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/
Eventually I’ll get around to watching this.
I imagine its something like, “We need to do something now. Here’s shit we can be doing now. Don’t wait for some technological quick fix to magically appear.”
It’s that but also “every green movement you ever thought was doing any good is in the pockets of billionaires” and “they’re cutting down all the trees to make energy” and “every green technology is a scam”. I’m still processing it all.
Controlled opposition and green washing… that tracks.
“Cutting down all the trees to make energy” is a new one.
“Biomass” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass
Europe especially is importing trees from all over the world. And of course the US is just as bad.
https://environmentalpaper.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/20201001033236-09068-map.html
This map seems to leave off a ton of biomass plants that were on the map in the film. Also since the biomass plants qualify as “green” they get free money, the example used in the film being a plant next to daycares and schools that got $11M to fuck up the surrounding lands.
Be aware that this movie has misinformation in it. Watch it if you want to but read or watch some critiques of it also
They’re not scams. Solar and wind is the future, how else are you going to get renewable energy without those? Is there any energy source that’s renewable in your opinion if those doesn’t count?
Their argument is that it takes energy and natural resources to build solar panels and wind turbines and that’s true. What they miss is that when they are built they are going to produce energy for a long time forward without the need for any extra input.
Wind and Solar are also more efficient now than they show in the movie because a lot of this movie was shot 10 years ago! Because this is relatively new technology a lot has happened in 10 years and solar panels can produce 3 times as much energy now than a decade ago
Here’s another more recent skeptic of solar. I listened to these a few months ago, but his main points are it takes way too much acreage to produce enough energy and that we are in danger of using up all of the finite raw materials that making solar panels requires. We only have a finite amount of desert as well, which solar panels completely destroy, and the desert is very alive and a necessary part of the planet. Etc. Read the transcripts or listen if you want.
https://therealnews.com/solar-energy-is-renewable-but-is-it-environmentally-just-1-2
https://therealnews.com/the-land-politics-of-solar-energy-2-2
Literally today the person interviewed in my adjacent comment is tweeting about four million solar panels being decomissioned this year with no plans for how to recycle them.
https://twitter.com/DustinMulvaney/status/1328472638033825792
In 2010 the world used 141,057TWh and in 2019 used 158,800TWh. That’s 12.5% more in just 10 years. There’s no way technology for solar or wind can keep up with that.
What do you do when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining? Or, you live in a boring place where those things rarely happen.
Unfortunately, on those common occasions, renewable sources won’t produce any electricity. So, you need a consistent supply to maintain the electricity grid. As of now the only consistent sources of electricity are non-renewable.
Fluctuating renewable sources are thus locked into a dependency with non-renewables. Wattage produced by renewables needs to be backed up by an equivalent, most likely dirty source.
Sure there will be some carbon savings (on sunny, windy days, minus the cost of resource extraction and manufacture), but not exactly the panacea we were promised.
We need batteries. We need clean future technologies. But, most of all, we need to use less fucking electricity!
What do you do when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining? Or, you live in a boring place where those things rarely happen.
There are already grid-scale (and home) storage solutions that solve this, but also redox flow battery tech is moving along fairly quickly, and those could potentially be made using relatively common metals unlike other battery types (like lithium). This video gives a good overview of how they work.
Regarding nuclear, I think micro-nuclear power could be useful and should be looked into, but with large scale nuclear plants, start-up costs and time are prohibitively high vs solar and wind. Most people aren’t aware that nuclear projects often take 10-20 years before they’re up and running, and we just don’t have that kind of time. They also wouldn’t fit very well with the decentralized smart grids that would be more ideal for solar and wind. Unless we can somehow magically solve these problems very quickly, nuclear just seems like a much worse option compared to the alternatives, and even China has been moving away from nuclear and more towards wind and solar.
What do you do when the wind isn’t blowing
This is what offshore wind power is for. The wind on the ocean is far more consistent and stronger than it is on land because there aren’t mountains and buildings blocking its way. As a result, offshore wind production is much more effective. The UK for example has plans to build 50GW of offshore wind in the next decade which will be enough to power the entire country. Nations like the USA, China and Japan have huge coastlines, there is so much potential there.
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.
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
