Planet of the Humans - Michael Moore

[youbet]

Michael Moore is a huckster.

He is also a very successful entrepreneur and businessman. From the day he hurdled the barrier to entry into the lucrative "alternative media" world, I could sense he really had a firm grasp on how to ring the cash register. And he has borne that out.

 

[Montecfo]

He is also a very successful entrepreneur and businessman. From the day he hurdled the barrier to entry into the lucrative "alternative media" world, I could sense he really had a firm grasp on how to ring the cash register. And he has borne that out.

I never said there was no market for hucksters.

 

[Rianne]

This Planet Money podcast about how US recycling got started was fascinating. The next one addresses recycling today. Episode 925: A Mob Boss, A Garbage Boat and Why We Recycle https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/739893511/episode-925-a-mob-boss-a-garbage-boat-and-why-we-recycle

I listened to that last summer. Had a humorous side to it, but wildly incredible. My take away is create the landfills until we have better science as to what to do with it. Ocean garbage is disgusting and killing sea life, that's a different story. Recycling has become an embarrassing joke to those who cared and tried to make a difference.

 

[youbet]

I never said there was no market for hucksters.

Indeed. And, in fact, hucksters often create their own markets. Think of P T Barnum and his so-called "freak shows" prominent on the midway when the circus came to town.

It's really hard to think of a thing Moore wouldn't do to ring that ole cash register regardless of the negative impact on individuals or society.

I agree with Audrey1 when she says:

Michael Moore is just too sleazy for me.

 

[John Galt III]

Wasn't there a book called 'Roger and Me' by Moore, about life as a GM worker before all the offshoring? I thought I read it, way back in the 90's. I thought it was interesting. As far as his movies go, I am amazed at how many of my 'lefty' friends do not like Moore or his movies, even though Moore espouses left wing ideas.

 

[audreyh1]

Wasn't there a book called 'Roger and Me' by Moore, about life as a GM worker before all the offshoring? I thought I read it, way back in the 90's. I thought it was interesting. As far as his movies go, I am amazed at how many of my 'lefty' friends do not like Moore or his movies, even though Moore espouses left wing ideas.

That is what I watched the movie version. And he made fun of everybody - including those hardest hit. Just all over sleazy guy out to make a buck. Which is why many don't like him even if he supposedly leans a certain way.

 

[kcowan]

The docudrama did one thing for me: it exposed the fact that the green movement is also misdirected. It brought back some of the discussions here about the enronmental costs of battery production (from the electric car threads).

And also the limited lifecycle of wind turbines and solar panels, and what happens to them at their end of life.

Also the extent of biofuels use and how many forests are being used up.

I did get the feeling that it was just a teaser to get us riled up. Maybe that was its purpose?

 

[Gumby]

“Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

― Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time

 

[ls99]

Australian Sky news discusses the Moore film. About 9 minute clip. Does not start at beginning, would have to re- start by clicking to the beginning.

Discusses claims of subsidies, corpoprate posturing, lack of cost effectivenes of renewables. And some of the film's omissions.

 

[Beststash]

I did get the feeling that it was just a teaser to get us riled up. Maybe that was its purpose?

I think you nailed it. In my case it worked. I think of Micheal Moore as just another reality TV person.

 

[audreyh1]

I did get the feeling that it was just a teaser to get us riled up. Maybe that was its purpose?

Yes, generally I think that is the purpose.

 

[Koolau]

The docudrama did one thing for me: it exposed the fact that the green movement is also misdirected. It brought back some of the discussions here about the enronmental costs of battery production (from the electric car threads).

And also the limited lifecycle of wind turbines and solar panels, and what happens to them at their end of life.

Also the extent of biofuels use and how many forests are being used up.

I did get the feeling that it was just a teaser to get us riled up. Maybe that was its purpose?

What I've noticed is that the green "movement" takes on a life of its own. The "process" becomes more important than the original goal of (let's just boil it down to lower greenhouse gas emissions.) For instance, HI set "goals" to be (forget the number) XX percent renewables by 20YY. Eventually it came out that we were apparently purchasing renewable vegetable oils to cut down on petroleum based oils. Okay so far (except it cost a lot more.) Then it was learned (as I recall - someone can probably look it up and refute if my memory is wrong) the source (someplace in the mid pacific?) was slash and burning old forests to make more room for the right kind of trees to plant oil bearing crops. Probably not good for the planet, but at least we got a little (very little) closer to our goal until TSHTF.

A more recent instance where one goal conflicts with another was the attempt to add more windmills. Dozens of folks ended up getting arrested trying to stop the process because it might (Okay, I forget exactly - disturb old bones? Be ugly? Be environmentally unfriendly - Huh?? Pick one from column A and 2 from column B.) Here, if you want to do something, you have to have an environmental evaluation, a cultural evaluation, and more. Once these are complete, THEN the law suits begin to require MORE studies. I think our first Walmart was held up for 2 years because they found some bones. I hate to tell tham, but back in the day (you know, before we had cemeteries) Folks got buried where it was convenient, so it's likely ANY big project will disturb bones. So, other than being cranky tonight, my point (maybe) is that there are even more than 2 sides to the green issues and NOBODY is willing to change their mind on their particular set of facts or opinions or conclusions or models, etc. etc. End for rant, but, YMMV.

 

[UtahSkier]

I am not a Moore fan and have only watched of one of his other movies (sicko?). I find he is sloppy and plays very loose with information he presents as facts.

I did watch this movie because of this thread and find myself not disagreeing with the overall message of the movie.

Now, I am a rabid, wacko environmentalist and have been working on the definitive solution to CO2 emissions as part of my Fired life. I am also capitalist by nature.

This movie is pretty sloppy, but has exposed some of the bad judgements (Biomass) by the environmental leaders. I have no doubt that various big companies have joined forces with environmental leaders to promote their own agenda (profits).

The point Moore did not make and should have made is this. Today, right now, we have significant (record!) amounts of Green energy produced around the world everyday. And we are bringing more green energy online.

But, the CO2 numbers tell a different story. The CO2 numbers (Co2.earth) show the rate of CO2 emissions to be increasing. Not constant, but accelerating. Moore claims that the environmental group policies are not being effective and these CO2 data support that conclusion.

The human desire to live a wealthier lifestyle is causing (IMO) demand for energy to increase faster than green energy is being deployed. The difference is being met by increased fossil fuel consumption.

I don't see any trends in place to reverse the increasing demand for more energy. Clearly, this demand for more energy is increasing faster than green energy is being increased.

Which I think is a big part for Moore's reasoning for this movie.

 

[samm]

https://youtu.be/Zk11vI-7czE

...His point of view in this really surprised me. Main point, Green Energy is just as corrupt and harmful as fossil fuels - we are all gonna die!

I watched the video and thought it was quite good. I have been very skeptical of the "green-ness" of recycling programs, solar, wind, & electric cars.

This video raises important questions about the claims of the green movement.

 

[audreyh1]

I am not a Moore fan and have only watched of one of his other movies (sicko?). I find he is sloppy and plays very loose with information he presents as facts.

I did watch this movie because of this thread and find myself not disagreeing with the overall message of the movie.

Now, I am a rabid, wacko environmentalist and have been working on the definitive solution to CO2 emissions as part of my Fired life. I am also capitalist by nature.

This movie is pretty sloppy, but has exposed some of the bad judgements (Biomass) by the environmental leaders. I have no doubt that various big companies have joined forces with environmental leaders to promote their own agenda (profits).

The point Moore did not make and should have made is this. Today, right now, we have significant (record!) amounts of Green energy produced around the world everyday. And we are bringing more green energy online.

But, the CO2 numbers tell a different story. The CO2 numbers (Co2.earth) show the rate of CO2 emissions to be increasing. Not constant, but accelerating. Moore claims that the environmental group policies are not being effective and these CO2 data support that conclusion.

The human desire to live a wealthier lifestyle is causing (IMO) demand for energy to increase faster than green energy is being deployed. The difference is being met by increased fossil fuel consumption.

I don't see any trends in place to reverse the increasing demand for more energy. Clearly, this demand for more energy is increasing faster than green energy is being increased.

Which I think is a big part for Moore's reasoning for this movie.

Interesting - makes sense. We just keep using more and more energy!

 

[Koolau]

Interesting - makes sense. We just keep using more and more energy!

Well, yes, we as "the world" use more energy all the time. The US is using LESS energy (okay, creating less CO2) than we did (IIRC) some time back in the early '90s. Personally, I use MUCH less energy than I used to use. Wild guess: I use half the energy I used 20 years ago. Naturally, YMMV.

 

[UtahSkier]

This page details the problems

EIA projects nearly 50% increase in world energy usage by 2050, led by growth in Asia
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433

Energy consumption will increase from 625 to 900 by 2050. That's an increase of 275. Renewables will provide 200. So, fossil fuels will increase by 75. Clearly, CO2 emissions in 2050 will be higher than CO2 emissions of today.

After 30 years of policies put forth by the green movement, Co2 emissions today are higher than CO2 emissions of 30 years ago. And after 30 more years of green movement policies, CO2 emissions 30 years from now will be higher still.

So, 60 years of green movement policies and CO2 emissions are still increasing. I think Moore is simply trying to call attention to the fact that the problem is getting worse.

 

[Midpack]

Well, yes, we as "the world" use more energy all the time. The US is using LESS energy (okay, creating less CO2) than we did (IIRC) some time back in the early '90s. Personally, I use MUCH less energy than I used to use. Wild guess: I use half the energy I used 20 years ago. Naturally, YMMV.

While the US is using “less energy,” the reduction has gone from obscene to ridiculous compared to almost every other country except maybe Canada. The US has nothing to brag about - we use WAY more than our share of the worlds resources. We’re still a terribly wasteful society, and we have no business criticizing China.

 

[Koolau]

While the US is using “less energy,” the reduction has gone from obscene to ridiculous compared to almost every other country except maybe Canada. The US has nothing to brag about - we use WAY more than our share of the worlds resources. We’re still a terribly wasteful society, and we have no business criticizing China.

I won't risk Porky rearing his ugly rear to respond to your opinions about the US vs other countries. I'll simply say that opinions about the meaning of facts may vary. Stating opinions as blanket value judgments tends to cloud our discussions - not make them more conducive to further value added.

Without value judgement, I was responding to audreyh1's assertion that "...We just keep using more energy." My point: The US is not. I am not.

 

[Breedlove]

Understand though that fossil are not dirty how about Natural Gas . But anyhow it is an evolution . Caveman used old wooden trees , then we used coal , and now petroleum products . But the tough thing is a windmill just won't make a piece of plastic or make a prescription drug. probably in our lifetime Fossil Fuels will be needed.

 

[ERD50]

This page details the problems

EIA projects nearly 50% increase in world energy usage by 2050, led by growth in Asia
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41433

After 30 years of policies put forth by the green movement, Co2 emissions today are higher than CO2 emissions of 30 years ago. And after 30 more years of green movement policies, CO2 emissions 30 years from now will be higher still. ...

I'll rephrase that -

Because of 30 years of policies put forth by the green movement, Co2 emissions today are higher than CO2 emissions of 30 years ago.

The green movement fought nuclear energy, which is near zero C02 emissions. We could be at ~ 80% nuke electrical energy production, like France, had the greenies not gotten their uninformed way.

While the US is using “less energy,” the reduction has gone from obscene to ridiculous compared to almost every other country except maybe Canada. The US has nothing to brag about - we use WAY more than our share of the worlds resources. We’re still a terribly wasteful society, and we have no business criticizing China. ...

So please report back when you've reduced your energy consumption to less than the average Chinese.

-ERD50

 

[brewer12345]

So this movie must have been made in Canada? Probably from his perch on a WalMart [-]fat bastard[/-] differently abled scooter?

 

[UtahSkier]

So this movie must have been made in Canada? Probably from his perch on a WalMart [-]fat bastard[/-] differently abled scooter?

The good news is Moore is not in the movie at all.

Ok. Perhaps that is the best part!

 

[UtahSkier]

Without value judgement, I was responding to audreyh1's assertion that "...We just keep using more energy." My point: The US is not. I am not.

Fascinating N=1 study. I drive a 45 foot, 45,000 pound diesel motorhome around in my retirement.

I'm sure I have doubled my CO2 footprint from 20 years ago.

From what I have read, I could double my CO2 footprint again just by purchasing some bitcoin.

 

[UtahSkier]

I'll rephrase that -

Because of 30 years of policies put forth by the green movement, Co2 emissions today are higher than CO2 emissions of 30 years ago.

The green movement fought nuclear energy, which is near zero C02 emissions. We could be at ~ 80% nuke electrical energy production, like France, had the greenies not gotten their uninformed way.


-ERD50

Thanks. I didn't have the confidence to be that clear.