Get Energy Smart! NOW!

20 responses so far ↓

• 1 Matthew Johnson // Apr 27, 2020 at 4:29 pm

  You might consider this document the critiques the fundamental assumption that population control is a solution for climate and ecological crisis. https://e360.yale.edu/features/consumption_dwarfs_population_as_main_environmental_threat

• 2 Richard Mercer // Apr 29, 2020 at 9:56 pm

  Thanks for putting this together. Bravo

• 3 Misinformation in Planet of the Humans | My view on climate change // Apr 30, 2020 at 3:56 pm

  […] Moore’s Boorish Planet of The Humans: An Annotated Collection […]

• 4 Eric Brooks // May 1, 2020 at 4:38 pm

  Here’s my contribution for folks to read, and for you to consider adding to the list. Its value is that it is a very aggressive, short, and simple rebuttal, using basic laypersons’ language, and so is a good introduction to the film’s basic outrageous attacks.

  Michael Moore’s Bullshit Attack On Renewable Energy & The Environmental Movement

  https://steemit.com/environment/@ericbrooks/michael-moore-s-bullshit-attack-on-renewable-energy-and-the-environmental-movement

• 5 Calgacus // May 3, 2020 at 12:59 am

  Was making up my own list, but this one is much, much better. Only had three that aren’t here, including the second part of Ketan Joshi’s essays, the first is linked already here.

  Brian Tokar- “Humans” are not the problem: Reflections on a “useless” documentary
  Ketan Joshi- This is where hard work got us (another post about the bad film)
  David Schwartzman- Film Review: ‘Planet of Humans’ Misplaces the Blame on Population Growth

  Thank you.

• 6 Angry Bear » Planet of the Humans: A De-Growth Manifesto // May 4, 2020 at 6:18 pm

  […] having sold out to billionaire ecological exploiters.  You can read about the misrepresentations elsewhere; my point is that, whatever else it is, the film is a logically consistent statement of the […]

• 7 Fossil fuel-backed climate deniers rush to promote Michael Moore's 'Planet of The Humans' | RenewEconomy // May 5, 2020 at 12:34 am

  […] A Siegel, Get Energy Smart Now: “Planet of The Humans: An Annotated Collection“ […]

• 8 The Inconvenient Truthiness of Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' | Capital & Main // May 6, 2020 at 10:23 am

  […] another moment in time, I and everyone else who writes about climate might have ignored Moore and Gibbs as a couple of aging bad-boy cranks, […]

• 9 Michael Moores New Film Turns Heroes into Villains and Villains into Heroes | Opinion – Autopilot Social Media // May 7, 2020 at 9:29 am

  […] fatal flaws in the film have been enumerated in excruciating detail elsewhere. They include 1) the deceptive use of data, photographs and interviews that are a decade old to […]

• 10 350 Bay Area's Take on "Planet of the Humans" - 350 Marin // May 8, 2020 at 6:24 pm

  […] today with renewable energy. This review is helpful for that HERE and there is a long list of them HERE that includes this one from The Nation, written by Josh Fox, who beat Moore to showing how bad […]

• 11 Joseph Ratliff // May 9, 2020 at 9:34 am

  Quite a few links, and a bit of description.

  Which reviews address the following 2 issues about solar and wind (assuming you’ve read every single one you shared):

  1. Cost externalization, including materials and other resources used to make and maintain solar panels and batteries for storage.

  2. Environmental impact of building solar, wind, etc. (e.g. waste disposal, land use, etc.)

  I would like to focus my attention on those reviews and how they address these two very real issues.

  Look, don’t think anyone in a review — of a so troubled film — will get into these in the detail you likely desire even though finding discussions of exactly this sort of thing is relatively easy. As I recall, the first three all touch on these questions … but briefly.

  [1] Re externalization, life-cycle analyses aren’t ‘externalizing’ these impacts but count them in pollution/carbon loads. There isn’t any serious analysts who views any energy source as without problems and impacts — but, the relative impacts of wind/solar are far below those of fossil fuels (period) whether one wants to talk carbon, health impacts, or other pollution. And, btw, the same is true of [2]. “Energy Sprawl” is an exaggeration, misrepreented impact. Yes, there are wind turbines to dispose of … and, (a) they are a tiny portion of overall waste issues and (b) industry is working hard on making the blades recyclable.

• 12 350 Bay Area's Take on "Planet of the Humans" - 350 Bay Area // May 11, 2020 at 6:39 pm

  […] today with renewable energy. This review is helpful for that HERE and there is a long list of them HERE that includes this one from The Nation, written by Josh Fox, who beat Moore to showing how bad […]

• 13 Patrick Mazza // May 12, 2020 at 12:31 pm

  Here’s my entry, from the standpoint of a longterm climate activist. I am not sure anyone else has so clearly drawn out the logic of the way Moore, Gibbs and company undermine the IPCC 2030 goal for 50% carbon reduction, though it is clearly there – https://medium.com/@patrickmazza/why-i-oppose-planet-of-the-humans-ab1df11a54e7

  Good piece. Thank you. Will add it in.

• 14 An Environmental Advocate's Response to 'Planet of the Humans' | WilderUtopia.com // May 14, 2020 at 2:13 pm

  […] Moore Takedowns Annotated… […]

• 15 Why Michael Moore's electric car myths only benefit the fossil fuel industry | The Driven // May 18, 2020 at 7:00 pm

  […] nearly a month now, and the list of critiques outlining the misinformation in the film is extremely long – that’s a lot of people having a bad […]

• 16 Steve Ongerth // May 19, 2020 at 10:45 am

  Here’s an article I wrote seven years ago debunking the anti wind/solar arguments made by Ozzie Zehner which are basically recycled into this film: https://ecology.iww.org/node/8

• 17 Steve Ongerth // May 19, 2020 at 10:47 am

  Here is some useful information and a boilerplate statement on renewable energy, electric vehicles and the use of rare earths, lithium, and cobalt:

  People really need to stop blaming renewable energy and electric vehicles for the extraction of rare earths, cobalt, and lithium, as if those are the only things such elements / minerals are used for. The biggest consumers of those elements / minerals are (in no particular order): handheld devices, computer chips, military hardware, the fossil fuel extraction/consumption supply chain, and conventional internal combustion engine automobiles. If we eliminated (or greatly reduced) the most of those things, the renewable energy / electric vehicle consumption would be a far less significant challenge. Also, those elements/minerals can be recycled as much as 95% in most cases, and 80% in the most difficult cases, and that’s with existing technology.

  This is much ado about nothing.

  Sources on rare earths, lithium, conflict minerals, mining, and recycling:

  (1) A Just(ice) Transition is a Post-Extractive Transition – https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/Post-Extractivist_Transition_WEB_0.pdf (makes the case that fixating on blaming renewable energy, storage batteries, and EVs for the predicetd massive uposurge in extraction is misdirected);

  (2) Responsible minerals sourcing for renewable energy – https://earthworks.org/publications/responsible-minerals-sourcing-for-renewable-energy/ and https://earthworks.org/cms/assets/uploads/2019/04/MCEC_UTS_Report_lowres-1.pdf (makes the case that most of the minerals can be sourced through recycling and efficiency);

  (3) Green Conflict Minerals: The fuels of conflict in the transition to a low-carbon economy – https://www.iisd.org/library/green-conflict-minerals-fuels-conflict-transition-low-carbon-economy and https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/green-conflict-minerals.pdf (Identifies the conflict areas, nations, examples, but rightlly identifies the problem as one of *capitalism*, not *technology*);

  and further background reading: https://miningwatch.ca/blog/2019/11/21/selected-background-readings-turning-down-heat-can-we-mine-our-way-out-climate

• 18 Steve Ongerth // May 19, 2020 at 10:48 am

  Lastly, here is a podcast (which I inspired Chris Nelder to do) basically debunking Jevon’s Paradox (or rather, the careless misapplication of it): https://xenetwork.org/ets/episodes/episode-86-is-transition-worth-it/

• 19 A Siegel // May 19, 2020 at 1:23 pm

  Thanks for all this material Steve.

• 20 Paul Cienfuegos // May 21, 2020 at 1:27 pm

  It’s so interesting to me that you folks put in an inordinate amount of time and energy to generate this list of oppositional statements to the film,

  Saddened that such efforts are sometimes required and useful. Someone needs to do such things and, well, sometimes I take my turn in line. Such as when I did that for The Will Affair re climate science denialism/deceit on The Washington Post opinion pages.

  but couldn’t be bothered to include any statements that supported the film.

  This mockumentary doesn’t merit “support” — there are some real issues and is some substance within it, but that is overwhelmed by the deceit, falsehoods, bad documentary practice, lack of meaningful solutions discussion, (essentially) libelous(-like) material/approaches …. I have read through/watched, sigh, now well over 100 commentaries. I am not interested in, have no reason to promote those who chose to excuse through all the problems. I also find Gibbs, Moore, and Zehner to be doubling down rather than dealing honestly with the film’s myriad problems.

  So you’re clearly not that interested in a real debate of ideas, I suppose.

  This is my blog. My investment of time, energy, and money. My thoughts. Why do I owe you or anyone the promotion of falsehoods, misleading material, agendas that are damaging, … I am allowing your comment to be posted.

  You only want the one side to get represented, as if “your” side is all good and true and “their” side is all bad and untrue.

  Actually pay attention to the discussed reviews … even some of annotated presentation of them. That words like “good, the bad, the ugly” appear makes explicit that every thoughtful reviewer, commentator, critique makes clear that the film is not 100% wrong, that there are real issues. Read Ewall’s piece — as an example of a highly sympathetic but substantive activist — which is entitled: “What POTH got Right, Wrong, and Missed”. And, ….

  However, having seen POTH, having read (too EFFing much) about it, having thought about it, the initial reaction re Robert Bryce which opens this annotated bibliography remains — that the problems so overwhelm the value to make POTH a dangerous piece of propaganda with damaging implications already playing out in the real world.

  The only real modification I might make to the Bryce comparison is to make an even stronger statement that it is quite clear that Bryce has lightyears more substance when it comes to energy than the Zehner, Gibbs, Moore trio and is more skillful at (somewhat) nuanced propaganda.

  Which means you’re as committed to propaganda as your so-called opponents are.

  This insulting really is inappropriate.
  I would be interested in truthful engagement. If POTH’s deceitful/false material were removed, appropriate context added, efforts made to follow-up, and real solutions/discussions of potential paths forward were added — there could have been an honest film to foster a real discussion about the ‘good’ of the film whether or not I (or others) agree. However, POTH was/is not an honest engagement and no amount of blustering in a comment to a blog can change that.

  You don’t even include in your list here the filmmaker’s very open and honest youtube discussions ABOUT the film,

  Having paid attention to much of it, I don’t find those to be “honest” as opposed to doubling down.

  where they address many of their opponents directly and openly.

  Again, that is not truthful.

  No, you won’t let THOSE voices appear on your list either. It really exposes your utter lack of interest in real dialogue and debate.

  Seriously, you come to someone else’s home and insult them … expecting them to embrace you wholeheartedly. Perhaps rethink your approach…

  Here are a few of those missing critiques. I hope you are at least willing to not make my post disappear: https://dgrnewsservice.org/civilization/ecocide/planet-of-the-humans-why-technology-wont-save-us/? , https://resistanceradioprn.podbean.com/e/resistance-radio-guest-jeff-gibbs/ , https://localpowerrevolution.blogspot.com/2020/04/review-of-planet-of-humans-what-they.html?m=1 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bop8x24G_o0 .

  Btw, if Moore / Gibbs / Zehner were so embracing of ‘honest’ engagement with critiques, how come actual climate scientists (like Michael Mann), clean technology analysts/engineers, climate solution specialists (like Drawdown project), etc haven’t been on Rumble with Moore?