I've seen only 10 minutes of highlights but
the whole movie of 1 hour and 40 minutes is free on YouTube.
It's an amazing find and has generated much controversy.


Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans


Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary | Directed by Jeff Gibbs
6,643,767 views
•Apr 21, 2020


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE



Michael Moore
164K subscribers
Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America. This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late.

Donate: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
(100% of donations go to translation, further articles and viewing & maintaining wide distribution)

Interview with Jeff, Michael, and Ozzie (1hr 16min): https://youtu.be/HBGcEK8FD3w
Hill TV Response to critics with Jeff, Michael and Ozzie (17min): https://youtu.be/Bop8x24G_o0
FAQ, Discussion Guide, Media: https://planetofthehumans.com/

Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption. Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business. Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars?

No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine"). This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late.

Featuring: Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Richard Branson, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Vinod Khosla, Koch Brothers, Vandana Shiva, General Motors, 350.org, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Elon Musk, Tesla.

Website: https://planetofthehumans.com/

You're two weeks late, Bobby.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1587861417

greggerypeccary wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 9:40am:

You're two weeks late, Bobby. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1587861417

Thanks Pecca,
I didn't see that thread.
You should have posted it in the proper place - here.

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 9:42am:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:40am: You're two weeks late, Bobby. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1587861417 Thanks Pecca, I didn't see that thread. You should have posted it in the proper place - here.

It's a film, isn't it?

greggerypeccary wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 9:43am:

Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:42am: greggerypeccary wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:40am: You're two weeks late, Bobby. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1587861417 Thanks Pecca, I didn't see that thread. You should have posted it in the proper place - here. It's a film, isn't it?

Yes - a film about the environment.

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 9:47am:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:43am: Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:42am: greggerypeccary wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:40am: You're two weeks late, Bobby. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1587861417 Thanks Pecca, I didn't see that thread. You should have posted it in the proper place - here. It's a film, isn't it? Yes - a film about the environment.

'Film' comes first.

I win.

Greggy - stop being puerile.

Did you watch it - do you have a comment?

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 9:50am:

Greggy - stop being puerile. Did you watch it - do you have a comment?

Yes, I watched it two weeks ago when it came out.

It's a very good FILM.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 9:52am:

Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:50am: Greggy - stop being puerile. Did you watch it - do you have a comment? Yes, I watched it two weeks ago when it came out. It's a very good FILM.

Why?

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 9:53am:

greggerypeccary wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:52am: Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:50am: Greggy - stop being puerile. Did you watch it - do you have a comment? Yes, I watched it two weeks ago when it came out. It's a very good FILM. Why?

It exposes some truths about renewable energy that many people weren't aware of.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 9:54am:

It exposes some truths about renewable energy that many people weren't aware of.

Yes - it discussed wind turbines and how so much energy
is used to create them that it's a net loss.
Also- is the problem that within 10 to 20 years
they no longer work and have to be dumped somewhere
so there's a decommissioning charge as well.

If anyone has watched it - please let me know.

While it was good for the film to bring to attention the resources renewables consume, I didn't agree with the film maker's solution that "using less" is the solution towards Climate Change. I think it is hypocritical for people in developed nations to propose this as a solution when 2 - 3 billion people have little or no access to electricity.

The film has been criticised from multiple sides. one of the main criticisms is that much of the footage is quite outdated. For example, the footage of the solar festival at around the start of the film was taken in around 2005, while the footage of Michael Bloomberg at a press conference was taken in 2011.

minarchist wrote on May 8^th, 2020 at 11:56am:

While it was good for the film to bring to attention the resources renewables consume, I didn't agree with the film maker's solution that "using less" is the solution towards Climate Change. I think it is hypocritical for people in developed nations to propose this as a solution when 2 - 3 billion people have little or no access to electricity. The film has been criticised from multiple sides. one of the main criticisms is that much of the footage is quite outdated. For example, the footage of the solar festival at around the start of the film was taken in around 2005, while the footage of Michael Bloomberg at a press conference was taken in 2011.

Some good reviews are here both positive and negative:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/planet_of_the_humans

minarchist wrote on May 8^th, 2020 at 11:56am:

For example, the footage of the solar festival at around the start of the film was taken in around 2005, while the footage of Michael Bloomberg at a press conference was taken in 2011.

So perhaps you can tell us about the solar panels made solely using renewables? ;)

Review:
https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/

The film is full of really old information and downright silly falsehoods.


Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2020 at 9:57am:

Yes - it discussed wind turbines and how so much energy is used to create them that it's a net loss.

That's one of the silly falsehoods.

Robot wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 2:16pm:

Review: https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/ The film is full of really old information and downright silly falsehoods. Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:57am: Yes - it discussed wind turbines and how so much energy is used to create them that it's a net loss. That's one of the silly falsehoods.

Are you calling Michael Moore a liar?

Robot wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 2:16pm:

That's one of the silly falsehoods.

Perhaps you have an itemised list of costs?

Concrete?
Steel?
Rare earths?
Copper?
Fibreglass/plastics?
Land area?
Capacity factor?
Wind drought?

The standout point for me was the stupidity of electric cars until they can be charged by nuclear power plants
Wind and solar are never going to work with charging cars at night

The other huge standout is just how stupid Greenies are.

It was good to see a lot of reformed Greenies on that

Bobby. wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 2:19pm:

Robot wrote on May 16th, 2020 at 2:16pm: Review: https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/ The film is full of really old information and downright silly falsehoods. Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:57am: Yes - it discussed wind turbines and how so much energy is used to create them that it's a net loss. That's one of the silly falsehoods. Are you calling Michael Moore a liar?

Sure, why not.

The Average EROI for a wind farm is ~20, which means that a wind farm typically generates 20 times as much energy as is used to make it.

https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/ITO/GG410/Wind/Kubiszewski_EROI_Wind_RenEn10.pdf

miketrees wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 2:41pm:

Wind and solar are never going to work with charging cars at night

"The wind doesn't blow at night. Checkmate, Greenies."

From your reference-

"Does the high EROI for wind power presented here guarantee that wind will assume a major role in the world’s power generation system? There are a number of issues surrounding wind energy that require resolution before that happens. These issues have been discussed in detail elsewhere, and are summarized here:

The dramatic cost reductions in the manufacture of new wind turbines that has characterized the past two decades may be slowing [15] due to a variety of economic, financial, and technical reasons. Recently this is particularly true in light of the rising energy and commodity prices, which are slowly escalating turbine costs. The rising global demand for turbines is also driving prices upward.

The uncontrolled, intermittent nature of wind poses unique challenges to grid management relative to operator-controlled (baseload) resources such as coal, gas, or nuclear generation[16].

Much of the wind resource base is located in remote locations, so costs exist in getting wind-generated electricity from the local point-of-generation to a potentially distant load center.

The remoteness of the wind resource base also generates increased costs of developing land with difficult terrain or that which is increasingly removed from development infrastructure (such as major roads, rivers, or rails capable of trans-
porting the bulky and heavy construction equipment). Little is known about the extent of these costs.

At about 6 or 7 MW per square kilometer of net power potential, wind plants are necessarily spread-out over a significant land area [17]. Thus, wind plants must compete with alternative uses of these land resources. This is especially true
when the land is a significant source of aesthetic and/or recreational value.

Government subsidies have spurred the development of wind energy [18]. But subsidies are always subject to political whims, and thus constitute a significant issue for the wind industry, creating uncertainty for long-term planning and preventing
faster market development.

There is also concern about the impacts of wind energy on birds and bats [19].

Considerable additional research on operational wind facilities is required to provide a comprehensive assessment of the potential magnitude of these risks. None of these challenges are necessarily insurmountable. Indeed, some of them may be relatively modest in cost terms when fully assessed. The point here is simply that an EROI is crucial but is not independently a sufficient condition for the continued wide-spread expansion of wind energy."

So many things not calculated in the EROI due to uncertainties.

"Since mid-October, some 128 people on the island of Oahu have been arrested while protesting a wind energy project being built near the small village of Kahuku. The project is planned to include eight turbines standing 568 feet high. Many of the arrests occurred after protesters blocked trucks carrying equipment to the site. The protests continued on Nov. 1, when about 30 anti-wind protesters occupied the office of Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell for three hours."

"The refusal of all-renewable advocates to consider the cartoonish land requirements of their schemes and how those plans are affecting ordinary people in rural areas is perhaps the single biggest disconnect in the current energy debate. How cartoonish? Last year, two Harvard researchers found that meeting current U.S. electricity needs with wind would require covering a land area twice the size of California with wind turbines. That’s beyond Looney Tunes. "

"Meanwhile, in Germany, according to a recent article by Bloomberg columnist Leonid Bershidsky, wind turbines have become so unpopular that their construction “has all but ground to a halt.” He reports that “people hate the way the wind towers change landscapes. There’s even a German word for it, Verspargelung, roughly translated as pollution with giant asparagus sticks.” "

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/469870-hawaii-protests-show-why-wind-energy-cant-save-us-from-climate

lee wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 2:22pm:

Robot wrote on May 16th, 2020 at 2:16pm: That's one of the silly falsehoods. Perhaps you have an itemised list of costs? Concrete? Steel? Rare earths? Copper? Fibreglass/plastics? Land area? Capacity factor? Wind drought?

Michael also talked about the de-commissioning costs
at the end of life for wind turbines and solar cells.
That includes waste disposal.
That's not cheap.

Robot wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 2:46pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 16th, 2020 at 2:19pm: Robot wrote on May 16th, 2020 at 2:16pm: Review: https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/ The film is full of really old information and downright silly falsehoods. Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:57am: Yes - it discussed wind turbines and how so much energy is used to create them that it's a net loss. That's one of the silly falsehoods. Are you calling Michael Moore a liar? Sure, why not. The Average EROI for a wind farm is ~20, which means that a wind farm typically generates 20 times as much energy as is used to make it. https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/ITO/GG410/Wind/Kubiszewski_EROI_Wind_RenEn10.pdf

Actually - I think the answer to all our problems will
be cheap, safe, Thorium power:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

Bobby. wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 2:19pm:

Robot wrote on May 16th, 2020 at 2:16pm: Review: https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/ The film is full of really old information and downright silly falsehoods. Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:57am: Yes - it discussed wind turbines and how so much energy is used to create them that it's a net loss. That's one of the silly falsehoods. Are you calling Michael Moore a liar?

He wasn't in the movie, Booby.

Bobby. wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 3:55pm:

Robot wrote on May 16th, 2020 at 2:46pm: Bobby. wrote on May 16th, 2020 at 2:19pm: Robot wrote on May 16th, 2020 at 2:16pm: Review: https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/ The film is full of really old information and downright silly falsehoods. Bobby. wrote on May 7th, 2020 at 9:57am: Yes - it discussed wind turbines and how so much energy is used to create them that it's a net loss. That's one of the silly falsehoods. Are you calling Michael Moore a liar? Sure, why not. The Average EROI for a wind farm is ~20, which means that a wind farm typically generates 20 times as much energy as is used to make it. https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/FACULTY/ITO/GG410/Wind/Kubiszewski_EROI_Wind_RenEn10.pdf Actually - I think the answer to all our problems will be cheap, safe, Thorium power: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

Cool. I agree that nuclear power would be effective and I would like to see it built. We can be like, Fission Sisters or something.

Remember that time we were talking about the EROI of wind turbines? The film claimed it was less than 1 and I linked to a meta analysis showing it was more like 20? How did we get from that to nuclear power?

Robot wrote on May 17^th, 2020 at 10:59am:

The film claimed it was less than 1 and I linked to a meta analysis showing it was more like 20? How did we get from that to nuclear power?

And of course those damned insensitive unknowns. PLUS the battery back ups

$90 million for 30,000 houses for one hour. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

A New Zealander has invented a 'drone' that can ride the Gravitational force of the planet. No need for propellers or major engine. It changes it's power to weight ratio to match the level of gravity needed. Absolute Power.

So this film is a bout how human over-consumption is damaging the planet?

https://i.ibb.co/TRfSpjY/Dce-SSJ-Xk-AA-5x6.jpg