytisation by them among destitute societies. When, as now, this competition is controlled unevenly, both these supremacist abrahamic religions cheat, in the hope of eventual dominance. These laws will also release preachers from competitive pseudo-employment and force them to contribute to their national GDP

@sandponics

4 жыл бұрын

@@alokraj3128 To reduce the population all you need to do is educate people. This is proven by the fact that on average, educated people have fewer children no matter what country they live in. There is a very interesting KZread video made by a very entertaining statistician that clearly shows this to be true. kzread.info/dash/bejne/eHV3rZSknqaWaKg.html

@ic.xc.

4 жыл бұрын

Europe is suffering from decline in birthrate. The only country above the line is Albania. It is a huge problem, not necessarily a 'positive' progression. Unless you want to import lots of refugees who don't care about overpopulation and are way above the European birthrate.

@ic.xc.

4 жыл бұрын

@@alokraj3128 To say 'not use force', is not gonna cut it _no pun intended._ You would have to go tell countries in the Middle East, stop reproducing, they'll give you the finger, then you have to invade and use force.

@rinnin

4 жыл бұрын

Or you can drastically reduce consumption by the 1% (i.e. that’s us & everyone having the privilege to be able to read this on KZread)

I would like to see some real thought given to the question of the use of biomass in places such as the boreal forest of Canada where there are regularly forest fires. Could better management of those forests cut down on the problems forest fires?

@JustHaveaThink

4 жыл бұрын

Hi Telford. There is certainly a place for a bit of biomass in the context of good forest stewardship, but when they are building power plants specifically to take biomass, and creating massive monocrop plantations (particularly in the Southern States) that have ripped out indignenous ecosystems, and that will deplete the soil of crucial nutrients over a few short years, then the balance is all out of whack and needs to be redressed.

@monkeyfist.348

4 жыл бұрын

Telford, I am out in Cape Breton, and Nova Scotia has had hundreds of years of constant forest clearing. What we all have to come to grips with is that our forests, as lush as they are, are inhospitable to wildlife one many levels now. We need a dynamic plan that restores forests to an old growth state. Which means lots of cutting, and laboursome cutting in that it needs to be selective. We will always have an excess of wood to burn. Biomass burning is geared to recover as much energy as possible. Biomass burning can also return fuel that can be used as airplanes. So some biomass burning is likely to exist, perhaps for that purpose only. Because burning that gas mostly negates any sequestration that might happen. All our efforts should be going into biochar, that becomes sequestered carbon once in the ground(even though it will only stay there for 500-1000 years). Biochar unfortunately does not return the same level of power generation at all. 🤞for improvements. What we are looking at, is a system of recovery, and reforestation that reflects the changing habitable zones that define species. Boreal forest will give way to mixed deciduous/evergreen forests, and accounting for disease, fungus, and insects will be a challenge even greater than raking the forest...😆 What we take out, we must return. Removal of all the dead trees and forest litter would be crucial to limiting forest fires. All effort into preventing mass burn events is vital to the equation that defines success. In coming decades, it will be the emissions from positive feedbacks that defines how much we can burn.

@m.e.345

4 жыл бұрын

I think it is possible that some day we could conceivably generate all our electricity from renewables, perhaps with some nuclear power, but for many, biomass constitutes a large amount of what is termed 'renewable energy'. Admittedly, the idea of burning biomass on a large scale is far from ideal; but when wood is harvested, new trees can use solar to take much of that carbon back out of the atmosphere, which is not the case if we burn coal. It seems to me very unlikely to me that humanity can rely on wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and hydro power to meet all of its energy needs. Also, to live sustainably on this planet, we need to reduce carbon emissions to the level at which the planet can reabsorb them, which is very low indeed. I agree that this movie contains many half-truths/misrepresentations, coupled with slanderous accusations against those who are doing much to address the problem of climate change.. But what is the solution?

@telfordpenfold18

4 жыл бұрын

M. K. Given that there are forest fires regularly in the boreal forest, it would seem to me that cutting down and burning the parts of the forests that are going to burn anyway and using that to create energy might be possible

@jamiefox54

4 жыл бұрын

Not an answer to the question, but just wanted to make this point because it is so little known: Trees growing in areas where there is a lot of snow lying on the ground absorb the sun light before it can get to the snow (and re-emit as infrared causing more warming). If you cut the trees down, light is reflected away and this cooling effect overwhelms the warming effect cause by burning the trees. In areas where there is long winters (4-6 months of snow on the ground) it's actually net beneficial from a climate change perspective to cut down trees and burn them. What I've just said is, in the scientific community, an undisputed consensus as far as I know.

Moore's film is chastised for being misleading. But the data that the organizations are very misleading as well. One of Moore's very valid points where he shows the hundreds of power plants that have been created, owned by companies that won't tolerate not having a profit, changing from burning coal, to burning forests. Some of the "bio fuels" come from local saw mills and other micro contributors, but you don't power a city with a shovel full of sawdust. It takes whole forests which make our situation even worse when they are destroyed. This video even backs up the film's main point that this is unsustainable. And yes, McKibben was bought out, and it is not even funny that he supported this type of energy. As far as the overpopulation problem goes, we are all consumers. Every tree and species that dies is a direct result of our expansion. We are absolutely in another mass extinction on the planet, and the population of human beings are the absolute cause of it. Trying to sugar coat our presence and saying that if we all just stop consuming so much and live like the poorest people in the world, we can all keep multiplying forever... Complete utter nonsense. What is Moore's message? We are in desperate times, and we need to take actions that are greater than any event that we have ever been involved in. What is the message presented in this film? "We got this, you have no need to worry. Go ahead, breed all you want. Use all the power you want because we are working on a solution that we think we can achieve one day." According to the spokesperson, 2012 was a lifetime ago. How many lifetimes will it be before we can save the planet? How many lifetimes does it have before it is too late? Something else the narrator doesn't even want to address. Bottom line, this video is a slap in the face of all those who are desperately working to get the attention this problem needs. We should just trust those in higher positions, and we don't need to worry. Sounds like what our politicians have been telling us for decades.

@dr.graves5541

4 жыл бұрын

@Ronjia-mette Nellemann I was deeply hurt by this film as well. But I would much rather know the truth, or not have truths hidden from me than to just think everything is ok. I wish it had offered solutions as well. We all like it when the good guy wins in the end of every movie. The bad guys are stomping our @sses right now, so I am wondering who the real victor will end up being in this flick. Maybe cock roaches will be the meek who inherit the earth after we destroy ourselves with our arrogance.

@aberdeenclimateaction3196

4 жыл бұрын

@Dr. Graves It seems you may have missed the point made in this video on biofuel; it covers the issue extensively, and acknowledges errors made by many. The word "Biofuel" originally grouped together under one title everything from waste and sewage digesters, corn ethanol, palm oil (Shell was developing plant based fuels in the 1970's, including this), private wood fires, as well as burning trees for electricity. This last source surfaced suddenly and separately, and in my recollection was pushed under the biofuel guise with general statements about specifically planted new forests, high carbon-absorption grasses such a miscanthus, etc. It took many, including many environmental activists, some time to realise the sudden infiltration of the environmental biofuel scene by a forestry industry seeking to create a global trade by destroying ancient woodland on a huge scale. They were (and are!) very successful in finding -and helping create- flaws in the "carbon reporting and offsetting" rules. This has since been exposed, though legislation is extremely slow to follow as the misunderstandings seem rather embedded. However disappointing, it is unavoidable that in an emergency situation where one must pursue all potential avenues before all the evidence is out, mistakes are made. Mistakes are for learning, and while it is fair game to criticise those who fail to learn from their mistakes, pulling historical yet revisited errors out of context is not an argument: it is called "shooting the messenger". Regarding you other point, over-population: the video i.m.o. does not say a reduced population wouldn't make things easier. However: 1) managing over-population requires long term measures, and if successful will achieve a slow response. Much work is done on this on many levels, often linked to better (global) universal health-care and economic/social security. And the figures presented in the video relating to child-birth and emissions per capita are extremely relevant in the climate change context. 2) Limiting the worst of Climate Change requires a strong response urgently, well beyond and well before any effects of over-population management. Therefore any attempt to *move* the conversation from climate change action and the conversion of the energy system to over-population is a red herring, ignoring *all* pertinent facts. While both conversations need to be (and are being) had, the energy conversation is both more urgent and more important. By all means, continue your conversation on global over-population somewhere, but by hi-jacking and then trying to undermine the global warming conversation for this purpose your views lose any value they may have been able to add.

@dr.graves5541

4 жыл бұрын

@@aberdeenclimateaction3196 I agree with your statement that they were and are finding flaws in the carbon reporting. It seems that profit has more influence on those numbers than anyone would dare to dream possible. There is virtually nothing off the table for utilizing and creating energy - as long as there is profit involved. It doesn't take a scientist who has worked on CO2 emissions for 50 years to see how biofuels are massively destructive to the planet. Maybe they aren't as bad as coal, but the many ways they are as bad, would be very difficult to ascertain. The health of the planet is far more complex than just the quality of the air. The soil from which life grows, needs the nutrition that we keep ripping away and substituting with chemicals, which find their way to water sources, and continue on to even more destruction. I would argue that providing this information then being hushed when arguing against biofuels is "shooting the messenger". This is exactly how the mistakes in bio-fuels have been made in the first place. Isolate the conversation to one point, and ignore the consequences that can happen as a direct result. And as for the population debate, I would like to say that the whole "red herring" argument, is dead, and really getting old and tired. It is like debating with pro-nazis and having them tell you that genocide is a red herring… Global warming and population are different topics, but they are absolutely linked completely from head to toe. I agree that the topic of energy is more important at the moment, but we as a specie, are going to have to come to terms with our actual reality. This is something that more than half of the people in the United States seem to be completely devoid of the ability to do. They are also the people who cannot stand to hear logical or scientific evidence that humanity is in any way harming the planet. They are so arrogant and ignorant that they claim the gutting of our one and only world as their right, and reward for being born. So maybe the details of energy are in urgent need of discussion, but our diets, population, and waste are all layers of that conversation that needs to be had. The first action that will need to take place should be in the form of CO2 emissions, but even if that were "solved", we would still be looking dead in the face of many other issues that could very well cause our own demise. Don't try to isolate the conversation because you don't agree with evidence of a corner of a conversation. In other words, pressing that we discuss global warming but insisting that the production of ethanol be completely out of the conversation and claiming that it de-values any argument that is made is not honest or beneficial to any cause. Education is our only hope. -Good luck in your efforts.

@darrenpat182

4 жыл бұрын

@Ronjia-mette Nellemann Globally, adopting molten salt nuclear reactors like that designed by Alvin Weinberg for energy production, banning almost all combustion, composting all organic waste, using our smartphone technology to record all littering and vandalism, new technologies for recycling everything, rigid population reduction, regulations on what individuals can do with their money, regulations creating boundaries on the consumer economy, interplanetary mining of rare earth metals, etc.

@darrenpat182

4 жыл бұрын

@Ronjia-mette Nellemann I agree that control is the issue, but it needs to be discouraged and awareness needs to be well distributed so its seen as socially acceptable and even sensible not to have children.

Michael Moore should probably do a film on the American obesity epidemic instead.