I'm already seeing Canadian rightwingers and pipeline companies using Moore's film to "expose" the environmental movement and renewables industry as a sham. Incredibly frustrating and depressing to see right now. And of course entirely predictable if he had given just a few minutes' thought to it.
Like all good propaganda flicks, the facts are correct in the narrow scope presented. And those out of context bits of truth are easily contorted by others. Propaganda that uses other people's propaganda is easy :(
Woman, I wish you hadn't needed to write this but I'm glad you did because now it exists - as part of the deconstructing crap genre. Hope your day is going well - it's chilly & sunny in Maine
Emily, you have a good head on your shoulders :) I watched the doc. My take is that it isn't a doc; it is more of a propaganda flick focused on extremely narrow points of view. It's also a total mess (too many topics, lightly covered) and you come away wondering what their point really is and certainly what to do about it. I'm not sure why The Guardian gave it 4 stars given the actual review is was more like 3 stars at best. I'd give it 2 stars and "do no recommend" mainly because it is very misleading (ironically), extremely biased (major blinders to facts, trends, etc). Also, Moore's role was finance/support/distribution; this is not a Moore movie).
I’m inclined to watch it and rebut whatever is incorrect myself there’s so much muckraking of a movement that is so important and has so much momentum before COVID-19....
I think Michael Moore's points are not just out of ignorance. There's a thread somewhere even in academia that agrees with him to a certain extent. My own advisor often talks about overpopulation as being a big problem for curtailing climate change and one that will prevent poor nations from having the nice things we take for granted. I often push back on him (in a gentle way) to get him to see why such a discussion can be extremely toxic. I would really like to see some in-depth analysis of this particular line of thought with some heavy-hitting researchers on population growth and climate change interviewed. We do need this discussion.
Having not seen Moore's film, I can't really say for sure where he's coming from on renewables. Yes, we do have new problems that might come up. In particular, if we do not have a global just transition, we risk exploiting poor people yet again for resources to feed our rich lifestyle. Yes, the same people who run fossil fuel companies will be clever, and they will take their same anti-human ideas of running a business into the renewable industry. It doesn't have to be this way, though. I'm not sure if this was Moore's point of view, I'll have to watch it.
I also haven't watched the doc yet, but one thought after reading this: I have nothing to back this up, but seeing overpopulation as the primary driver of the environmental crisis feels pretty deep-rooted with many boomers, like Moore. There were so many sounding that Malthusian alarm in the 1950s and 60s before the "green revolution" in agriculture led to us growing literally too much food. But those messages stick with you, especially when you know world population keeps growing. It's harder to swallow the (more accurate) overconsumption point, especially when it makes you, meaning us in Western countries, the primary driver, while the bottom ~50% of income earners only contribute ~10% of carbon emissions. The impoverished (mostly) brown people having babies didn't start this crisis, yet they'll the ones who bear the full brunt of most climate catastrophes. I'm not sure Moore's doc will help them, but we'll see.
Yes, totally. When I was reporting a story about the decision to have/not have kids because of climate change, I found Boomers were more receptive to the idea that it wasn't a good idea, because it was a concern they dealt with in the past, too.
It's a shame that the doc is already being misused by fossil fuel/conservative interests, because the points about overconsumption and perpetual economic growth *are* critical and need to be given a more mainstream airing. Very few high profile journalists even go there - I can only really think of George Monbiot at the Guardian, and he manages to do so without going all conspiracy theorist about the environmental movement.
I don't know is if this is a hit piece or not. In a way, it reminded me of Cowspiracy, with the on the spot interviews of environmental leaders, etc.
I do know that there was no discussion of energy storage other than batteries, the lifetime of solar panels was misstated (10 years? really?), as was the carbon impact of electric cars etc.
Here's what set me off ... they make the claim that most of the "Renewable" energy in the USA and Germany is really BIOMASS which is just burning virgin forests. I don't know about the entire USA, but here's the Free Republic of California's:
That's a hell of an error and I'd really like to know the story behind it all. Also I'd check out 350.org's reply to this as well, it appears that there was more errors about 350.org's funding:
Wondrous! Well, for Earth Day, with two granddaughters, 12 and 14 respectively, planted 20 small trees. Third year in a row been able to order trees through NRD (Nebraska Resource Development) and plant them. But loved link for DeSmog, which I shared with 60 facebook contacts.
I really dug it despite how depressing it is. It felt good to see McKibben caught flat footed over and over again under questioning. There's something about watching my idols be taken down a peg that feels good to me.
Also, it discusses how capitalism is totally incompatible with environmentalism and that's a message that resonates with me.
My big takeaway was that a lot of folks in the environmental movement have gotten too close with timber companies. Clear cutting forests to burn for energy in plants that still also burn natural gas just feels gross. Now, big environmental NGOs effectively support deforestation. That's bad news for all of us.
Your first time climate dudes criticism is totally valid here. I really want this doc to be wrong, but I haven't found enough takedowns yet.
Totally relate; I also love when my idols are taken down a peg. I'm sure there are going to be messages in this thing that resonate. Rarely is anything ever completely black and white. But we'll see! It's on my agenda this weekend.
Brilliant piece, thanks for sharing your thoughts.. I turned into an activist over night and I'm split into 2 feelings: the urge to use my voice to tell the world about my 'discoveries' (while people, journalists, activist have been working on it for decades), and the non legitimacy of being a white privileged dude who realized yesterday how bad the state of the world actually is.
Your article really helps understanding the risks of that "first time climate dude" syndrome :)
I think you should feel totally good about sharing your discoveries on your platforms and pitching stories to publications!! If someone asks you write a cover story for the Atlantic, though, or like asks you to produce a multi-million dollar documentary, maybe that’s a red flag.
Do you know why the web site, climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com (Climate Change: The Next Generation) has become so inactive? It used to be quite robust in its postings. I liked it because articles from many different newsletters and blogs are posted. There's a link for Artic/Antarctic sea ice coverage, and links to many newsletters. However, there have been far fewer postings in the past year. Also, perhaps you could get yours linked?
I get the profit motive behind climate denial and those that propagate it, but what on earth is the motive for COVID19 denial? Where is the profit in that? Or is it not profit but the masochistic enjoyment of seeing the death toll rise? The superiority and notoriety that results from watching uniformed masses drink in their "facts"? Amassing "likes" to feel good about themselves (they probably have no other accomplishments of note)? Do they think that misleading people in mass somehow justifies their existence? It saddens me deeply to think that there are that many people out there with that much hate for the world and themselves.
Please specify the inaccuracies in the film. Dont accuse a filmmaker of getting facts wrong without giving the details. In any case what the film shows IS factual. And we already know what's happening. Finally overpopulation gets actually mentioned as a global problem. Good for Gibbs and Moore.
No doubt there are factual problems with the movie (which I watched and sort of liked), and they did not treat Bill McKibben fairly. But, the issues raised are extremely important, not least of which is the long term effect of "renewable" energy on the ecosystem. When you respond to these issues, please consider this article, and similar: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/ee/2019/c8ee03423k#!divAbstract
I am not comfortable seeing critiques of people who are Johnny-come-latelies to the climate crisis. We should welcome everyone. We WANT people to be changing their minds about the importance of this crisis.
I welcome everyone to talk about climate change and write about it. I just don’t think people who are t experts should have huge platforms. That’s the point. I can write about and opine about the healthcare all I want but no ones gonna invite me on CNN to talk about it. And rightly so—I’m not an expert.
I really like and respect Michael Moore, so when I heard the premise of this movie, I was really depressed. I know that materials used to create solar/wind that need to be extracted (like copper) harm the earth too, and and all of that stuff that sometimes it's easier to overlook when the major climate change contributor (fossil fuels, etc) is going unchecked. And I know that stopping to critically look at this is essential. I'm just so tired, and overwhelmed, and pretty hopeless about the climate crisis already, without also adding the fact that renewable energy is "just as bad as fossil fuels" or whatever the thesis of the movie is. :(
I'm already seeing Canadian rightwingers and pipeline companies using Moore's film to "expose" the environmental movement and renewables industry as a sham. Incredibly frustrating and depressing to see right now. And of course entirely predictable if he had given just a few minutes' thought to it.
uuugh FINE I'LL FACT-CHECK THE MOVIE
Like all good propaganda flicks, the facts are correct in the narrow scope presented. And those out of context bits of truth are easily contorted by others. Propaganda that uses other people's propaganda is easy :(
That was my main take away too :(
Woman, I wish you hadn't needed to write this but I'm glad you did because now it exists - as part of the deconstructing crap genre. Hope your day is going well - it's chilly & sunny in Maine
Emily, you have a good head on your shoulders :) I watched the doc. My take is that it isn't a doc; it is more of a propaganda flick focused on extremely narrow points of view. It's also a total mess (too many topics, lightly covered) and you come away wondering what their point really is and certainly what to do about it. I'm not sure why The Guardian gave it 4 stars given the actual review is was more like 3 stars at best. I'd give it 2 stars and "do no recommend" mainly because it is very misleading (ironically), extremely biased (major blinders to facts, trends, etc). Also, Moore's role was finance/support/distribution; this is not a Moore movie).
I’m realizing the 4 star review is because it was reviewed by a movie reviewer — not a climate person.
Another review, no rating though. Movie Reviewer.
I’m inclined to watch it and rebut whatever is incorrect myself there’s so much muckraking of a movement that is so important and has so much momentum before COVID-19....
https://variety.com/2020/film/reviews/planet-of-the-humans-film-review-1234586660/
I think Michael Moore's points are not just out of ignorance. There's a thread somewhere even in academia that agrees with him to a certain extent. My own advisor often talks about overpopulation as being a big problem for curtailing climate change and one that will prevent poor nations from having the nice things we take for granted. I often push back on him (in a gentle way) to get him to see why such a discussion can be extremely toxic. I would really like to see some in-depth analysis of this particular line of thought with some heavy-hitting researchers on population growth and climate change interviewed. We do need this discussion.
Having not seen Moore's film, I can't really say for sure where he's coming from on renewables. Yes, we do have new problems that might come up. In particular, if we do not have a global just transition, we risk exploiting poor people yet again for resources to feed our rich lifestyle. Yes, the same people who run fossil fuel companies will be clever, and they will take their same anti-human ideas of running a business into the renewable industry. It doesn't have to be this way, though. I'm not sure if this was Moore's point of view, I'll have to watch it.
I also haven't watched the doc yet, but one thought after reading this: I have nothing to back this up, but seeing overpopulation as the primary driver of the environmental crisis feels pretty deep-rooted with many boomers, like Moore. There were so many sounding that Malthusian alarm in the 1950s and 60s before the "green revolution" in agriculture led to us growing literally too much food. But those messages stick with you, especially when you know world population keeps growing. It's harder to swallow the (more accurate) overconsumption point, especially when it makes you, meaning us in Western countries, the primary driver, while the bottom ~50% of income earners only contribute ~10% of carbon emissions. The impoverished (mostly) brown people having babies didn't start this crisis, yet they'll the ones who bear the full brunt of most climate catastrophes. I'm not sure Moore's doc will help them, but we'll see.
Yes, totally. When I was reporting a story about the decision to have/not have kids because of climate change, I found Boomers were more receptive to the idea that it wasn't a good idea, because it was a concern they dealt with in the past, too.
It's a shame that the doc is already being misused by fossil fuel/conservative interests, because the points about overconsumption and perpetual economic growth *are* critical and need to be given a more mainstream airing. Very few high profile journalists even go there - I can only really think of George Monbiot at the Guardian, and he manages to do so without going all conspiracy theorist about the environmental movement.
I don't know is if this is a hit piece or not. In a way, it reminded me of Cowspiracy, with the on the spot interviews of environmental leaders, etc.
I do know that there was no discussion of energy storage other than batteries, the lifetime of solar panels was misstated (10 years? really?), as was the carbon impact of electric cars etc.
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fenergyinnovation%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F03%2FUS-EV-mpg.jpg
I do agree that consumption has to be cut etc.
Here's what set me off ... they make the claim that most of the "Renewable" energy in the USA and Germany is really BIOMASS which is just burning virgin forests. I don't know about the entire USA, but here's the Free Republic of California's:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/California_Electricity_Generation_Sources_Pie_Chart.svg/800px-California_Electricity_Generation_Sources_Pie_Chart.svg.png
And Germany:
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/news/2019/Public-net-electricity-generation-in-germany-2019/_jcr_content/contentPar/pressarticle/pressArticleParsys/textwithasset/imageComponent/image.img.4col.large.png/1579103941582/sources.png
That's a hell of an error and I'd really like to know the story behind it all. Also I'd check out 350.org's reply to this as well, it appears that there was more errors about 350.org's funding:
https://350.org/response-planet-of-the-humans-documentary/
One more thing, the film isn't on IMDB.com ... one comment is that to be there, the funding sources would have to be listed. Hmmm..
Look I agree with the main premise here, green technology is overhyped. But why misstate this stuff? Why the "hit piece."
Wondrous! Well, for Earth Day, with two granddaughters, 12 and 14 respectively, planted 20 small trees. Third year in a row been able to order trees through NRD (Nebraska Resource Development) and plant them. But loved link for DeSmog, which I shared with 60 facebook contacts.
One error is the % of electrical generation in US and Germany, comparing BIOMASS to Solar and Wind.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Renewables (total) 17.5%
Hydropower 6.6%
Wind 7.3%
Solar 1.8%
Biomass 1.4%
I really dug it despite how depressing it is. It felt good to see McKibben caught flat footed over and over again under questioning. There's something about watching my idols be taken down a peg that feels good to me.
Also, it discusses how capitalism is totally incompatible with environmentalism and that's a message that resonates with me.
My big takeaway was that a lot of folks in the environmental movement have gotten too close with timber companies. Clear cutting forests to burn for energy in plants that still also burn natural gas just feels gross. Now, big environmental NGOs effectively support deforestation. That's bad news for all of us.
Your first time climate dudes criticism is totally valid here. I really want this doc to be wrong, but I haven't found enough takedowns yet.
Totally relate; I also love when my idols are taken down a peg. I'm sure there are going to be messages in this thing that resonate. Rarely is anything ever completely black and white. But we'll see! It's on my agenda this weekend.
Brilliant piece, thanks for sharing your thoughts.. I turned into an activist over night and I'm split into 2 feelings: the urge to use my voice to tell the world about my 'discoveries' (while people, journalists, activist have been working on it for decades), and the non legitimacy of being a white privileged dude who realized yesterday how bad the state of the world actually is.
Your article really helps understanding the risks of that "first time climate dude" syndrome :)
I think you should feel totally good about sharing your discoveries on your platforms and pitching stories to publications!! If someone asks you write a cover story for the Atlantic, though, or like asks you to produce a multi-million dollar documentary, maybe that’s a red flag.
Do you know why the web site, climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com (Climate Change: The Next Generation) has become so inactive? It used to be quite robust in its postings. I liked it because articles from many different newsletters and blogs are posted. There's a link for Artic/Antarctic sea ice coverage, and links to many newsletters. However, there have been far fewer postings in the past year. Also, perhaps you could get yours linked?
I get the profit motive behind climate denial and those that propagate it, but what on earth is the motive for COVID19 denial? Where is the profit in that? Or is it not profit but the masochistic enjoyment of seeing the death toll rise? The superiority and notoriety that results from watching uniformed masses drink in their "facts"? Amassing "likes" to feel good about themselves (they probably have no other accomplishments of note)? Do they think that misleading people in mass somehow justifies their existence? It saddens me deeply to think that there are that many people out there with that much hate for the world and themselves.
Please specify the inaccuracies in the film. Dont accuse a filmmaker of getting facts wrong without giving the details. In any case what the film shows IS factual. And we already know what's happening. Finally overpopulation gets actually mentioned as a global problem. Good for Gibbs and Moore.
No doubt there are factual problems with the movie (which I watched and sort of liked), and they did not treat Bill McKibben fairly. But, the issues raised are extremely important, not least of which is the long term effect of "renewable" energy on the ecosystem. When you respond to these issues, please consider this article, and similar: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/ee/2019/c8ee03423k#!divAbstract
I am not comfortable seeing critiques of people who are Johnny-come-latelies to the climate crisis. We should welcome everyone. We WANT people to be changing their minds about the importance of this crisis.
I welcome everyone to talk about climate change and write about it. I just don’t think people who are t experts should have huge platforms. That’s the point. I can write about and opine about the healthcare all I want but no ones gonna invite me on CNN to talk about it. And rightly so—I’m not an expert.
I really like and respect Michael Moore, so when I heard the premise of this movie, I was really depressed. I know that materials used to create solar/wind that need to be extracted (like copper) harm the earth too, and and all of that stuff that sometimes it's easier to overlook when the major climate change contributor (fossil fuels, etc) is going unchecked. And I know that stopping to critically look at this is essential. I'm just so tired, and overwhelmed, and pretty hopeless about the climate crisis already, without also adding the fact that renewable energy is "just as bad as fossil fuels" or whatever the thesis of the movie is. :(