“Planet of the Humans” movie
I bring this up somewhat hesitantly, because it is a film designed to incite (which is not my intent here), and because it’s perhaps only loosely related to ‘green building’ (but let’s be honest, so is a lot of what gets talked about here) but, there is undoubtedly relevance, so…
For anyone who has watched Jeff Gibbs/Michael Moores free on youtube ‘Planet of the Humans’, I’m curious:
Did you feel this was a disastrously uninformed and dangerous film? A film touting to be an unabashed assault on all things not truly environmental—but in the process tore down our most likely prospects for real change and offered literally no solution in return?
Or did you think it spoke truth to power and set us straight on the task ahead?
If it’s the latter, I’m going to need help deciphering what that task is exactly.
GBA Detail Library
A collection of one thousand construction details organized by climate and house part
Replies
Tyler,
I appreciated the film's focus on greenwashing, and encouragement of those who look behind the curtain of corporate sponsorship of "green" energy production. Much of the film's message parallels my views; see, for example, my 2009 article, "What Does ‘Sustainable’ Mean?"
That said, the filmmakers didn't distinguish between obviously bad choices (ethanol, biomass, hydrogen) and useful technology like wind turbines. The film just threw all of these energy sources together into the same bad category. That was intellectually dishonest. [Later edit: It turns out that many of the intellectually dishonest positions promoted in the film parrot the falsehoods of climate change deniers -- an aspect of the film that is particularly troubling.]
Yet my conclusion is similar to the filmmakers': namely, that capitalism's focus on profit and growth are likely to doom us. The oil tanker is unlikely to turn around in time, I'm afraid.
I'm pretty much in the same camp as Martin. It's a darkly pessimistic movie, but only exaggerating on the margins.
While the film rightly points out there are limits to growth, it overstates the net environmental impacts of solar & wind, and WAY overstates the need for fossil-fired "backup". (I wonder if they really understand the math.)
There is plenty of innovation runway left for reducing the net impact of solar by an order of magnitude (or maybe two) with thin film technologies (perovskites are pretty tantalizing), but that doesn't mean energy use has no upper limit.
The industrial (ab)use of fossil water aquifer & glacier resources as well as soil resources is real, and the consequences are looming pretty large on the horizon. Agriculture simply has to change. While many have understood this and have been sounding the alarm (some for 40+ years) it doesn't seem to be happening yet at a scale capable of warding off catastrophe during (most of) our lifetimes.
>"The industrial (ab)use of fossil water aquifer & glacier resources as well as soil resources is real... ...it doesn't seem to be happening yet at a scale capable of warding off catastrophe during (most of) our lifetimes."
You've peaked my interest Dana. I'm not sure what you mean by the fossil water and glacier resources. Any more clues as to what you're referencing?
There are some aquifers that are ancient, and either don’t naturally refill at all (essentially the case with the one in Libya), or refill more slowly than the extraction rate (the one around Colorado and much of the surrounding area). Sorry I can’t remember the names of either of those two aquifers, but it shouldn’t be hard to find now that you know what to look for.
The biggest issue is maintaining quality of life. This means not artificially increasing costs of things to force people out (which is what much of proposed environmental regulations tend to do, unfortunately), and not banning things that people want or need. There is a lot of issue with people not understanding things, especially in proportion (nuclear is “scary”, but also vastly better in terms of emissions compared to coal, for example), and scale (residential rooftop solar is very small in terms of overall energy output capability compared to current grid loads). This doesn’t mean things can’t all play a part, for example solar is pretty good for peak shaving since it’s max output time lines up pretty well with peak grid load time. My issue is with the politicization of all of this stuff. Many of the loudest people have the least understanding of the realities of the underlying systems. Real solutions need to be based on facts and not emotions.
I absolutely don’t buy the “capitalism” is the problem argument though. Capitalism is just barter, the ancient barter system, in a much larger scale. Profitability helps encourage efficiency. Government run systems have always failed miserably at this. What the issue is is human nature, what economists call the problem of “limited resources but unlimited wants”. Any economic system aims to allocate the avIlble resources among the many wants. The problematic part is probably most due to greed, which is unfortunate an inherent part of human nature. Greed exists in all economic and governmental systems, and is probably not a solvable problem so it can only be managed. Government systems that mandate certain things allow for tyranny and forced suboptimal “solutions”, capitalistic society allows alternatives to arise. Sure, there are pros and cons to both, but historically the capitalistic societies have been better able to improve the quality of life for the most people compared to others.
I’m not so sure about the overpopulation issue still being a problem. It was once, but much of the developed world has been seeing reduced birthrates for decades now. I think we’ve had discussions about this on GBA in the recent past.
Bill
In some ways Bill, I think there is sometimes too much focus on what the 'fundamental' problem is—as if we as mere mortals are capable of diagnosing that. Understanding the fundamentals of life and the universe is always a process—never an end.
This is why I think capitalism should not be outright shunned as an inherent problem, but in the same breath should not be assumed to be fundamentally benign and good.
As you say, it is a system. A human system. Subject to human nature and human flaws. It's not like gravity. It's more of a social science.
How familiar are you with the concept of externalities? I think that concept—one that has been around for a very long time— is an important one to reconcile why we are experiencing serious issues within our capitalistic system. And it is a concept that doesn't imply we need some sort of totalitarian regime, only a more accurate accounting system.
We all live our lives with countless restrictions; some we just don't see. Others we get real fired up about (namely governmental restrictions). What about the restrictions billions of people on this planet currently have placed on them via their lack-of-access to clean drinking water, or a decent health care system, or basic sanitation and waste disposal systems? These are all restrictions on people's livelihoods. Arguably orders of magnitude more restrictive than ANYTHING our government has ever concocted for us.
I worry freedom has been co-opted to mean something very specific; namely one's own personal freedom regardless of anyone else's. As a society we've of course never truly accepted this— otherwise murder would be on the table—but we appear to be flirting dangerously with the idea that it is somehow absolute and specific; that it exists in a vacuum.
Those of us standing on top of the human pyramid while it's base sinks into our own sludge are sure to cheer on what they perceive as 'freedom' to remain on the highground. At least while it lasts. It won't last forever. We either let the base crumble beneath us, or we realize our interdependencies.
"Piqued"
No Trevor, I meant my interest level had reached a peak! HAHaha. No, thank you, you are right.
Did you get a chance to watch the film? I'm not necessarily saying it's worth your time, but... you never know.
>"You've peaked my interest Dana. I'm not sure what you mean by the fossil water and glacier resources. Any more clues as to what you're referencing?"
Actually I think I piqued your interest ( it can be so interesting that it "peaked").
A lot of agriculture in North America is being irrigated from deep aquifers at a rate well above the natural replenishment rate, and while it's possible to keep drilling deeper wells and powering bigger pumps, the supply really is finite, and in some cases only a decade or two away from depletion at current usage rates. An overview of the historical cumulative net draws on US aquifers lives here:
https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/groundwater-decline-and-depletion?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/map-us-showing-groundwater-levels-trends-1900-2008
(note that some smaller aquifers have been going up over the pas
The shallower cyclically replenished (but majorly drawn down) groundwater resource in the Central Valley of CA has long since turned the San Joaquin river into a dry wash, and drought events over the past decade have shown just how close to the edge that very important agriculture resource really is. Without sufficient seasonal snowpack runoff from the Sierra the farms have to dig deeper, suck harder to stay in business, and water rights are a BIG deal in CA.
Glaciers are another story, and a bit more insidious. Half the world's population lives downstream of the Himalayan glaciers, and that water is necessary for maintaining agriculture during the less-rainy seasons. The glaciers in the Pacific Northwest have similar issues, but not as critically (or as large) as the Himalayas. While seasonal snowpack makes up the lion's share of the off season river flow, climate change has been impacting both the snowpack (which has normal year on year, decade on decade variations), the underlying stored glacier ice is receding (though there are always glad-talkers who cherry pick heavy snowfall years to make an argument that the glacial ice is increasing.) Preserving the glacial ice underpinnings of the river systems in India & China feels like a lost cause unless (or maybe even if) the climate change pressure is taken off in very short years. If/when river systems start to run dry during drier years things will get VERY ugly, and fast.
Some glad-talkers on that front point out that large scale deployment of thorium reactors for electricity near the coasts could as a by-product of all that excessive heat be able to desalinate enough water to supply the major coastal cities in India (which in some cities such as Chennai already in dire-straights), but that is a pathetically tiny amount of water compared to what Indian agriculture needs, much of that agriculture being located hundreds of miles from the coasts. Desalinated ocean water using nuclear reactors could arguably supply the cities in CA too, but wouldn't come close to meeting the Central Valley's needs.
In all cases better water management practices can stave off armageddon for awhile, but if the ground water keeps dropping we're kinda screwed. There are no easy solutions for aquifer management either.
Vegans like to point out that industrial beef and pork production in the US both have a HUGE water resource footprint per unit of nutrition (measured in either calories or protein, any metric you care to use) and that doesn't seem to be going way. It would be very hard to get the US population to change change their habits to match the meat eating levels historically found in India or China, but the trends in both of those countries are going in the wrong direction too (especially China.)
You guys are showing more kindness and agreement than I was able to muster.
I did share similar appreciations: the dangers of greenwashing, the need for very large fundamental shifts that transcend 'build wind farms and solar,' issues with biomass/bio-fuels, and the need to look at the externalities that exist even with 'renewables.' I wish it had conveyed these issues with pungency and accuracy (maybe a framing hammer instead of a wrecking ball). They painted their picture by throwing buckets of paint at it, covering many areas that should have been left to show through their original color. (and at least be factually accurate—which they weren't).
I fear the 'baby was thrown out with the bathwater.' I fear it will become fodder for anti-environmentalists and those who believe nothing needs to be done (or isn't worth doing because... we're just f'ed), or that renewable technologies 'don't work.' Intellectual dishonesty is one way to put it.
Perhaps most of all, I'm baffled by what their proposed path forward includes. Maybe that wasn't the intent of the film, but the tactics used to discredit viable solutions left the impression (or at least, I fear will leave the impression with many) that we ought to just continue burning oil/coal/gas while (somehow) reducing population growth and consumption. Or even that we should do absolutely nothing (go out in glory) because soon enough the Earth with send out it's anti-bodies and rid itself of the human virus.
How about we tackle this from all angles? And how about we consider the realities of what it will take to do all these things? I wager that reducing the carbon output per unit of energy is actually one of the easier tasks (from a social inertia standpoint). It won't be the only thing we need to do, but we still ought to do it, and soon. Reducing population growth is an utter can of worms fraught with dangerous implications. Yet another aspect of the film that was glaringly amiss. Lot's of interviews with old white guys lamenting population booms (nothing inherently wrong with that, but variety is the spice of life—and the realities of where population growth is occurring raises some hairy eyebrows).
We cannot know with any certainly the future. But we can most certainly influence it's trajectory (outside the philosophical trap of fatalism at least).
Has anyone else seen mention of the notion that developed economies are actually reducing total matter throughputs? I'm a bit skeptical of how holistic an analysis it is, but still interesting: https://reason.com/2019/10/09/the-economy-keeps-growing-but-americans-are-using-less-steel-paper-fertilizer-and-energy/
Karma? I hesitate to bring this up because most people's first reaction is to believe the idea of Karma is anti-science. It's too nebulous and unproveable to be a scientific concept supposedly. As someone who believes in science I probably would have said that at some points in my life.
But I'll have to take the risk here and say that I believe that, at least physics, is compatible with Karma. I think in essence that might be what you're talking about if you distilled it to its essence. Yes, a very risky subject, but I agree with you. Conservation of everything that is available locally, i.e. on Earth, implies that it is possible for individuals and societies to be overly selfish. So if you define Karma as being the consequences from being overly selfish of a finite resource then there is definitely Karma acting within our world.
If you redefine words, then they can mean whatever you want. You've not only redefined karma to be different from any dictionary definition or common usage, but you've given it the exact definition of the very specific phenomenon you're talking about. You could substitute any other word in there and it's just as valid. Try it, it's fun. "So if you define astrology as being the consequences from being overly selfish of a finite resource then there is definitely astrology acting within our world."
"So if you define sentient cheese toast as being the consequences from being overly selfish of a finite resource then there is definitely sentient cheese toast acting within our world."
What you're describing is a non magical concept called, among many different things, suffering the predictable consequences of your actions, or more colloquially getting your just desserts.
No, you're wrong. You're working backwards. "What you're describing is a non magical concept called, among many different things, suffering the predictable consequences of your actions, or more colloquially getting your just desserts." What do you think the first principles within Karma actually refers to? I'm not referring to the mechanism of Karma which is nebulous. I'm referring to the effects of Karma which is exactly what is in quotation marks that you said. Don't condemn that idea. It may seem like just a surprising coincidence to you but then again it may not be just a coincidence.
We'll, yes, karma does include the concept of getting your just desserts. But what makes it different is the idea that there is some cosmic justice, some agency directing the results. That's the defining characteristic of karma, and it's also what makes it ridiculous and of no value to the discussion.
Deleted
Karma simply means "work" in Sanskrit. (Just sayin...)
The movie asked some very important questions which left me needing to think about things. I was pretty shocked how it showed some of the (historically) most important leaders on environmental issues have been quietly corrupted and coopted by monied interests. I think it is probably pretty accurate in that portrayal and it changed my views on those people and organizations. It is a bleak picture of human venality and the ability of people to become corrupted by the lure of power, money, and influence.
That said, there was a bit of nihilism in its argument. I especially disliked the one young guy (don't remember his name) popping up all the time who appeared gleeful when describing the energy costs of building practically anything. The message was you're screwed and its hopeless. I could have stood it if I had the slightest feeling his energy consumption arguments for building out wind and solar were accurate, but I don't think they were. I think he was being intellectually dishonest. There is a thin line between acknowledging that we have created this dilemma and then moving to the point that there is no solution. They definitely crossed that line. It IS possible that there is no solution at this point. But the arguments that guy was making about the inefficacy of wind and solar negates the whole idea of human progress. It is actually a very destructive argument that says your actions don't matter because you were destined to fail from the beginning. So in that sense it excuses bad behavior by humans because it says it wouldn't have mattered anyway.
So I think the movie is a blend of very good points and very bad points. The best thing it did was to ask some good questions that needed to be asked.
The movie is filled with so much misinformation and falsehoods that the distributor, Films for Action, had to take it down. They have since re-uploaded it out of concern that there would be cries of censorship ("hiding the truth"), and instead provide a list of critiques that debunk many of the movies errors. Caveat emptor:
https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/films-for-actions-statement-on-planet-of-the-humans/#.XqS8nYXbsD4.twitter
Thanks Robert. For anyone who watched the film, its really worth reading some or all of those reviews linked within that link you posted.
I suspect it's less of an issue with this crowd given the technological/energy literacy. I fear the 'masses' will be led astray if they don't do their homework.
Who's to say what the net effect will be though. It probably is worth shining a light on the mineral extraction processes of rare earths, cobalt, etc.
>”Who's to say what the net effect will be though. It probably is worth shining a light on the mineral extraction processes of rare earths, cobalt, etc.”
All mining is messy. But that doesn’t mean it has to destroy everything. Way back in the 80s when my dad was still working for the electric company here, they put out a movie showing all the restoration they did at some of their coal mines in Montana (I think I’m remembering the state right, it’s been a while). They basically went in, removed the topsoil, removed the coal layer, then moved the topsoil layer back into place and replanted *everything* so you couldn’t even tell anything had ever been done. It was pretty impressive, and this was almost 40 years ago. Why shouldn’t that be the norm?
Mining in a lot of third world countries is brutal. Developed countries are usually more careful. I’m not sure how well you could do trying to get the third world mining operations to run better due to all the corruption endemic to many of those regions.
There is always going to be some impact from resource extraction, but the resources are needed. There is no reason the resources can’t be extracted in a minimally disruptive way though, but it can sometimes take a number of years between the mining operation and when things have regrown. Many green organizations like to focus on the mining part itself, but neglect to mention anything about the work done afterwards to put the sites back together again. Dishonesty goes both ways here.
Bill
Robert,
Thanks for the link to the Films for Action web page that explains the film's falsehoods.
I recommend that GBA readers click through the links on that page and read some of the reviews that detail the film's shortcomings.
Here is another review
https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/?fbclid=IwAR1eUhBPBP9gF9Tq71HDBPyib_-HfzGVBfwdvaOB1ydUYxQ-bU6-j0U50PE
Mark,
That's one of the reviews that appears (with a link) on the Films for Action web page.
I see there is a link to this also
in the Films for Action web page.
If it's from M Moore than yeah, I'd say it's dangerous.
A lot of forums avoid spam by locking threads that haven't had traffic in say six months.
Just saying.
I watched "Planet of the Humans," and it definitely sparked a lot of debate. While it raised some valid points about the environmental movement, I agree it lacked solutions. It's crucial to address issues, but we also need actionable steps for positive change. Here, you can find what is out in the movie theaters if you are a film-lover like me. I hope you like it!