Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Next
Comments 7501 to 7550:
-
ubrew12 at 10:40 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
1st law of thermodynamics "You can't win". 2nd law "You can't even break even"
Ubrew's correlaries: 1st law "Every bit of energy you use comes from your environment" 2nd law: "Yeah, it hurts your environment"
Jeff Gibbs movie belabors something we all knew: we lean on our environment for everything we produce. Unhappily for Gibbs, there isn't a smidgen of non-fossil energy that claims otherwise.
I'm deeply moved by what fossil fuel burning is going to do to the coral reefs, the rainforests, and the polar bears. But I'm a climate activist for what it's about to do to us mere humans. For starters, its going to destroy many of our most cherished historical cities. Against this, should we really dismiss 'Plan B' because it has 'sinned' against our environment? Since I used a toilet today, go ahead and dismiss me as well, by that standard.
-
dannyvocal at 08:07 AM on 3 May 2020Animal agriculture and eating meat are the biggest causes of global warming
I have no difficulty in understanding the critiques of many quacky practices, but the question of what to eat, including the morality of one's diet, is much more difficult as there are many conflicting arguments. Even science based organizations like the American Dietetic Association, will tout the benefits of vegetarianism, as long as the eater does not neglect B12 and the 9 essential amino acids. Environmental writer George Monbiot of the UK paper The Guardian (https://www.monbiot.com/2018/04/03/the-day-i-became-a-vegan/) says that becoming a vegan will save the planet. Reading your statistics above leads to more questions than answers - for example, while stating that animal husbandry only contributes 9% of carbon dioxide, you then go on to state that the greenhouse effect is 20 times stronger for methane than for carbon dioxide. 20 times seems a rather large number, one of such magnitude that it would be difficult to argue that the 1.5 billion cows raised only for meat are not competing rather heftily with the 60% of carbon dioxide caused by the belching of cars, trucks and factories. Monbiot also states that food companies are now using bacteria to generate believable steaks, sausages and fish. I can believe that, given how realistic the plant-based burgers are becoming. While I haven't yet found a plant-based milk that enhances my tea, the plant-based chives cream cheese I just bought is absolutely delish! There are always problems I have found with people's arguments - the mere fact of making an argument means it is not going to be: "the benefits of this are... and the costs of this are...." - especially when it comes to a problem as severe as climate change. I also privately (as I never feel sufficiently armed with data to make almost any argument convincing) wonder if the liberal opposition to nuclear power is not also contributing to climate change. I am a liberal myself but I also know from psychology that liberals and conservatives each have their own biases. While I am very aware of how the Trump administration is dismantling all environmental laws, would the considerable influence of anti-nuclear energy among liberals which has for real hindered its research and development in Germany, UK, and the States during the Clinton Administration, not mean that liberals also contributed a great deal to existing climate change at a time (25 years ago) when we could have easily slid from non-renewables to nuclear (and the nuclear being developed at the time was nothing like Chernobyl reactor, it was the Integral Fast Reactor - one of the best books on that is from one of the scientists decommissioned by the Clinton administration (http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf). I know that has nothing to do with diet, but I make this point as with so many people making arguments for and against important positions like vegetarianism/veganism, we must each take our stands in the direction we believe the data support. I think for many vegetarians, giving up meat, as long as they are not excessively narcissistic and self-righteous about it, is a private decision made against the excessively consumerist culture, like replacing our cars with bicycles, practicing minimalism with our possessions, or even using one's typewriter when powering up the PC is unnecessary.
-
bjchip at 07:56 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Renewables do not resolve the problem. Nuclear does not resolve the problem. No single answer resolves the problem and the use of "Capitalism" guarantees that the problem will not be resolved. I managed to watch a fair bit of it. It is flawed, but not the horrendous thing that some people here seem to think.
I know that Ivanpah had teething problems and that they were ultimately resolved. The film is misleading about that, clearly showing someplace else to declare it a disaster. I almost stopped with that because I've followed Ivanpah's struggle - but the fragility of a renewables-only infrastructure is not imaginary and not merely something that was true in the past. The difficulty of getting electric vehicles to replace cars and trucks but retaining the way we use cars and trucks, is well understood. The environmental cost of the elements and chemical processes that go into the batteries and the cells, and the 25 year lifetimes of the cells, are all too real.
The three smallest wedges here have to replace half of the 3 largest wedges - in 10 years. That isn't going to happen. THAT is what I see as one of the messages that is quite real in this film.
The problem of intermittency is not resolved by any amount of hand-waving. It requires hard engineering to store energy effectively and it is going to require immense changes to our 24/7 culture as well as abandoning entirely the notion that "growth" is the sacrament that mainstream economics and consumer capitalism make it.
"The film suggests that because no source of energy is perfect, all are bad"
I didn't see that. I saw some fairly pointed minor criticisms of specific tech. I didn't see "nothing works". A lot of popular answers won't.
Some see the film's central point as "we cannot use technology to get us out of a jam that technology created in the first place". This is an attractive sound bite and it isn't true. It is one of several flaws in the film.
We can't keep our current economic and social systems and we are going to have to live differently, if we want to retain human civilization. That is what I think the film really intended to point out and it is actually a very pointy point.
We need all of every possible source of non-CO2 emitting energy we can obtain. We need the Germans to reverse their anti-nuclear stance and the New Zealanders to make it clear that nuclear power is acceptable for shipping to New Zealand. We need massive electrification of rail - which doesn't require any batteries to work - to replace as much of our long haul trucking as we can. We need answers from real engineers rather from enthusiasts and cheerleaders - and we need to accept that we are going to have to change a hell of a lot about the way we live over the next few decades.
The Coronavirus has taught us is that we need to work together to solve the big problems. Maybe we will.
-
nigelj at 06:59 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Joe Wiseman @7
"So Michael has fallen victim to that most powerful of human attributes - greed."
How do you conclude that? The impression I get is he has let his anti capitalist tendences get out of control. He has talked about billionaire capitalists profiting from renewables in disparaging terms. His solutions are to have fewer children and consume a lot less less energy. I would be interested to see if he lives by these principles. People who preach need to practice their principles if they want credibility.
"I mistakenly thought of him (Michael Moore) as "one of the good guys."
I understand what you mean. I saw his Bowling for Columbine about mass shootings and gun control (or lack of) in the USA, and it was entertaining and moving, and made a powerful point about the problems, but it was full of huge distortions. It could not really be called a documentary. M Moore gets his facts wrong and exaggerates and so he plays into the hands of his critics I think. Looks like hes done the same with this latest documentary on energy systems.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:20 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
I find it tragic that "Proponents of one of the many sub-sets of required corrections of developed human activity" fail to acknowledge the diverse collected understanding in the Sustainable Development Goals, all of which needs to be achieved and can be improved upon. An economy driven to be comprised of the most sustainable and least harmful activities has the best chance of "Getting Better Sustainably". All other economic developed activity is destined to end, some of it very tragically ending after doing much harm before it is ended.
But I agree that a fundamental problem is the more fortunate people who do not wish to lose perceptions of status that they would lose if the required corrections were successfully rapidly pursued. They are the portion of the population the future of humanity would be better without.
The SDGs were published in 2015. And every advocate of one of the many required changes should embrace and support the entire understanding of the SDGs, or expand and correct the SDGs with detailed independently verifiable justification.
This movie indeed appears to have been started in the past without any effort put into checking if it was Out of Date in any way. The lack of interest in pursuing expanded awareness and improved understanding to help develop sustainable improvements for humanity is tragically popular.
-
william5331 at 06:07 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
More than monumentally wrong. Most of the manufacturing processes to produce wind turbines and solar panels use electricity as their energy source and the greater the proportion of renewable energy in the mix the lower the amount of fossil fuel that is used in their production. In other words, we are using fossil fuel to wean ourselves off fossil fuel. As it should be. Incidentally, work is being done on using Hydrogen to reduce iron ore rather than coking coal. If this works out, another tranch of fossil fuel use disappears from the production of wind turbines.
-
RedBaron at 03:01 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
@8,
You are right, without changing agriculture it is impossible, but the flaws in the movie suround energy tech mostly
-
Ellesmere at 02:00 AM on 3 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
While the author offers many valid criticisms of the movie, I believe Planet of The Humans addresses a far wider concern than simply a necessary reduction in fossil fuel emissions.
We can blame the filmmakers for begin overly ambitious or impractical in their underlying message. Yet, it's undeniable that more fundamental solutions are needed to save our planet's once-diverse ecosystems, from continued degradation from all forms of development - green technology included.
-
Joe Wiseman at 23:35 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
So Michael has fallen victim to that most powerful of human attributes - greed. Whether for money and/or glory, the result is the same. Another dent in the defenses of already fragile eco-systems. I mistakenly thought of him as "one of the good guys."
-
J1mB0b at 22:15 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
This film is far from climate denial. It clearly says we are changing our climate. I agree the mistakes, old info and missinformation are unforgivable but the general idea that too many humans consume too much is truth. Typical Moore sensationalism. Pretty badly made film too imo
-
Prometheus 1962 at 21:59 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
"the film presents one biased perspective via carefully chosen voices, virtually all of whom are comfortable white men."
I agree with almost all of the article's points, but why the need for this ad hominem? Many advocates of green energy are "comfortable white men" too. Does that mean they're not trustworthy either? Of course not! All this comment does is cast doubt on the rest of the article, making me want to re-read it in case the writer threw in some other fallacy that I might have missed.
Just avoid sophistry, stick to the facts, and we're all better-off.
-
Eclectic at 21:55 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Gwsb @3 :-
<" ... by power plants using natural gas the amount of CO2 released for generating electricity is reduced by more than 50%. Isn't that great? ">
Okay . . . and then what?
Gwsb, I'm not sure how much irony you're using.
Let's have a look at an analogy :-
~ Instead of a daily beating, you now only beat your wife three days a week. Isn't that great?
Irony, or ironical sarcasm?
-
GwsB at 21:18 PM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
Both Michael Moore and the environmentalists seem to believe that one should use pictures and cherries to convince as many people as possible. Michael Moore is quite good at that. So he forces environmentalists to defend their position and to use arguments. That is fair isn't it. So where are the real convincing arguments?
Let me give an example: In 2018 natural gas accounted for more kWh of electricity in the US than did coal, but it released less than half the amount of CO2. See https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 By replacing all coal fired power plants by power plants using natural gas the amount of CO2 released for generating electricity is reduced by more than 50%. Isn't that great?
-
nigelj at 09:06 AM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
"The film suggests that because no source of energy is perfect, all are bad, thus implying that the very existence of human civilization is the problem while offering little in the way of alternative solutions."
Exactly. I suspect this is all because the films producers clearly hate industrial society, and capitalism and allegedly horrible billionaires that 'profit' from renewables. But it makes no sense to start criticising renewables, because capitalists will keep on building more fossil fuels and profiting from that. Moore and Gibs have shot themselves in their own feet in spectacular fashion.
Sure we need to improve capitalism, or find an alternative, but that is no easy task and will take time, so can't be a precondition to solving the climate problem.
-
abostrom at 08:41 AM on 2 May 2020Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' documentary peddles dangerous climate denial
How disappointing that Moore could be so careless. Nuff said by me.
-
nigelj at 08:00 AM on 2 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Pete @22
I like to think I'm a realist. Mitigating climate change obviously wont be easy.
I agree to the extent we should use the earths resources as sparingly as possible, and minimise waste and we should accept gdp growth cannot continue forever. But I wont be adopting a very basic hair shirt lifestyle either. It doesn't make sense to me because this sort of low tech self flaggelation approach causes problems, and only delays the point where future generations run short of some things, so I support building renewable energy.
-
Pete19387 at 02:43 AM on 2 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Thanks nigelj and Eclectic for the good points.
nigelj, you appear to be an optimist. Perhaps I’m a pessimist, but I think I’m a realist.
It may theoretically be possible to totally transform our energy systems in the next 30 years but, for the most part, society doesn’t even see the need, let alone the urgency to do so. My point, and I think the major point of the film, is that there is this magical thinking that by simply switching to renewable energy sources we can continue to grow, consume, and carry on as we always have. It’s a soothing message—and one many of the major green groups have bought into—that all we need is a little relatively-painless tinkering with the technology. (I have been a supporter of, and volunteer with, numerous environmental and conservation groups over the years, and I continue to be involved. These days I mostly donate to groups that don’t have charitable status and thus are free to critique and criticize society's sacred cows.)
As critical as the climate change issue is, I would argue that we have even more immediate and pressing issues including the loss of biodiversity, the degradation of soils and farm lands, and the contamination and loss of fresh water. I am concerned about the unintended consequences of another mad dash for resources like lithium and rare-earth metals to feed our latest technological lurch. (Are there even enough of these relatively rare resources to feed our insatiable appetite?)
Having said that, I’ll 100% agree that renewable sources are better than fossil fuels, and that more renewable sources are better than fewer. My main concern is that society is not even having the conversation about the tradeoffs involved. Rather, the assumption is that we can just engineer our way out the trouble we’re in and carry on as if nothing has changed. But what if the engineering and tinkering are wholly inadequate? Should we continue down this unsustainable path? Who gains and who loses by the choices we are making? Society should be having a conscious conversation about where we’re going. Right now, we’re on autopilot.
To answer your question nigelj, I quite like technology and industry. I have a STEM background, and I’m fascinated and impressed by our cleverness and technology. I like driving my car, using the latest gadgets, flying all over the world on vacation, having fresh food all winter long, and getting wine shipped in from literally the other side of the world. But I’m also cognizant of the dangers, costs, and unsustainably of this way of life, and I’m trying to reduce my impact. I’m also a passionate lover of wildlife, and remote and wild places, and I feel heartsick to see the wild disappearing before my eyes. (As Steve McQueen is reported to have said, “I’d rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth.”)
I’ve always said that our two biggest “environmental” problems are organized religion (humans are “special” and superior to the rest of “creation”), and capitalism (infinite growth in a finite world).
-
Prometheus 1962 at 23:34 PM on 1 May 2020A leading scientist's transition from climate science to solutions
The idea that renting a compact car rather than a midsize or SUV is a "solution" is complete nonsense, as is making an individual commitment to green energy.
We need to be dismantling fossil fuel industries, not using them slightly less.
If this is an example of the scientific community's "solutions" we are in far worse trouble than I thought.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:47 PM on 1 May 2020DMI show cooling Arctic
An, no Frank, melting ice does not cool the environment. No, melting ice does not cool water - unless you are adding ice to warmer water. In such a case (warm water + ice), the water will cool to zero in proportion to the amount of ice that melts (energy equivalence), and then the ice/water mix will remain at 0C. The ice.water proportions will then change depending on whether you are adding or removing energy from the mix.
In the natural environment, during the melt period, the ice/water mix is already at 0C, and adding energy causes the ice to turn to water - all at 0C. Once the ice melts, continued additions of energy will then warm the water.
...and during that period, knowing temperature is useful. In fact, it can tell you a lot about whether there is ice/snow or water or a mix.
You should seriously sit back and ponder the possibilty that people who have been studying these things for centuries actually might know a few things that you do not know.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:37 PM on 1 May 2020Models are unreliable
Frank:
Short answer is "yes". It takes energy to melt ice. It takes energy to evaporate water. Freezing and condensation involve the opposite energy conversion. Subllimation (solid-->gas or gas-->solid) is also considered.
All of this is part of the conservation of energy, which is incorporated into the models.
Your statement "...because it's below zero and thus not part of the fusion water/ice at 0 C" makes no sense, Perhaps you can clarify.
-
MA Rodger at 21:47 PM on 1 May 2020Antarctica is gaining ice
Smith et al (2020) 'Pervasive ice sheet mass loss reflects competing ocean and atmosphere processes' compares ICESat data from 2003-2009 with ICESat-2 data from 2018-19 and provides more detail than GRACE 2002-16 but effectively the same conclusion - average Antarctic ice loss - GRACE - 125Gt/year. ICESat-2/ICESat - 118Gt/year.
-
michael sweet at 21:05 PM on 1 May 2020Skeptical Science New Research for Week #17, 2020
The BBC interviews Antonio Guteres, the head of the UN about Covid 19. At the end he says we need to learn from the virus experience and use what we learn to respond to the challenge of climate change.
I thought it was important that climate change action was so strongly supported.
-
Eclectic at 16:40 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Pete @19 , yes self-evidently it is a fantasy if we expect to continue our "default" policy of ever-increasing economic growth without limits. And based on profligate use of resources. At some point we must transition to aiming for "quality growth" rather than dollar growth.
But in the near future i.e. this century , we must solve the global warming problem first ~ and as explained earlier, we cannot (politically) solve overpopulation as a pre-condition, because there just isn't time to do that. Nor is it politically possible to go ultra low-tech lifestyle.
Renewables - solar and wind - are our only practical method. Nuclear fission is too expensive & too slow to build (for more than a tiny fraction of the power generation needed). Likewise with the still-over-the-horizon fusion powerplants.
30 years is a long time, but present-day-tech renewables can do the job by 2050 or thereabouts. But what is needed, is a Manhattan-type Project to develop synthetic hydrocarbon fuels (organic base ~ not alcohol, but long-chain hydrocarbons) for ships / planes / heavy vehicles). 30 years should be adequate for all this.
You are right, that there is not yet sufficient urgency in tackling our major problems. History points to the probability that we will continue to dawdle . . . and then desperately ramp-up our efforts later in the day.
-
nigelj at 16:18 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Pete @19
"There is NO way that renewables (or nuclear) can scale up to the required level in the time frame we have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. "
You haven't explained why. You have just made emotive assertions. I will explain in simple terms why we can!
Firstly the Stern Report estimates converting to renewables will cost about 3% of global economic output per year between now and 2050, and other reports estimate roughly the same. This is comparable to what countries typically spend on the military or old age pension per year, therefore its obvious we can find that sort of money with a little bit of repriortising of spending.
Now look at how quickly countries changed and reprioritised industrial production during WW2, in just 5 years, away from things like building construction to armaments and scaled up armaments. So its obvious renewables could scale if we wanted (and some nuclear power, if that is wanted). We wont do it by 2050, but we could get close enough to make a big difference to climate outcomes.
I think the thing standing in the way is ignorance, politics, and lack of motivation, and a focus on other spending, but there is at least a chance those thing can change and some signs they are in some places.
"(Not to mention that renewables generally add to, rather than replace, existing energy sources.)
That is simply not the case. For example the UK has replaced an awful lot of coal production with wind power. And you are confusing a lack of sufficient progress in some places with what is possible if we want.
"In a way, the promotion of renewables is a scam which lets society continue to ignore the problems of overpopulation, economic "growth", and excessive resource use for a little while longer. "
I disagree. You really need to read the comments made by other people before you post your own. Population growth has not been ignored. Its been slowing since the 1970s, and many countries have policies encouraging lower rates of population growth. But there are limits on what such policies can achieve and how quickly rates will fall. They are not a panacea.
Yes high rates of economic growth are unsustainable long term, but rates of economic growth are falling anyway. Do - the-research.
You also seem oblivious of the enormous difficulties in persuading people to make huge reductions in their use of energy and technology. I would suggest its going to be even more difficult doing that than persuading people to build renewable energy, and I'm not persuaded that huge reductions to use of energy and technology etcetera even make sense. They certainly have unpleasant consequences that must be weighed against the climate problem.
Our only hope appears to be a combination of both renewable energy and more realistically achieveable reductions in energy use.
The movie is politically motivated and I'm willing to bet you are as well. You probably dont like the capitalist system, rich people, and 'industrial' society. Is that a correct guess? Hell, neither do I in some ways, but the alternatives are even worse.
-
Pete19387 at 14:20 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
I watched this film and was prepared to dismiss it, but it had much of importance to say. (I was a little disappointed by the skewering of Bill McKibben, but that's another story.)
I don't actually think the film was a criticism of renewable energy in general, and it certainly wasn't an endorsement of fossil fuels.
Rather, it was a realistic appraisal of the problem we face. There is NO way that renewables (or nuclear) can scale up to the required level in the time frame we have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. (Not to mention that renewables generally add to, rather than replace, existing energy sources.) It is a fantasy to expect that we can continue our way of life by replacing fossil fuels with renewables. The simple truth is that we are between a rock and a hard place. In a way, the promotion of renewables is a scam which lets society continue to ignore the problems of overpopulation, economic "growth", and excessive resource use for a little while longer. One way or the other, we are either going to have to make unpleasant and dramatic changes to our way of life, or nature will make those choices for us. I'm not optimistic about our ability to make those changes.
-
John Hartz at 12:57 PM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Two more excellent critiques of the film...
Michael Moore produced a film about climate change that’s a gift to Big Oil by Leah C Stokes, Energy & Environment, Vox, Apr 28, 2020
Inside Clean Energy: 6 Things Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ Gets Wrong by Dan Gerino, InsideClimate News, Apr 30, 2020
-
Frank19385 at 06:04 AM on 1 May 2020DMI show cooling Arctic
Please, stop measuring temperatures during the melt season! It's hidden, because it's latent heat . And the more ice melts the cooler the environment will be. Every kilo of melted ice cools 80 liter water with 1 degree C.
-
Frank19385 at 05:46 AM on 1 May 2020Models are unreliable
I want to know if the climate models take the latent heat of melting ice into account ? Now the temperature in 80 N area is moderated at 0 C in the summer. (see 80 N graph of DMI) If all ice has gone the temperature will increase very fast. Because it looks like the models are interpolating the observed temperatures , they do not see the latent heat of 334 KJ/kg of melting ice. This amount of energy will be replaced by sensibile heat of water 4,18 KJ/kg.K. Also the specific heat of water is almost twice the specific heat of ice 2.108 kJ/kg.K This also explains why the Arctic Amplification only happens from October tot April, because it's below zero and thus not part of the fusion water/ice at 0 C. I read in many papers that AA is not well understood. But I'm sure this is the main cause; It's the specific heat of ice in the Arctic compared with specific heat of water in the rest of the world.
-
michael sweet at 04:56 AM on 1 May 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Jef@10:
There are hundreds of papers describing All Power renewable systems. You are sim[ply uninformed. Here are two: Jacobson 2018 and Smart Energy Europe 2016. Use GOOGLE Scholar to obtain the papers that cite these two papers and you will find much more than you want to read on All Power renewable systems.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:12 PM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
It is disappointing to see something so obviously contrary to "expanded awareness and improved understanding applied to help achieve a sustainable and improvable future for humanity" be so popular in supposedly more advanced nations.
But I am used to seeing opposition to achieving and improving the Sustainable Development Goals be "Very Popular", especially among the populations of the supposedly more advanced nations.
Any nation that has a significant portion of its population easily impressed by something like this movie is obviously not very advanced, in spite of its developed impressions of advancement and superiority.
Any nation where harmful misleading story-telling can be popular enough to be influential, and is not clearly reducing the ability for harmful misleading story-telling to be influential, is failing to protect itself from being taken over by people who want to rule by Tyranny (Not an extremist claim or hyperbolic. This is a serious problem).
-
nigelj at 07:55 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
jef @10
"All criticism of POTH fails to give hard current facts "
Not by my observation. The link I posted included several facts. Jef has to show in detail why you think its wrong, only then will people listen.
"Advocates for a renewable do not talk about after switching over electrical generation, a monumental task that insures we use up most of the afordable FFs, then we will also electricify all the work that FFs do for us more than doubling the amount of "renewable energy" needed, putting it into dream land. "
Not correct. While converting to renewables is indeed a big task, its technically and economically feasible according to numerous studies that you have not even attempted to refute.
Renewables are inevitable because sooner or later we will run out of fossil fuels. Peak oil and peak coal on wikipedia review the academic estimates and suggest we will run out in 100 - 150 years globally. Its expected that the coal rich USA will run out of economically recoverable coal in just 50 years. So renewables are inevitable, and possibly nuclear power to some extent in some places. That's another argument. The point is we need a new and clean energy grid.
"Every open area will need to be covered in solar, wind, biomass production, and every drop of FFs will be used to accomplish it, and used very rapidly due to the urgency."
No, if a country like the USA was entirely powered by solar farms it would cover less than 0.5% of the land area. Here are some credible calculations and graphics.
"With the global shutdown it is clear that we can cut all energy use in half instantly and cut further as we get smarter about it."
No it is not clear. There has been no significant change in electricity generation. There is less traffic on the roads and less air travel, but only because people are in lockdown and factories have closed. You cannot keep that up for long without severe shortages emerging. Refer to the second link I posted.
The lockdown does not prove we can reduce energy use in a dramatic and long lasting way. It does suggest that we can reduce some energy use, eg more working from home. This might remain after lockdowns are lifted, time will tell.
I do agree with Jef to the extent we must aim to reduce our energy use, but we have to be realistic about expectations. People are unlikely to be prepared to go cold in winter etc, or face supply shortages of consumer goods we take for granted these days. But people clearly are buying more energy efficient appliances, insulating homes, and some are flying a bit less and buying smaller cars. There are some realistic things we can do to be encouraged, but others look like wishful thinking to me.
"If people around the world were told the truth and understand that AGW is not a belief system that you get to believe in or not, then they would make the choice themselves to not have babies or fewer babies which would stop population growth instantly."
Yes, but it still would only have very limited benefit in terms of meeting the Paris Accord goals, because it takes time for the demographics to change as eclectic points out.
More realistic median estimates are population reaching about 10 billion by around the end of this century then slowly falling. Realistic policies might improve this a bit to maybe 9 billion people and falling more sharply. This would obviously help stop warming getting up around 5 degrees but it wont stop us getting to 2 degrees at least. And less people might consume more of the available energy and materials, in one big extravagant party, so we are reliant on some way of discouraging that.
-
william5331 at 06:43 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
With respect to population reduction, it is happening whether we like it or not. There is just a wee overshoot because of the youth demographic of some countries but in many many countries the birth rate is below the replacement rate of 2.1. Read The Empty Planet by Bricker. No need to do anything. Just educate women and even this is not necessary. Just give them affordable (read free in some cases) contraception and they will do the rest. https://mtkass.blogspot.com/2009/02/malthus-pyramid-schemes-starvation-and.html
-
SirCharles at 03:46 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Solar and Wind Cheapest Sources of Power in Most of the World
Solar and onshore wind power are now the cheapest new sources of electricity in at least two-thirds of the world’s population, further threatening the two fossil-fuel stalwarts — coal and natural gas.
The levelized cost of electricity for onshore wind projects has fallen 9% to $44 a megawatt-hour since the second half of last year. Solar declined 4% to $50 a megawatt-hour, according to a report Tuesday by BloombergNEF.
The prices are even lower in countries including the U.S., China and Brazil. Equipment costs have come down, technologies have improved and governments across the world have boosted clean-power targets as they seek to combat climate change. That could squeeze out coal and natural gas when utilities develop new power plants. ...
-
dana1981 at 02:17 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
jef @ 10 - sorry, nothing you said there makes any sense or bears any resemblance to reality.
Note that I'll also have a piece debunking this film in the next week or two.
-
Justino Rodrigues at 01:26 AM on 30 April 2020Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?
It seems that this discussion have derrailed a bit. I was able to read almost everything. I decided to join the discussion because very recently I done a compreensive research about this subject. In the end, I have made a article, where I conclude that the position for nuclear energy is not the best, comparatively to renewable technologies.
- Renewable technologies already have the technical potential to supply all primary energy demand, while nuclear energy is still dependent on important technological advancements. Fusion power is also a promising technology, but its technical feasibility was not demonstrated yet.- Nuclear energy is relatively clean and has less land requirements, but its waste management continues to be an expensive and potentially dangerous problem waiting for a definitive solution.
-Nuclear energy is becoming less competitive relatively to renewable technologies (specially wind and solar power) in terms of levelized costs of energy. Moreover, the costs associated to the management of the nuclear waste tend to increase over time, and the decommission costs of a nuclear power plant remain difficult to evaluate.
-Nuclear energy is a relatively safe technology, presenting one of the lowest fatality rates, even considering the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima. However, its potential for catastrophic events is considerable and have a high psychological effect on people’s mind.
-A set of technological developments are taking place which would enable renewable technologies to provide satisfactory stability levels to the electric power system in the future, allowing thus the dismissal of nuclear power plants from that role.
I will not post here all the references I have consulted since it would be messy. Instead, you can read my article. If there any particular subject anyone wants to discuss, I will be glad to do so.
Here is the link.
Thanks to allModerator Response:[PS] Good to see an article with a comprehensive list of sources at the bottom.
-
SirCharles at 00:45 AM on 30 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Can the world run on renewables? Yes, Stanford researchers say.
Additional reporting here => Renewable Energy Could Power the World by 2050
=> 3 clean energy myths that can lead to a productive climate conversation
-
jef12506 at 23:53 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
All criticism of POTH fails to give hard current facts to refute the claims in the documentary they mostly denegrate the makers.
"Renewables" are not! After electriity generation FFs perform 80% of all work around the world. An enormous amount of work.
Advocates for a renewable do not talk about after switching over electrical generation, a monumental task that insures we use up most of the afordable FFs, then we will also electricify all the work that FFs do for us more than doubling the amount of "renewable energy" needed, putting it into dream land. Every open area will need to be covered in solar, wind, biomass production, and every drop of FFs will be used to accomplish it, and used very rapidly due to the urgency.
With the global shutdown it is clear that we can cut all energy use in half instantly and cut further as we get smarter about it.
If people around the world were told the truth and understand that AGW is not a belief system that you get to believe in or not, then they would make the choice themselves to not have babies or fewer babies which would stop population growth instantly.
The promis of a "renewable" future is lie causing way more harm than good.
Moderator Response:[DB] As was the case with your previous comment, nebulous assertions and dismissive, hand-waving claims lacking specific examples are sloganeering and are generally unhelpful to this discussion. For example, read here and here to see specifics that run counter to your claims.
-
GwsB at 23:17 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
The guest author, Ketan Joshi, has a beautiful site, https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/ It is a pleasure to visit that site and to read the comments.
Moderator Response:[DB] Hyperlinked URL.
-
Eclectic at 22:43 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Wol, as you are doubtless aware, the global desirable goal is zero nett carbon emission by about 2050. Technically, it is likely achievable in a practical sense ~ but political inertia will probably make us overshoot that date (judging by how things are running at present ! )
In comparison, have a look at the projected world population curve if by 2030 the human fertility rate drops to about 1.4 (present day examples : Italy, Japan). Or achieves that 1.4 fertility rate by 2050 . . . or 2070. Unfortunately , those scenarios are extremely unlikely to happen within the next half-century.
Africa & other poverty-stricken regions will not reach a low reproduction rate until they have a large increase in education levels for women, combined with increased wealth (and social security for old age). This seems to be the lesson of history.
Even with a 1.4 rate, miraculously, in the near future ~ the world population would stay high throughout this century [2020-2100]. So without the techological "fix" for carbon emissions, there cannot be a cure for the global warming problem.
If you notice today's amount of heel-dragging & push-back on CO2 emissions, then you might like to imagine the future outrage coming from the political and/or religious firebrands protesting about any suggestion of population limitation as direct governmental policy.
In short, we might achieve timely carbon emission control ~ but (wars and plagues aside) there is zero chance we can do that by population control. Fixing excess resources consumption, ecological pollution, overpopulation etc . . . are all problems which will mostly have to wait until we fix the basic climate/AGW problem.
-
SirCharles at 21:57 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
@6 Wol
"It's only a few years since the UN estimate was a peak of 9Bn. Then in the last year or two, 10Bn."
Source?
-
MA Rodger at 21:24 PM on 29 April 2020Milankovitch Cycles
mkrichew @60,
Briefly as we are off-topic, regarding CO2 at altitude, it is effecively well mixed up to 50,000km, the scatter measured at low altitude being simply local influence and more generally the annual CO2 cycle.
What I would add is that the ability of CO2 to "capture the suns rays," something you suggest is significant @56, is very small. Of the absorption bands of CO2, only the 2.9 micron band operates within the wavelength of solar radiation and that at the very tag end of the insolation's frequency distribution.
-
Wol at 20:38 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Sir Charles @ 5:
>>The UN estimate a peak by the end of this century with a global population of about 11 billion people.<<
It's only a few years since the UN estimate was a peak of 9Bn. Then in the last year or two, 10Bn. So now 11Bn?
There may be many problems with this film, but its comments on population are correct. Just because there's the same taboo on even mentioning overpopulation as there is on criticising religion doesn't mean it's not THE centre of the problem.
Every living part of the ecosystem competes in a Darwinian fight to increase its share, until it overblows itself and suffers a partial or complete die-off. Humanity is different, because we have been clever enough (Ha!) to mostly eliminate the usual causes of such die-offs.
We probably need at least two earths for sustainable existence: it's well pat time to accept that unless and until the human load on the planet comes down to something that can be sustained the future isn't sunny. Eating fewer livestock, wearing vegan sandals and switching off the odd light is pointless when there are another three of us every second to feed, grow up, house etc.
-
SirCharles at 19:33 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Population growth nowadays is mainly driven by the fact that humans are getting healthier and much older than in the past. Fertility rate is declining since the 1960s and has now halved. The UN estimate a peak by the end of this century with a global population of about 11 billion people.
-
SirCharles at 19:30 PM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Adding up to the articles posted above:
https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/films-for-actions-statement-on-planet-of-the-humans/
Last not least, Zeke Hausfather:
-
Jan Mazuch at 16:50 PM on 29 April 2020CO2 was higher in the past
Dear all,
Life was built here during bilions of years. To preserve life for Human we need specific enviroment /forest+fields + rivers + clean water and air for health/. Increasing temperature and changed water distributions is threat for this human positive enviroment. find Reason for negative trend is not highest need , Highest need is to keep human friendly enviroment.
Like:
Plant a trees
Built artificial lakes and water dam.
Avoid water and air pollutions.
Do not concentrate populations to cities only.
Do we need fear as only motivations to do this ?
-
mkrichew at 15:57 PM on 29 April 2020Milankovitch Cycles
To the moderator:
Thank you once again for providing the graphs of CO2 concentration verses altitude.
1. In answer to your implied query in 1/ above concerning the existance of the Milankovitch cycles. I believe they exist, although I have not read his paper. I am taking your word and explanation as well as the one in Wikipedia.
What I was questioning and am continuing to look into was the forcing at the onset of deglaciation. John Cook's article in this URL "Why does CO2 lag Temperature?" has given me food for thought in the area of the speed of onset and fast temperature rise.
2. I have not looked into the math done to get the curves shown concerning your comment 2/.
3. Your comment 3/. I have read 5 W/m2 and 50 W/m2 as the intensity changes. I will see if I get interested enough to do the math.
4. Your comment 4/. I had read somewhere that the cycles timing did not match physical evidence of timing of ice ages. However, this may have been in reference to the obliquity cycle and not the eccentricity cycle. I can't remember, I think it was ten years ago when I read this.
Thanks once again.
-
ubrew12 at 11:13 AM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
Population control (to not have children) is a kind of 'ultimate' individual action. But will it necessarily bring down CO2 emissions? In the coronavirus pandemic, we are witnessing a test of whether 'individual action' can really make a difference in CO2 emissions. People are taking extreme actions to avoid general contagion. As a result, the air over most cities hasn't been this clean in decades. Yet all this sacrifice is estimated to only decrease carbon emissions by about 5%. Peter Sinclair has an article on this issue, and its worth thinking about.
This begs the question: If we halve the population, would the remaining people just burn twice as much coal (not directly, but in pursuit of more and better lives)?
I should also note, most of us don't 'hate' fossil fuel. We don't like the industry paying to foist a lie upon the public and decisionmakers, preventing its true cost from being calculated. If wind power has problems it admits to, that is not a scandal. The scandal only occurs if it doesn't admit to them. I haven't seen 'planet of humans', but I suspect it is pointing to issues renewable power already admits to, and is actively working to improve, so where is the scandal?
-
shoyemore at 06:43 AM on 29 April 2020Planet of the humans: A reheated mess of lazy, old myths
The "Great Global Swindle" of 2020, if anyone remembers that piece of cr*p.
-
Lawrence Tenkman at 04:02 AM on 29 April 2020IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
Zeph,
I love your analogy (from a decade ago). The double standard you mention seems quite irrational. Why must changing our course require such an asymmetric burden of proof (free of any miniscule imperfection), while those who argue not to alter course have no such burden? Well, those asking us to “change course” move to take away our status quo and make us do "something extra"... very inconvenient, right? All burden is on them.
Your analogy shows us: neither decision is “something extra”… both “changing course” (reacting to data) and “continuing course” (not reacting to data) are decisions. A worse inconvenience (loss of time / money / life) could be present in either action. Passengers don’t want to experience delay (or sinking!) unnecessarily. Ideally, the next step isn’t based on matching the prior step, but instead is guided by the best data, which becomes stronger over time.
To this end, the captain sends 100 wood specialists down to evaluate. Ninety-seven return saying the rotten wood is starting to leak, present innumerable impressive data sets demonstrating risk of accelerated leaking & sinking, and recommend repair. Ship owners, not wanting idle vessels, argue it isn’t absolutely proven that the ship would sink, and point to 3 of the 100 specialists who found some imperfections in the models. Owners influence the captain to push the boat further out to sea, and taut to passengers how much inconvenience they are preventing.
Of course, the specialists wanting to repair the ship aren’t causing the major inconvenience… the data (rotten wood) is doing this. It makes no sense to put the burden of proof asymmetrically on those wanting to repair the ship. After all, it seems some owners won’t be convinced until the ship is partially submerged, which of course then is too late.
-
Jim Hunt at 01:45 AM on 29 April 2020Coronavirus conspiracy theories are dangerous – here’s how to stop them spreading
My own interest at present concerns the rather more subtle activities of the various flavours of mainstream media here in the once Great Britain.
Here's a pot pourri of the messages the Independent, Times and Telegraph are endeavouring to impart in the wake of Boris Johnson's return to Downing Street yesterday:
http://CoV-eHealth.org/2020/04/27/boris-johnson-returns-to-work/
Which version of this Covid-19 “story” do you prefer to believe?
How might one go about inoculating the readers of the once Great British broadsheets against the prejudices of their own particular "echo chamber"?
Prev 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Next
