The film reminds me of this alteration of a Vietnam War quote: "We had to destroy the climate action movement in order to save it." When Alex Jones and other climate deniers are promoting your film, perhaps a bit of introspection is called for.
The movie falls far short of professional journalistic and documentary standards, but still can provide a teaching opportunity. It promotes the de-growth approach, which is not all bad. And, it raises very important questions (which have been answered in scientific literature, but not adequately in mainstream public discussions) about true, lifetime costs of “renewable“ energy. For example, carbon footprint is important, but not at all the same as planetary boundaries. I hope you will address these serious issues going forward. (See
I really love Michael Moore, he was a Bernie surrogate and I think his movies are excellent. This movie wasn’t really his — that shows. I agree, was a flop 🤷♀️
I very much appreciate your passionate writing. But to think that the climate crisis can be solved without population control in the long run is wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Science is not white or brown and the inability of countries to agree and continued divisiveness is really what will eventually do us in. Only a concerted effort that goes beyond nations, skin color, etc., has any hope of saving our species.
This is an excellent take, putting the onus on them. I just want to stand corrected, the film implies population enough that it can't be avoided as a conclusion. I didn't think I actually heard reducing it stated as an action, but it didn't have too. I should take notes if I'm going to comment on a film in the future.
It's been really frustrating to see this movie surface more and more in conversations, thanks for voicing that. One might say no publicity is bad publicity, hope the hype dies down eventually. Or better yet, starts a conversation in a positive direction.
In light of that, I'd be curious on recommendations for good renewable energy and environmental movement documentaries. Would be great to outweigh all this information with some truth and maybe inspiration.
The film reminds me of this alteration of a Vietnam War quote: "We had to destroy the climate action movement in order to save it." When Alex Jones and other climate deniers are promoting your film, perhaps a bit of introspection is called for.
I feel like I owe you a couple hours of your life back. Or someone does. Thanks for watching it so I don't have to.
The movie falls far short of professional journalistic and documentary standards, but still can provide a teaching opportunity. It promotes the de-growth approach, which is not all bad. And, it raises very important questions (which have been answered in scientific literature, but not adequately in mainstream public discussions) about true, lifetime costs of “renewable“ energy. For example, carbon footprint is important, but not at all the same as planetary boundaries. I hope you will address these serious issues going forward. (See
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/ee/2019/c8ee03423k#!divAbstract ).
Every day I think about this movie and every day it makes me very angry and disappointed at MM's naiveté and gullibility in believing in this movie.
You nailed it. Complete freshman paper crap. Doesn't know his facts. Used ancient cherry-picked data to defend a defenseless narrative.
Have you forwarded these questions to the film producers?
I really love Michael Moore, he was a Bernie surrogate and I think his movies are excellent. This movie wasn’t really his — that shows. I agree, was a flop 🤷♀️
I very much appreciate your passionate writing. But to think that the climate crisis can be solved without population control in the long run is wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Science is not white or brown and the inability of countries to agree and continued divisiveness is really what will eventually do us in. Only a concerted effort that goes beyond nations, skin color, etc., has any hope of saving our species.
This is an excellent take, putting the onus on them. I just want to stand corrected, the film implies population enough that it can't be avoided as a conclusion. I didn't think I actually heard reducing it stated as an action, but it didn't have too. I should take notes if I'm going to comment on a film in the future.
It's been really frustrating to see this movie surface more and more in conversations, thanks for voicing that. One might say no publicity is bad publicity, hope the hype dies down eventually. Or better yet, starts a conversation in a positive direction.
In light of that, I'd be curious on recommendations for good renewable energy and environmental movement documentaries. Would be great to outweigh all this information with some truth and maybe inspiration.