This video doesn’t get posted enough–I heard about it months ago but only just now watched it.
They’re cutting down all the trees to burn as fuel.
also FUCK SIERRA CLUB
Also this article by Max Blumenthal that debunks a bunch of shitty astroturfed criticisms about the film https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/07/green-billionaires-planet-of-the-humans/
this documentary is good but i hate how people like this guy and john oliver give really poignant critiques and dont give a call to arms on how to solve the issue. its fucking nuclear, michael, fucking SAY IT
Again, Japan checking in. Currently dumping cesium into the ocean. So. No.
The answer is to dismantle capitalism and move to state economies
No. Reduce consumption by addressing the source causes : planned obsolescence, artificial shortage, and an economical system that serves only the 1%. Gotta keep your eye on the ball cause they gonna shift it
So basically pack up and go home, no point in trying
But fight for what? What’s the solution to this? The timescale for nuclear is way too long to be a solution either. Sorry but shit like this makes me just want to give up
My plan was to get Bernie elected, but they wouldn’t even give us that. I’m trying to do some programming ideas and learning about socialism through this site. I just learned Greenpeace is fucking sellouts, woohoo.
I think they won’t go for nuclear because it’s not profitable enough. Capitalism is taking money from the easiest places first, and that alone will destroy everything. We need regulation with teeth to even hope to stop any of it. Or we need a global strike and global revolution.
As a long shot, SimCity predicted 2030 for nuclear fusion. Let’s invent it and use it to mine bitcoin!
Nuclear is 100% ready for prime time, and the only serious obstacle to its proliferation is effete NIMBY liberals.
I honestly don’t know nearly anything about this, but I do remember Michael Brooks had his friend on that works in activist groups and he didn’t like this for some reason. Hopefully it wasn’t some astroturf https://youtu.be/CL1ZcXl2OgA
I watched it, the main guest says the film is uncharitable to the history of the environmental movement and that the Bill McKibben who runs 350.org actually wants to fix things and is unfairly characterized by the film. Yet in the credits for the film, it says “After the first screening of this film, Bill McKibben said he was wrong about biomass.” How can one of the figureheads of the movement to stop carbon from building up past 350 PPM not know that burning biomass (cutting down and shipping millions of trees to Europe and elsewhere) is a bad thing and huge contributing factor?
They also criticize Michael Moore for not doing more, and yes, he’s a pretty big :LIB: and generally won’t stir the pot enough for my liking, but I don’t think it’s a fair criticism in this case as he got onboard with the film and made it free to view, distributed it, and promoted it.
So I don’t think the Michael Brooks interview offers anything substantial. They’re upset that the film shits all over green energy and the failed attempts to fix the problem.
