6 ms·

That documentary completely and/or intentionally missed the point so they could churn out video clickbait. I wrote more about it the other day here https://ne

That documentary completely and/or intentionally missed the point so they could churn out video clickbait. I wrote more about it the other day here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22950172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22950172

olivermarks 6y ago
There are some damning facts about Green capitalism there (Blood and Gore etc) and the platform Moore appears to have moved to with Gibbs is that there are too many people on the planet, and burning more wood and coal to create electricity isn't solving pollution problems. The materials EVs are created out of need some serious changes to be a lot cleaner before ramping up out of the current niche market.
- olivermarks 6y ago
  I really hope the Gibbs film shakes up the entrenched 'green energy' cabal, they badly need a wakeup call. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Humans I haven't watched this episode of Rising yet but looks like a good follow up discussion https://youtu.be/Bop8x24G_o0 https://youtu.be/Bop8x24G_o0
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    > The central thesis of the film is that various people and organizations in the United States claiming to promote green energy have actually been promoting biomass energy, largely meaning burning trees instead of fossil fuels Wood would appear to be 0.98% of the US's fuel mix, vs 1.58% solar, 6.51% wind. So, this seems like, er, a dubious claim? Maybe they're just really bad at promoting it.
    - olivermarks 6y ago
      A major part of the film is about biomass and wood consumption for power. Have you watched it?
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  > the platform Moore appears to have moved to with Gibbs is that there are too many people on the planet Eugenics is a terrible and terrifying "platform". It should be seen as either insane or hilarious that this is brought up at all. Mentioning it at all is severe "whataboutism" at best and most "harmless", and damaging and ethically evil at worst (and possibly most likely). > burning more wood and coal to create electricity isn't solving pollution problems Good news, use of wood and coal is way down in the world's electricity mix in 2020. (Any stats cited in the movie are at least a decade out of date.) > The materials EVs are created out of need some serious changes This is also severe "whataboutism", at least a decade out of date from proven reality and continually and constantly disproved. No EV car material is worse than anything in a traditional ICE car. Cobalt is a "waste product" out of "ordinary" copper, tin, and nickel mining. Lithium is common and often as easy as sifting a "salt brine". The damage in manufacturing an EV is the damage in manufacturing cars. Yes, we should probably manufacture less. Good news there too: EVs have fewer moving parts and longer maintenance cycles allowing for longer car ownership.
  - olivermarks 6y ago
    -There is no mention of eugenics in the film I was aware of. -The film is largely about the Sierra Club's involvement with condoning biomass burning of natural gas and wood to create electricity -EV vehicles are minimally recyclable and made out of multiple toxic materials. Where many modern cars are made out of aluminum, including EV's, in previous ICE generations predominantly steel vehicles were easily recyclable. Modern alloys have made cars throw away items rather than recyclable. We are arguably going backwards.
    - WorldMaker 6y ago
      > -There is no mention of eugenics in the film I was aware of. Eugenics is the "scientific" name for complaining that there are too many people. It's also the rubbish bin where Historians file most proposed and attempted experiments and "solutions" ("final" and otherwise). There's no point in bringing up "there's too many people" if you aren't planning to present a solution to it, and if you are planning to present a solution to it, that's eugenics, by definition. I don't make the rules, I just call things by name. > -The film is largely about the Sierra Club's involvement with condoning biomass burning of natural gas and wood to create electricity Great? No Green advocate I know is actually "pro-biomass" as a long term solution, because wind and solar (and hydro) are doing really well right now and there's lots more option on the horizon. Using biomass to condone all of Green energy projects isn't quite a strawman argument, but it is full of hay and I could see it scaring away crows in the field. > Where many modern cars are made out of aluminum, including EV's, in previous ICE generations predominantly steel vehicles were easily recyclable. Modern alloys have made cars throw away items rather than recyclable. We are arguably going backwards. A reduction in steel is a reduction in lead poisoning from car parts in landfills. Cars have always been terrible. I don't think we are "going backwards", I think there are just a lot of rose tinted glasses for a point in car history that never existed. There's no point in car manufacturing where cars were not "throw away items", and the recyclability of "classics" is hugely overstated (how many do you actually see on the road? Sure some collectors have put in time and effort, but do you know how small of a fraction collectors have kept "recycled" versus were manufactured in their time?). I am all for "ban cars, reforest parking lots", but blaming EVs for the problems of the vast history of manufacturing mistakes in cars is hilarious. It's cars and car culture that are the problem. EVs are an adequate solution for car culture that must have cars. They remain better alternatives than their contemporary ICE equivalents long term in every measure that counts. Anyway, here's a well articulated hydrogeologist on the film: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/michael-moores-green-energy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/michael-moores-green... I'm happy you enjoyed the film, but it isn't a good film and it made a lot of mistakes. I definitely wouldn't trust anything mentioning eugenics in 2020, even if not by name, but feel free to continue to disagree.

olivermarks 6y ago

There are some damning facts about Green capitalism there (Blood and Gore etc) and the platform Moore appears to have moved to with Gibbs is that there are too many people on the planet, and burning more wood and coal to create electricity isn't solving pollution problems. The materials EVs are created out of need some serious changes to be a lot cleaner before ramping up out of the current niche market.

olivermarks 6y ago
I really hope the Gibbs film shakes up the entrenched 'green energy' cabal, they badly need a wakeup call. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Humans I haven't watched this episode of Rising yet but looks like a good follow up discussion https://youtu.be/Bop8x24G_o0 https://youtu.be/Bop8x24G_o0
- rsynnott 6y ago
  > The central thesis of the film is that various people and organizations in the United States claiming to promote green energy have actually been promoting biomass energy, largely meaning burning trees instead of fossil fuels Wood would appear to be 0.98% of the US's fuel mix, vs 1.58% solar, 6.51% wind. So, this seems like, er, a dubious claim? Maybe they're just really bad at promoting it.
  - olivermarks 6y ago
    A major part of the film is about biomass and wood consumption for power. Have you watched it?
WorldMaker 6y ago
> the platform Moore appears to have moved to with Gibbs is that there are too many people on the planet Eugenics is a terrible and terrifying "platform". It should be seen as either insane or hilarious that this is brought up at all. Mentioning it at all is severe "whataboutism" at best and most "harmless", and damaging and ethically evil at worst (and possibly most likely). > burning more wood and coal to create electricity isn't solving pollution problems Good news, use of wood and coal is way down in the world's electricity mix in 2020. (Any stats cited in the movie are at least a decade out of date.) > The materials EVs are created out of need some serious changes This is also severe "whataboutism", at least a decade out of date from proven reality and continually and constantly disproved. No EV car material is worse than anything in a traditional ICE car. Cobalt is a "waste product" out of "ordinary" copper, tin, and nickel mining. Lithium is common and often as easy as sifting a "salt brine". The damage in manufacturing an EV is the damage in manufacturing cars. Yes, we should probably manufacture less. Good news there too: EVs have fewer moving parts and longer maintenance cycles allowing for longer car ownership.
- olivermarks 6y ago
  -There is no mention of eugenics in the film I was aware of. -The film is largely about the Sierra Club's involvement with condoning biomass burning of natural gas and wood to create electricity -EV vehicles are minimally recyclable and made out of multiple toxic materials. Where many modern cars are made out of aluminum, including EV's, in previous ICE generations predominantly steel vehicles were easily recyclable. Modern alloys have made cars throw away items rather than recyclable. We are arguably going backwards.
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    > -There is no mention of eugenics in the film I was aware of. Eugenics is the "scientific" name for complaining that there are too many people. It's also the rubbish bin where Historians file most proposed and attempted experiments and "solutions" ("final" and otherwise). There's no point in bringing up "there's too many people" if you aren't planning to present a solution to it, and if you are planning to present a solution to it, that's eugenics, by definition. I don't make the rules, I just call things by name. > -The film is largely about the Sierra Club's involvement with condoning biomass burning of natural gas and wood to create electricity Great? No Green advocate I know is actually "pro-biomass" as a long term solution, because wind and solar (and hydro) are doing really well right now and there's lots more option on the horizon. Using biomass to condone all of Green energy projects isn't quite a strawman argument, but it is full of hay and I could see it scaring away crows in the field. > Where many modern cars are made out of aluminum, including EV's, in previous ICE generations predominantly steel vehicles were easily recyclable. Modern alloys have made cars throw away items rather than recyclable. We are arguably going backwards. A reduction in steel is a reduction in lead poisoning from car parts in landfills. Cars have always been terrible. I don't think we are "going backwards", I think there are just a lot of rose tinted glasses for a point in car history that never existed. There's no point in car manufacturing where cars were not "throw away items", and the recyclability of "classics" is hugely overstated (how many do you actually see on the road? Sure some collectors have put in time and effort, but do you know how small of a fraction collectors have kept "recycled" versus were manufactured in their time?). I am all for "ban cars, reforest parking lots", but blaming EVs for the problems of the vast history of manufacturing mistakes in cars is hilarious. It's cars and car culture that are the problem. EVs are an adequate solution for car culture that must have cars. They remain better alternatives than their contemporary ICE equivalents long term in every measure that counts. Anyway, here's a well articulated hydrogeologist on the film: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/michael-moores-green-energy-takedown-worse-than-netflixs-goop-series/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/michael-moores-green... I'm happy you enjoyed the film, but it isn't a good film and it made a lot of mistakes. I definitely wouldn't trust anything mentioning eugenics in 2020, even if not by name, but feel free to continue to disagree.