A minute-by-minute breakdown of all of the misinformation in Michael Moore’s Planet of the Humans
On Earth Day, Michael Moore released a new documentary called The Planet of the Humans on YouTube. To date, the film has over 6 million views and glowing reviews from the Guardian, the Hollywood Reporter, and more. Michael Moore has consistently produced interesting and well researched content and seeing that this one was about a topic I’ve devoted my whole life to, I was excited to watch it. However, as I watched, I was horrified. One after the other, the film showed shocking journalistic negligence and blatant data manipulation with a total of over 100 false and misleading statements. Somehow, progressive news agencies such as The Hill and even Stephen Colbert were lauding the film while at the same time it was being praised by well-known climate denying agencies such as the Heartland Institute, Breitbart, the Koch-funded Institute of Energy Research https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/05/01/fossil-fuel-backed-climate-deniers-rush-promote-michael-moore-planet-of-humans. Michael Mann, a professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State and lead author of the third IPCC report has called the film “dangerous, misleading, and destructive” and signed a letter with dozens of other climate scientists including Dwight Baum (Cornell), Mark Jacobson (Stanford), Geoffrey Supran (Harvard), and Leah Stokes (UCSB) asking for the factual inaccuracies to be redacted. https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/sign-on-letter-to-michael-moore-demanding-an-apology-and-retraction-of-planet-of-the-humans?source=direct_link& Yet, the film shows no signs of slowing and continues to push a dangerous worldview.
The film poses the ideology that because renewable energy sources cause some pollution to create, they are no better than fossil fuels and the only way to actually combat climate change is through Malthusian reductions in consumption and “dealing with the issue of population”. This is the same argument as saying that broccoli contains sugar and sugar is unhealthy therefore there are no healthy foods and we should instead starve ourselves to death. These are the same scare tactics and leaps of logic that have been used by climate deniers for decades https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/climate-alarmists-abort-your-extra-children and the fact that they are being taken seriously now by progressives and liberals in lieu of scientific reason is truly discouraging.
The film also argues that organizations such as the Sierra Club and 350.org are in bed with billionaires and Wall Street to make profits from green initiatives while at the same time not releasing their finances for the film, ignoring the grass roots efforts of countless environmental activist organizations like the Sunrise Movement, and never pointing the audience to better places to put their money. The film never asks any of the organization that it criticizes for comments nor does it interview any climate scientists. Unlike other climate documentaries, pretty much none of the information presented has any sources listed and the film did not offset its emissions in any way. Instead of scientists, the film parades a cast of almost entirely white interviewees, including Ozzie Zehner, a producer for the film and former GM employee who now spends most of his time touting misinformation about electric vehicles. Even when the film explicitly references the strife of Native peoples, not a single indigenous voice was heard.
So we’re left with something deeply unsettling; a trash-fire that’s igniting animosity and distrust of the Green Movement from both sides of the aisle. This is a time, more than ever, that we need solidarity in the face of the climate crisis. We have just 10 years to halve global carbon emissions if we are to prevent dangerous tipping points in our climate. We have 30 years to eliminate carbon emissions entirely. If we don’t reach these goals, analysis has shown that climate change will cause at least an additional 70,000 preventable deaths per year (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6807963/#ref26). That’s roughly equal to the number of deaths in the US from coronavirus. Now is a time when we need solidarity more than ever. Policies like the Green New Deal could act as both the economic stimulus and the driver of carbon reductions we need to get back on our feet after this pandemic. Sowing doubt about renewable energy only sets us back and pushes us towards even more deadly emissions scenarios.
So if you want to prevent the climate crisis instead of perpetuating the fallacy that somehow reductions in consumerism can completely eliminate emissions, I encourage you to donate to organizations like 350.org that have fought for climate justice for decades. Read the poignant articles from the Yale Climate Connections https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/05/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-documentary-peddles-dangerous-climate-denial/, Skeptical Science https://www.skepticalscience.com/planet-of-humans-reheated-myth-lazy-old-myths.html, and Transport Evolved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTxktfc5MJ0 refuting the claims made in the film and check my minute by minute analysis of all of the factual inaccuracies below.
The Green Movement has made amazing strides in the past few years to fight climate change. Ideas like the Green New Deal have gained traction and inspiring individuals such as Greta Thunberg and Varshini Prakash have turned the tide and given climate change the attention it deserves. Unfortunately, the film ignores all of that progress, instead focusing on a time when solar panels were 4 times more expensive and coal dominated our power grid. The film was posted for free on YouTube, a site that has consistently promoted climate denial videos https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/youtube_climate_misinformation/ and fosters an echo chamber of climate doubt in an uncertain time. On top of that, the film’s website has a detailed guide on with lesson plans on how to show this film in elementary school class rooms. Misinformation like this plays off the internet’s inherent mistrust of big business and the media and uses it to set fire to the progress environmental activists have made fighting the fossil fuel industry. This is not a time pitchforks against renewable energy sources. This is a time come together. This is a time to act on climate.
Here is the break down of all of the false or misleading information I have found in the film.
5:50 Gibbs states that his sustainable house was heated by wood and later criticizes wood biomass as an energy source.
7:00 The film starts off by visiting SolarFest, a small solar energy and music festival in Vermont. It criticized the festival because they had to switch to grid power when it started raining implying that solar panels don’t work in the rain. This however is misleading, not just because the film is picking a strawman of a tiny festival to show that all solar is bad, but also because this festival is located in the state with the third lowest solar viability in the country (after Alaska and Maine https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html) and because solar panels can work surprisingly well in the rain still producing up to 25% of their maximum efficiency. Small amounts of rain can actually increase solar panel efficiency by reducing the amount of dust on the panels. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2016/07/08/solar-panel-efficiency-in-the-rain/#gref
10:00 This quote from Richard Branson is taken a little out of context. Branson goes on to say that we shouldn’t be profiteering from climate change and that he is donating $3 billion to combatting climate change. Of note, Branson only actually delivered about a tenth of that promise and none of the money went to any of Al Gore’s initiatives. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/13/richard-branson-failed-climate-change-pledge
12:00 The Chevy Volt was released in December of 2010. The film states that because the grid that the car is plugging into is mostly from coal-fired power plants, the car is worse for the environment than traditional gas powered vehicles. This is false in multiple ways. For one, the film states that the power is sources from 95% coal. This is wildly untrue. Only 32% of energy in Michigan (where the scene was filmed) comes from coal and that figure is rapidly decreasing. 39% of Michigan’s electricity comes from nuclear or renewable sources. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MI#tabs-4 Additionally, do to the efficiency of electric vehicles and decreasing use of coal, electric vehicles produce less emissions throughout their lifespan (including production) than traditional gas-powered vehicles in every single state. You can check out how much more efficient they are with this helpful tool: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=MI#tabs-4
13:10 The spokesperson from Lansing Bureau of Water and Light states that it’s infeasible that Michigan could run on renewables and that wind speeds die off at night. However, Michigan legislators also just introduced HB5420 that mandates that 100% of Michigan’s power will come from renewable sources by 2050. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5cgfzxogelzf4phpo5evoyvl))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2020-HB-5420. The Lansing Bureau of Water and Light has committed to being powered by 40% renewable sources by 2040 and completely eliminate coal power generation by 2025. https://www.lbwl.com/about-bwl/renewable-energy Additionally, wind speeds are not always lower at night. Wind speed depends on the height of the turbine, the proximity to the ocean, and the season and in many cases nightly wind speeds can be greater than daytime wind speeds. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/grl.50575
14:15 The same BWL spokesperson stated that the Cedar Street Solar Array is the largest in the state. While this might be true at the time, the film ignores the fact that in 2018 the Delta Solar Array was installed and produces 160 times more power than Cedar Street.
14:40 The film points out that this football sized solar array only has an efficiency of 8% and that it can only power 10 homes. This is incredibly false and outdated. There are 432 solar panels in the Cedar Street Solar Array producing 150 kW of power. That’s enough power for up to 120 homes not 10. Solar panels have also gotten far more efficient in the past decade. Off the shelf solar panels now have an efficiency of 22.8% nearly 3 times more than what was mentioned in the film https://news.energysage.com/what-are-the-most-efficient-solar-panels-on-the-market/. Based off trends in solar power efficiency, if Cedar Street Solar Array was built today, it would produce 35 times more power https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electricity-does-a-solar-panel-produce/ and cost less than a third of the price. As a result, his estimate that powering Lansing, MI on solar would require a 3x5 mile solar array is about 14 times to large. Nowadays it would only take about 1.1 sq.mi. and most of that would be on rooftops. Also, the spokesperson states that the area isn’t great for wind production, however Michigan has some of the highest average wind speeds in the nation https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data?category=land-based. Also, I’m not sure where he’s getting his estimate for the cost of NASA’s solar panels. It’s somewhere in the ballpark of 3 orders of magnitude off.
16:10 The film has someone from the Sierra Club rebutting the BWL spokesperson and fades out what she was saying. The film doesn’t follow up with her for a comment or anyone from the Sierra Club for that matter.
17:40 The film investigates a wind power facility that was installing 21 new turbines stating that only 3 jobs were created as a result and that there was destruction of the forest from construction of turbines that would only last 20 years. Wind turbines last on average about 25 years and new technology has been advancing to make replacing them and fixing them more and more cost effective https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/09/20/how-to-extend-the-lifetime-of-wind-turbines/#gref. The wind industry has created 1.2 million jobs in wind industry around the world. That’s 3.4 jobs per turbine. https://gwec.net/global-figures/wind-in-numbers/ The assertion that 21 turbines would only create 3 jobs is ludicrous. The vast majority of wind turbines are constructed on privately owned, non-protected lands with California (the state with the most wind turbines on federal land) still having 90% of energy production on private land https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05906.pdf. Most of these turbines are made in open areas away from trees since those areas have higher wind speeds. On average, each wind turbine uses about an acre of land and is one of the least impactful energy sources for wildlife. The film ignores the fact that fossil fuel and nuclear energy require huge swaths of land to be deforested. An area nearly the size of Texas has already been deforested for oil and gas extraction https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/aug/13/conservation.forests
19:00 The environmental health and safety consultant argues that because wind is intermittent, fossil fuel power plants will be forced to ramp up and down frequently decreasing their efficiency. However, research has shown that ramping rates of power plants are improving and can readily make up for renewable’s intermittency without substantial losses in efficiency https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117309206#f0005.
19:50 The film asserts that the 21 wind turbines being build will provide power for a water park. Wind turbines provide on average 2–3 MW of power https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-output.php. An average the largest amusement parks in the US use about 7 MW of power https://www.us.jll.com/en/trends-and-insights/cities/amusement-parks-take-on-green-energy therefore, at most, 15% of the power generated would be needed to power the water park. The same person argues that because the wind turbines are being built by a fossil fuel company, they are inherently bad but doesn’t say why it’s bad for a fossil fuel company to invest in green technology.
20:35 The film states that Bill MiKibbin agrees with all renewable energy, no matter the impact. This is a false representation of his opinions and the film does not ask for his comment on this matter.
21:00 It’s hard to believe that someone selling hydrogen fuel-cell cars wouldn’t know where the hydrogen is coming from. The majority of hydrogen does not come from hydrocarbons. It comes from electrolysis of water by solar, wind, nuclear, and biological processes https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-fuel-basics.
21:15 The film sets up a massive straw man argument that elephant dung is a renewable energy source that’s being pursued. There are no countries even considering dung as a viable energy source.
21:40 The film argues that just because ethanol and coal extraction occur close to each other that they somehow must be in cahoots with each other.
22:20 Richard Heinberg argues that there are over 25 different renewable energy sources and we are getting no energy from some of these options. This is probably because the renewable options that are not viable aren’t invested in. It wouldn’t be surprising if burning elephant poop is one of the 25 sources.
23:00 Richard York states that countries that increase their renewable energy use do not correspondingly reduce their fossil fuel use. He unfortunately though forgets the finding in his own study that states that this lack of correlation is only for wealthy countries and that for poorer countries, investment in renewables corresponds to a decrease in carbon emissions. The reason why carbon emissions are decoupled from renewable energy use in some wealthy countries is most likely due to wealthy countries highly subsidizing fossil fuel companies to artificially lower the price instead of enacting a tax on carbon. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023116689098 Even still, wealthy countries are rapidly replacing fossil fuels with renewables. You can check out the EU as an example here: https://medium.com/lobbywatch/2020s-other-crisis-emboldened-fossil-fuel-companies-d14d825ee9bb
23:18 The film interviews Nina Jablonski for information about the viability of technological fixes to climate change. Nina Jablonski is not an engineer or an expert in technology of any kind. Instead, ironically considering the lack of diversity in this film and hints of Malthusianism, Nina Jablonski is an environmental determinist who has argued that skin color makes certain individuals more adapted to living in certain climates than others. She has published papers about how dark skin color leads to increased rates of vitamin D deficiencies and mental health problems.
24:25 Ozzie Zehner is a former GM employee and has spent a large part of his career criticizing electric vehicles. A more comprehensive take on why Zehner’s book is filled with misinformation can be found here: https://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/green-illusions-distorts-solar-on-environment-060712 Zehner argues that renewables are just as bad as oil and gas because it requires resources to make. This ignores the fact that research has shown that solar, wind, and nuclear power all have carbon emissions significantly lower than oil and gas even when factoring the cost of manufacturing, production, and fuel supply. https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints. The footprint of solar comes in at 6gCO2e/kWh and wind is also 4gCO2e/kWh. In contrast, coal with carbon capture and storage emits 109gCO2e/kWh and natural gas with carbon capture and storage emits 78gCO2e/kWh. You can check out the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for each power source here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWQp_XzU8AARYCc?format=png&name=900x900
25:25 Ozzie Zehner states that arc furnaces used to melt silicon to make solar panels run on coal. This is simply not true. Arc furnaces run off of electric power from the grid and are often timed to draw power at a peak solar/wind production to cut on cost.
26:15 The Navajo Nation coal fired power plant that the film mentioned being shut down is not being completely replaced by natural gas. Currently 200 MW of power are being supplied by a new solar array and battery facility and that amount is planned to increase to 600 MW by 2025. The Navajo Nation are continuing efforts to reduce carbon emissions by 90% by 2050. Transitioning the coal plant to natural gas has significantly decreased emissions already and is a stepping point for future renewable initiatives as recommended by the IPCC. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/navajo-generating-station-coal-plant-closes-renewables
27:00 Ozzie states that the 600 MW natural gas plant is 4 times larger than the coal fired gas plant which is simply false. The coal fired plant produces 2,250 MW of power. Michael Brune is not referring to natural gas when he talks about clean energy.
27:55 This graph is incredibly misleading. Firstly, it states that natural gas production went up at the same time as the Beyond Coal initiative. This is a correlation not causality and most of the increase in natural gas production was the result of the improved cost of natural gas compared to coal due to innovations in fracking technology. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34572 The graph also ignores the fact that while fossil fuel production has increased, coal production has plummeted. The pricing out of coal has made up for natural gas increases to the point of the US CO2 emissions decreasing this year as a result. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42515
28:34 The film ignores the fact that intermittency can be combatted with battery technology. Part of the reason why the Green New Deal is a viable solution to climate change is because it invests heavily in battery technologies. Additionally, analysis has shown that decreases in solar power from cloud cover usually corresponds with an increase in wind power.
29:21 Philip Moeller was the Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner until 2015 when he resigned because of rising conflicts with the EPA for its carbon emissions reduction rules. He has promoted the development of natural gas pipelines and was the aid to Republican Senator Slade Gorton. Before that he worked for Alliant Energy Corp and Calpine Corp., natural gas companies that profited heavily from his work in Washington. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/256074-gop-energy-commissioner-to-step-down-this-month. He argues that fossil fuel plants would need to be ramped in order to deal with the intermittency of renewables but he completely ignores the viability of battery storage. Even if we did have to ramp fossil fuel plants, it would still result in less carbon emissions then solely relying on fossil fuels.
30:20 All things require some carbon emissions to produce. Batteries are no exception. The key though is that those emissions are significantly less than fossil fuel energy production.
30:38 This pie chart is incredibly misleading. For one, IEA does not release figures for the total global battery storage. Secondly, the chart uses global annual energy use which includes wasted energy due to inefficiencies. Instead, the more appropriate value would be global electricity use (the energy that batteries could potentially store) which is about an eighth of the listed value. Additionally, battery storage doesn’t have to be anywhere near total electricity use, it only needs to be able to store excesses in power production due to fluctuations in supply. The graph poses a false catch 22 in which we need more battery power but we don’t have enough battery power so it’s therefore useless to make more batteries. https://www.skepticalscience.com/planet-of-humans-reheated-myth-lazy-old-myths.html Battery power is expected to rapidly increase in production in the next few years with a 13 fold increase in production between 2018 and 2024. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/global-energy-storage-to-hit-158-gigawatt-hours-by-2024-with-u-s-and-china
30:50 Gibbs claims that solar panels only last 10 years. This is blatently false. The average lifespan of commercial solar panels is 25 years. https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/
31:30 Zehner argues that because the solar farm uses natural gas to start up, it’s just as bad for the environment as fossil fuels however, even with the startup fuel, solar farms emit more than 10 times less carbon into the atmosphere than coal or natural gas. Over 95% of the energy produced at Ivanpah is from solar energy and the natural gas is used to reduce the morning start up time from 4 hours to 25 minutes. Considering that the film just spent a significant amount of time talking about the inefficiencies of ramping up power plants, it seems like this is a viable option. https://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/25/newly-released-data-indicates-ivanpah-gas-5-percent/
32:23 All power production requires materials to build. Fossil fuel plants require even more concrete and steel than renewable sources. There is never going to be a perfect power source that doesn’t require any construction materials.
32:50 The argument that solar farms take more energy than they put back into the grid is absolutely ridiculous. See my comments 8 minutes earlier showing that solar energy requires far less emissions throughout its entire lifespan than fossil fuels.
33:50 Germany production of coal has decreased by 48% since 1990. https://www.iea.org/countries/germany Germany produced 60.5% of it’s energy from wind and solar this year. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-hit-record-77-percent-german-power-easter-monday These drastic decreases in Germany’s use of fossil fuels has resulted in a substantial decrease in carbon emissions as well as an increase in GDP. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts Russia, Kazakhstan, and Poland all produced more coal than Germany. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-top-coal-producing-countries-in-europe.html
34:00 This pie chart is incredibly misleading and factually inaccurate. Wind power provides 17% of Germany’s energy production and solar provides 7.7%. In total, renewables supply 42.6% of Germany’s power. The pie chart displays gross power consumption rather than production and since Germany exports a huge amount of renewable power, that energy isn’t being incorporated into the figure. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts
34:20 The film points out that the Tesla gigafactory has powerlines that connect the power lines to the grid. How do the filmmakers suppose that the factory gets the power it generates back to the grid? All battery facilities need to be connected to the grid in order to take in power when there’s excess and pump power back into the grid when there’s demand. That’s the whole point.
34:40 Zehner argues that radioactive mine tailings from rare earth mining for tesla batteries are spread out as a paste on the desert. This is just wrong. Instead, mine tailings are diluted by mixing them with lime until they are below the acceptable international concentration standards and then used to make solid structures such as sea walls. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dont-panic-about-rare-earth-elements/ Additionally, if thorium-based nuclear power is developed, rare earth mining could provide the raw material for that energy production. https://e360.yale.edu/features/boom_in_mining_rare_earths_poses_mounting_toxic_risks It’s important to note too that pretty much all electronics from smart phones to medical equipment requires rare earth metals.
35:00 The film states that aluminum requires 8 times as much energy to produce than steel. This is true however it ignores the fact that it is 3 times lighter and leads to longer longevity of materials and therefore often reduces the energy requirements needed for production. https://theconversation.com/the-trouble-with-aluminium-7245
35:10 Zehner states that graphite is one of the rarest forms of carbon. This is laughably inaccurate. Has he not heard of diamonds? After coal, graphite is the most common form of carbon.
35:35 Again they argue that because a solar/wind/battery facility is connected to the grid, then it can’t be running entirely on renewable power. Apple runs on 100% renewable power and uses its connection to the grid to sell excess power back to power companies. For a list of all Apple’s renewable energy projects, you can check it out here: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/04/apple-now-globally-powered-by-100-percent-renewable-energy/
36:12 Why is it bad that the Koch brothers are investing in technologies for solar farms. I would think it’s a good thing if fossil fuel executives are finding ways to make renewable energy sources more economically viable. Gibbs instead states that “they are the evil doers” and therefore anything they do is bad.
37:00 The film then goes into a long list of chemicals and mineral sources that are used in solar panels and wind turbines. The vast majority of the listed materials are also used in fossil fuel production. It mentions adipic acid which is primarily used for making nylon. Dimethyl terephthalate and purified terephthalic acid is used to make polyester so it really seems like they should be going after the clothing industry more than renewable energy. About 20g of silver is used in each solar panel and cobalt used in lithium batteries. Elon Musk has invested heavily in reducing the cobalt content in batteries https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/21/17488626/elon-musk-cobalt-electric-vehicle-battery-science. We’ve already talked about graphite and rare earth metals but they make up a miniscule fraction of solar panel materials. They then criticize solar/wind for using coal instead of criticizing coal fired power plants themselves. Also, the film just criticized aluminum for being too energy intensive then goes on to bash steel for being bad too. Sulfur hexafluoride is used in pretty much all electrical switches and is not actually emitted in the production of solar panels or wind turbines https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/sf6-worries-the-most-potent-and-persistent-greenhouse-gas/ Most lithium is evaporated our of brine just like salt. Phosphorus oxychloride is used as a safe liquid phosphorus source in diffusion processes. The phosphorus acts as a dopant used to create n-type layers on a silicon wafer. Gallium arsenide is a semiconductor material used in single-crystalline solar cells and have shown to drastically increase the efficiency of solar panels. Indium is used in CIGS solar cells and allows them to be flexible, increasing the lifespan of solar panels. Many of these chemicals make up an extremely small fraction of the total materials in solar cells and new efforts are being made to make the larger raw materials more recyclable https://news.energysage.com/recycling-solar-panels/.
39:20 500 year old yucca plants are very rare and have only been found in a small handful of locations. Most live to around 200 years in the area around Ivanpah and, based on their size, the yucca being depicted are nowhere near 500 years old. https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/yucsch/all.html
40:20 Joshua trees are still readily disperse their seeds via birds. Additionally, the shade provided by solar panels has been shown to increase vegetation growth in the desert. https://e360.yale.edu/features/its_green_against_green_in_mojave_desert_solar_battle
42:25 Gibbs implies that because this solar farm didn’t continue to provide jobs for this community that therefore all renewable energy doesn’t provide jobs. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Nearly 400,000 Americans work in the solar industry https://www.scottmadden.com/insight/fossil-50-energy-industry-jobs-yet-renewables-drive-future/ and that number is only expected to grow https://www.edf.org/energy/clean-energy-jobs.
42:35 They are literally complaining about sand when standing in a desert. More importantly though, satellite imagery shows that the SEGS solar farm is still very much up and running. Gibbs and Zehner went to the facility when they were transitioning to newer, more efficient solar panels and intentionally misled the audience to thinking it was run into the ground. https://www.skepticalscience.com/planet-of-humans-reheated-myth-lazy-old-myths.html
43:45 This is stock footage of the South Point wind farm on the big island of Hawaii that’s often used in anti-wind propaganda sites. These wind turbines were removed in 2012 and have since been replaced with pasture land. Also, Gibbs argues that lifespan of a wind turbine is only a few decades. It’s actually about 25 years and innovative research has been underway to extended their lifespan even further. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/09/20/how-to-extend-the-lifetime-of-wind-turbines/#gref
44:40 Steven Running from University of Montana is used to equate the fact that fish production and agricultural land has peaked to the assertion that energy production must also be peaking. This is a false dichotomy and misleading. Peak in fish production was largely caused by increased regulation of the fishing industry.
45:30 Steven Running is referring to the Ogallala Aquifer which has been depleting rapidly especially in Kansas and northern Texas. Ironically, climate change is making the situation worse by causing increased droughts and therefore increased demand. Due to increasingly restrictive regulation and increased water prices however, the aquifer is expected to last another 50 years not a decade or two as stated in the film. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/national-climate-assessment-great-plains%E2%80%99-ogallala-aquifer-drying-out. Also, maybe it’s just me, but it’s really strange that he’s smiling through this whole conversation.
46:00 It’s very hard to argue that your movie is not Malthusian when you state that there are “too many human beings” and that we need a way of “dealing with the issue of population”. This is eco-fascism, plain and simple.
47:55 This graph is fairly misleading. Global population rates peaked in 1962 and population is expected to decline within this century. Gibbs states that this growth was the result of the use of fossil fuels and yet demonizes the use of renewables. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/populations-around-world-changed-over-the-years
49:40 The difference between religion and science is the reliance on faith compared to testable hypothesis. Renewable energy has been tested scientifically to be able to reduce our carbon emissions. If it hadn’t, scientists would not be promoting its use. Sheldon Solomon has been criticized for his Terror Management Theory due to it relying too heavily on the notion that humans are obsessed with their own mortality. The idea that we can’t address climate change without radically shifting our worldview and perception of death only demoralizes people from addressing a very solvable problem. The argument also ignores the fact that climate change is expected to cause a minimum of a quarter million deaths per year and that adopting renewable energy sources would save 70,000 preventable deaths per year. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6807963/#ref26
52:55 From here on out, the film focuses almost exclusively on biomass burning. It’s important to realize that biomass only accounts for 1.4% of the US’s total electricity production https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 Biomass production has nearly stagnated since the 1980s in the US and while less carbon efficient then renewables such as wind and solar, still results in drastically less carbon emissions than coal, oil, and gas due to the ability for tree to grow back, albeit slowly.
53:05 Gibbs states that biomass biggest source of renewable energy in Vermont. This is not true. Hydropower provides more power than biomass in Vermont. Additionally, Vermont imports a lot of its energy and therefore takes from states with more renewable energy portfolios. Vermont has pledged to have 75% of its energy production from renewable sources by 2032. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state.html
53:30 There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that trees bioaccumulate radioactive materials.
54:20 The film states that the biomass plant burns 30 cords of wood per hour. Notably, not all of the wood burned will be whole trees and some will be left over wood scraps from lumber manufacturing. The wood burned at the facility is equivalent to 208 million btus per hour (60.9 MW) and 53,353 pounds of CO2 per hour. To produce the same amount of energy from coal, you would emit 41,026 pounds of CO2 per hour. https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html However, unlike coal that leaves behind an empty open pit mine, the biomass facility plants trees to slowly reabsorb those emissions. Additionally, unlike wood burning that has relatively few secondary pollutants, that equivalent coal plant would emit 3.4 pounds of mercury, 223 tons of SO2, and 108 tons of nitrous oxide, and 5.8 pounds of lead into the atmosphere every year. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-and-air-pollution . Even still, no one is suggesting massively upscaling biomass production to the magnitude of coal and it is much more viable to replace it with other renewables. The idea that we would cut down every tree in the US to give power for a year is an absurd red herring.
56:30 Firstly, it’s absolutely awful that there is a TDF facility right next to a school and senior center and the film rightfully points out that this is bad. Burning tires is still far more sustainable than burning other fossil fuels though. No one is mining tires to burn. Instead, these facilities take a portion of the 250 million tires discarded into landfills each year in the US and instead uses them to produce energy. This resource would be wasted otherwise. http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/burning-tires-is-most-definitely-renewable/
58:00 The film rightfully states that Lake Superior is a very sacred place for many people, don’t interview a single native American about environmental degradation. Instead the white woman claims that this is “our lake.”
59:30 This scene points out how grass roots environmental movements have been pushing for non-biomass based renewable energy. The film completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of environmental organizations do not support biomass burning as a primary replacement for fossil fuels.
1:00:45 Bill McKinnin no longer supports biomass production. You can read his full position on the topic here: https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/dont-burn-trees-to-fight-climate-changelet-them-grow
1:02:10 It’s important to note that the wood to ethanol conversion plant that this timber farmer was opposed to was also opposed by the Sierra Club who sued the DOE for labeling the plant as renewable. https://energynews.us/2013/08/06/midwest/as-key-partner-departs-future-dims-for-michigan-cellulosic-biofuel-plant/
1:03:10 Gibbs implies that Read Smith is a biomass factory executive who has been pushing for Michigan’s 25x25 program to heavily invest in biofuels. This is wrong. Read Smith is a local family farmer in Whitman County who grows wheat, barley, and minor crops. Since Gibbs did not mention which biofuels company was apparently conceived of the 25x25 initiative, it’s hard to figure out which company he was thinking of. You can check out the list of endorsements here: http://www.25x25.org/and/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=53
1:03:30 This map is fairly misleading. There are 760 biomass power plants compared to 2425 coal fired power plants and coal fired power plants are generally much larger than biomass plants. For a more representative map for all power plants you can check out this link: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-every-power-plant-in-the-united-states/
1:03:48 This ignores the fact that biomass energy production has been drastically decreasing since 2000 and that most of the production comes from low-income countries that do not have access to other power sources https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production. The chart also ignores hydropower that currently provides 24% of global renewable energy. Biomass consumption is currently decreasing in Germany and is being rapidly replaced with wind and solar. In 2018, wind and solar provided 157,754 GWh of electricity in Germany whereas biofuels and waste provided 52,187 GWh of electricity. https://www.iea.org/countries/germany.
1:04:00 Again all that this proves is that the environmental movement is moving away from recommending biomass as an energy source.
1:05:40 It’s almost as if the issue of biomass as a sustainable fuel source has more complexity than burn wood bad. The director of the Pennsylvania branch of the Sierra Club even mentions the fact that this is a nuanced subject. Biomass burning is a very sustainable process if it uses scrap wood and waste products that would otherwise go to a landfill. As the biomass industry has progressed and more whole trees are used, environmental leaders such as Bill McKibben have changed their positions and stopped supporting the practice. At no point does Gibbs follow up with the Sierra Club or 350 about their positions on biofuels.
1:10:40 Gibbs asserts that the reason why environmentalists are pushing for renewables is that it enriches the wallets of billionaires however he doesn’t criticize the fact that fossil fuels are hugely profitable to oil and gas executives and that they have led massive misinformation campaigns to push the public into accepting fossil fuels. The reason why environmentalists aren’t pushing for population control is because most are not eco-fascists in favor of genocide or Draconian population regulations.
1:11:25 Gibbs for some reason is criticizing billionaires for donating to clean energy initiatives such as Beyond Coal. Why is a bad thing if billionaires think saving the planet is profitable? Jeremy Grantham has vowed to donate 98% of his net worth (about 1 billion dollars) to fighting climate change and has donated in opposition of the Keystone XL Pipeline and countless other green initiatives.
1:12:30 Gibbs is arguing that biofuels for plane fuel is actual worse than fossil fuels because it comes from the planet. This is scientifically proven that fossil fuels are worse for the environment than biofuels.
1:15:15 This is an incredibly misleading edit. Stephen Colbert finished the statement with “global crusade to lower carbon dioxide levels”. You can find the full interview here: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/p4m942/the-colbert-report-bill-mckibben
1:15:45 Gibbs implies that 350’s funds are all going to Green Century. This is not true. 350 and Green Century have cosponsored events but are not financially affiliated. The Green Century Equity Fund is a private investment firm that provides a more sustainable investment portfolio than other leading funds. They do not claim that all of the investments in their holdings are 100% renewable. Gibbs probably didn’t need to go to the SEC for the list of companies in their holdings. It’s listed right on their website here: https://www.greencentury.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/GCEQX-SOI-3.31.2020.pdf Compass Materials which it lists as a mining company produces salt and nutrients for organic farming. Newmont Mining, a gold mining company is the ranked the third most environmentally sustainable and human rights advocating companies on the sustainable mining index https://2020.responsibleminingindex.org/en/companies/70 EcoLabs is a mainly a water treatment company not a mining company. Xylem is also a water treatment company and does not do any oil sands extraction itself.
1:16:55 Again, to note, the Sierra Club has partnered with Aspiration in the past but has not given them money directly and has since cut ties with the fund. Aspiration has some questionable investments, however none of the companies listed are companies they invest in. Here is the SEC report: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1594854/000159485418000041/ncsr3630918.htm and their annual report: https://assets.aspiration.com/docs/funds/annual-reports/RedwoodAnnualReport_093019.pdf
1:17:35 This ignores the fact that Enviva is also one of the world’s largest planters of forests. https://www.envivabiomass.com/sustainability/environment/carbon-accounting/ Enviva still though has some very questionable practices. A more accurate analysis of such can be read here: https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions
1:18:30 Gibbs implies that Inconvenient Truth was made to promote hysteria and invest in biofuels with David Blood when fossil fuel divestment in Green funds were not mentioned in an Inconvenient Truth. The editing makes it seem like Al Gore was referring to wealth from climate action as a source of profit not a wealth for cultural advancement as Gore goes on to state. Additionally, the edit in Al Gore’s testimony stating “I simply forgot” is out of context and incredibly misleading. A full recording of Gore’s response can be seen here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?283696-1/global-climate-change and his answer starts at 1:26:32. Gore states that he’s in favor of stricter regulations enacted by the Brazilian president to limit crop development for ethanol to non-forested regions. While Gibbs shows how the indigenous communities have suffered from deforestation in this region, he doesn’t interview or provide any statements from indigenous leaders.
1:21:50 Only 9% of biodiesel comes from animal fats. These are generally food waste scraps or used fry oil. Therefore 0.2% of US energy comes from animal fat. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CountryReport2018_UnitedStates_final.pdf Scientists developed ways to convert alligator fat to biofuels do deal with the 15 million pounds of alligator meat that was going into landfills each year. It is not a major (or minor for that matter) source of ethanol. https://phys.org/news/2011-08-gator-tank-alligator-fat-source.html
1:22:30 Implies that seaweed extraction caused the death of the seaweed forest. This is definitely not the case. Seaweed use for biofuels is still in research phases. Seaweed forests have been dying off from climate change as oceans warm and allows sea urchins migrate to new areas decimating ecosystems. Ironically, investing in renewable energy sources would likely be highly beneficial to seaweed forests. https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-oceans-warm-the-worlds-giant-kelp-forests-begin-to-disappear.
1:23:30 Gibbs implies that the Nature Conservancy is profiteering from timber investments when there is no evidence that they have taken any money from timber companies.
1:23:40 Gibbs implies that creating “markets for electric cars” is a bad thing for some reason.
1:24:00 The NYT film shown specifically states that they are supporting algae based biofuels. Why is this a bad thing?
1:24:10 Treehugger isn’t even close to one of the largest sources of environmental news. These are the top providers: https://mediablog.prnewswire.com/2018/04/12/top-environmental-news-sites/ Again, Gibbs states that because they’re in close proximity, they must be affiliated.
1:25:40 Just because he doesn’t know who finances 350 doesn’t mean it’s corrupt.
1:25:50 Al Gore has stated that the reason why he chose to sell his company to Al Jazeera was because they consistently had the more scientific coverage of climate change on their program and have committed to switching over to renewable energy sources. Here is the full interview with Jon Stewart: http://www.cc.com/video-clips/43rgwo/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-exclusive---al-gore-extended-interview-pt--1.
1:27:25 The film states that 45 large solar panels could only run a toaster. The sign shown says that the solar array provides 18.3 kW of power. Technically, that’s enough power to run just over 15 toasters. The festival can claim that it was run on solar power since the solar array was allowed to provide power to the grid for several days. Gibbs does not ask what the solar panels are powering.
1:28:00 Gibbs implies that having companies like Toyota, Catepillar, and Citibank invest in Earth Day is a bad thing. Even if these companies are just sponsoring the event to gain credibility, it’s money going towards saving the planet.
1:29:10 Gibbs claims that the “path to change comes from awareness” however he just released a documentary filled with misinformation.
1:30:05 Gibbs asserts that “less must be the new more” and that “it’s not the carbon dioxide molecule destroying the planet, it’s us” however, humans are creating carbon dioxide and cutting consumption cannot lead us to net zero emissions.
1:33:30 end the movie is about the decimation of orangutan but doesn’t provide any resources to help them. In fact, the film doesn’t end with any ways that you can help in solving climate change nor does it state that the carbon used for the production of the film was offset in any way (which it wasn’t).
1:34:30 Sierra Club and Bill McKibben have come out as against biomass since 2016. It criticized the Sierra Club for highlighting UC Irvine’s climate actions because they use some biofuels (ignoring that they quadrupled their solar power) https://www.sierraclub.org/top-ten-americas-greenest-universities
1:36:00 Just because the fund is in the Cayman Islands doesn’t mean it’s bad.