PLANET OF THE HUMANS' STREAMING: HOW TO WATCH THE MICHAEL MOORE-PRODUCED DOCUMENTARY ONLINE FOR FREE

[douglas9]

Today is the 50th annual Earth Day. To celebrate, filmmaker Michael Moore has made an ecological documentary he was involved in free to watch online. Planet of the Humans, which Moore produced, is streaming now, and reveals the heavy environmental impact of renewable energy and the problems with solar energy, wind energy and biogas, among other forms of power.

Instead, the documentary argues that the only way to save the planet is to stop the growth of the human population and reduce its consumption.

Planet of the Humans director Jeff Gibbs, who co-produced Moore films like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, told Reuters: "The fact that within days [of coronavirus lockdown] animals are coming back and the skies are blue tells us that we don't have to build a million square miles of solar panels or buy a zillion electric cars. If we just slow down and stop we can make a tremendous difference instantly."

To watch the documentary online, all viewers have to do is head to Moore's YouTube channel, where the full 100-minute documentary is streaming now for free.

https://www.newsweek.com/planet-humans-streaming-michael-moore-documentary-watch-online-stream-free-youtube-1499460

[2naSalit]

1. First, MM is NOT in it. 2nd, everyone should watch this

it's a very important documentary.

[MuseRider]

2. It is a really important documentary. n/t

[Miguelito Loveless]

4. This documentary is fodder for climate deniers,

and is destroying decades of progress we have made by now driving a wedge between Green supporters.

[MuseRider]

5. I disagree.

What we thought was progress has actually been taken over and is no longer the progress we need. It never hurts to rethink what one is doing rather than blindly following what was important long ago. As things change it would be folly for us to stick to what we thought was best without trying to be better than we were 20+years ago.

I have a ton of solar panels on my farm. Am I going to trash them because of this video? Nope, but I can look for improvement to add to it and hopefully we can find better options. One way is to farm differently and to USE LESS. I live with a guy who if it were not for me being a terrible nag we would never open a window. Heater to air conditioner. Water would run constantly instead of using the pond to water the garden. Etc.......it goes on. Use less is the best thing we could do each individually.

Whatever, changing with the times and improving what we do is not going backwards. Somehow I think the climate deniers would not be at all happy with using less and looking for better outcomes for what we are doing.

[Miguelito Loveless]

10. I am already seeing my Twitter feed fill up

with the usual suspects now bringing up zombie lies that we have spent the last five years killing. EVs pollute more than gas cars (they don't). Solar and wind are bad for the environment, and worse than coal (they aren't). We will never replace fossil fuel plants with renewables (we are). Batteries can never scale up or be cheap enough (they are and will be), etc, etc, etc. All are now citing Moore's movie as proof.

So, yes, we are now having to re-fight the same battles, meaning that we will waste more time, time that we do NOT have. For Michael Moore to lend legitimacy to a "documentary" so full of misinformation, errors, and factual distortions, is heartbreaking.

And yes, the first things to do is use less, and conserve, and it was what I work with people to do who cannot afford solar. I have helped people trim their power bill 25% by just spending a few hundred dollars. When I first started looking at solar 20 years ago, it was about $15 per watt installed. These days it goes for around $2.75 a watt, in a few years it will fall below $2. EVs with decent range that were $100K or more a decade ago, are now to be had for around $35K. I remember when LED bulbs were $40 a pop.

Progress was being made, and now that progress will slowed by people who will take this movie as gospel.

[Miguelito Loveless]

3. While it makes valid points about biomass

it is error-ridden on the topics of solar/wind power. Attacks Al Gore as a “sell out” and trashes EVs and renewables while offering zero alternative solutions.

The movie is a disgraceful hatchet job, and should be pulled from circulation just on the basis of the factual errors it makes about solar panels.

[Finishline42]

7. Haven't seen the movie yet but about putting solar PV on a house

Everybody that sells solar worth their salt is going to advise reducing the areas of energy waste in the house.

Solar on my house means that for the next 50 years I am reducing the need to dig up old dinosaurs for energy. It means that when I get around to buying an EV I can generate my own power.

I will have to watch the movie to try to understand how he can make a case against wind and solar.

[Miguelito Loveless]

8. I have been a green energy advocate

since Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. The movie claims that solar PV’s are only 8% efficient and it takes hundreds of them to power a toaster, and cost “millions of dollars a square inch.

That is the level of wrong in the movie.

[Finishline42]

9. Never understood the efficiency angle on solar PV

It matters little if it's 8% (that's way low) or 40% as long as they break-even way before the warranty is over. Buy good quality today and the warranty is 80% of rated output after 25 years (which would imply that 50 years isn't out of reason for service life).

Nobody spouts how inefficient an IC engine is and how long the supply chain is to get gas to your local gas station. Typical IC engine is lucky to get 20% thermal efficiency.

Edited to add >>>

Efficiency in Solar PV is less relevant because you don't pay for the fuel - or at the Koch Bros haven't figured out a way to make us pay

[Miguelito Loveless]

11. I have repeatedly explained to folks

that Solar/Wind/Hydro is the only power source where the fuel comes to you. No exploration, drilling, piping, refining, or tanker/train/truck transport required.

As I type this, photons that have traveled 93 million miles in eight minutes are generating electricity that is charging my car (a used Leaf), that I drive every day for about 1.5¢/mile, versus 6.5¢/mile for the average ICE vehicle with the current insanely cheap gasoline. They are also powering my house and the surplus is put back on the dirty grid, providing clean power for my neighbors.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Link to the film:

since Newsweek doesn't do something useful like provide a link to solve its own problem of "how to watch ...".

[Miguelito Loveless]

12. And a link to a review of the film

pointing out it glaring errors, and its smearing of Bill McKibben.

Solar panels do NOT cost "millions of dollars per square inch", they actually run about 10¢ per square inch. Solar panels are not "8% efficient", unless you bought the panels back in the 80s. Current panels run 17%-23% efficiency, with that number increasing annually (while they get cheaper). 30% efficiency panels are on the horizon for the next 5-10 years.

A 60 panel array is dismissed as producing barely enough electricity to power a toaster, which is demonstrably wrong. I have a 66 panel array and power my entire house, two EVs, and send out about a 500-1000kWh per month to power my neighbor's homes, depending on the time of year. I have not paid for electricity since 2018, nor any gasoline (I used to burn around 800 gallons a year).

I can tell your from first hand experience that this "documentary" is full of errors and will cost us dearly going forward.

https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/skepticism-is-healthy-but-planet-of-the-humans-is-toxic/

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. That "8%" quote comes from the section about the launch of the Chevy Volt

and 8% was the basic commercial efficiency in 2008:

Mazur said that photovoltaic (PV) cells using black silicon would significantly increase the efficiency of modern panels, the majority of which only convert around 8% of the energy falling on them into electricity. The very best convert around 20%. He said that a black silicon wafer could approach the theoretical limit of converting around 30%-40% of the energy falling on it into electricity.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/oct/15/alternativeenergy

[Miguelito Loveless]

15. The panels he was showing off were about twice the size

of current panels. The panels I installed on my roof as part of my final upgrade (I broke down my install into three projects over 5 years) were about half the size of the ones in Lansing. In the span of 5 years, my first panels were 275 watts, the second set were 315 watts, and the final set were 350 watts. Efficiency went from 17% to 19%, and power output improved just under 30%, while cost declined from $4.19 per watt installed, to $2.55 per watt installed. Currently, you can pick up 400-415 watt panels for a slightly higher price. The major cost now is installation.

Improvements in materials like perovskite, and efficiencies from new inverter designs and bifacial solar panels, continue to raise efficiency and lower cost.

Built today, the Lansing plant would probably produce triple the power, in half the area, at 25% the cost.

[hatrack]

14. Pretty good takedown on the whole thing at Climate Crocks - key point - old footage, old information

EDIT

It is clear that Gibbs has been trying to make this documentary for a long, long time. “He is currently working on a film about the state of the planet and the fate of humanity”, read his bio, in 2012. It is clear, digging into these early posts, that he very passionately loathes the burning of trees to generate energy – a wildly controversial and genuinely problematic thing, for sure. But as early as 2010, Gibbs was posting HuffPost blogs extending that into wind and solar, too.

This one, for instance, repeats a bog-standard list of anti-wind and anti-solar memes that, back in 2010, were fashionable among climate deniers. The ‘wind and solar are too intermittent’ meme, for instance, is a great hallmark of that era. “How much variable energy can a grid accept? Around ten percent, twenty percent tops it appears”, he wrote back then. I’d include examples of grids with higher percentages operating without a hitch today, but it feels almost cruel.

The extreme oldness of this documentary stands out. In one instance, he tours a solar farm in Lansing, Michigan, in which a bemused official states that a large farm can only power ten homes in a year. It is the Cedar Street Solar Array, a 150 panel 824 kilowatt (that’s small) farm in downtown Lansing. Guess when that bad boy was built? 2008. Twelve years ago – an absolute eternity, in solar development years.

As PV Magazine writes, “The film reports on a solar installation in Michigan with PV panels rated at “just under 8 percent” conversion efficiency. It’s difficult to identify the brand of panel in the film (Abound?) — but that efficiency is from another solar era”. Efficiency gains in solar have been so rapid that by leaving the dates off his footage he is very actively deceiving the audience. The site generates 64-64 MWh a year, according to the owner – a more recent installation in the same area generates around 436. The footage really is from another era. It’s like doing a documentary on the uselessness of mobile phones but only examining the Motorola Ultrasleek.

EDIT

In a red flag for any veteran of the wind farm debate, Gibbs then uses footage of a collection of old wind turbines – rusted, gross and horrible – to illustrate the short life and lasting damage of these huge spiky bastards.

?w=1024

If you’re familiar with the network of anti-wind farm groups, you’ll recognise that they’re old machines from South Point on Big Island, Hawaii. They were removedin 2012, by the owner of the facility. All that is left now are small hexagonal pads on farmland used by the cattle that roam it.

EDIT

https://climatecrocks.com/2020/04/25/planet-of-the-stupid/#more-59726

[Finishline42]

16. And that's the good and bad about wind and solar

10 years from today there will be people that look at today's latest wind and solar installs and say how horribly inefficient they are.

Economies of scale are at work. Just like flat screen tv's and the first personal computers, it's easy to look back and see how lacking they are compared to what's available today. But it's part of the process. Buying wind and solar 10 years ago got us to today and what we do today will get us to the future. But just like Loveless above - buy some today - buy some in a couple of years and buy some a couple of years after that. Unless your space is limited the first set will still be making electricity for decades to come.

The biggest driver for wind is a simple formula - as you double the diameter of the blades you cube the output. But we are also seeing improvements in design to take advantage of lower wind speeds.

[hunter]

17. Solar power, wind power, and electric cars are mere greenwashing...

... in a high energy industrial consumer economy that is ultimately unsustainable.

A society powered by wind, solar, and other "renewable" energy would look nothing like the society many affluent people now enjoy.

Solar and wind energy will not magically eliminate fossil fuels with no changes in our standard of living.

Biofuels are an abomination. Agriculture is an incredibly destructive industry.

Quitting fossil fuels is like quitting smoking. We just have to do it.

Rather than becoming a huckster for solar and wind power schemes I think it's more important to promote birth control, realistic sex education, and the empowerment of women.

In general our environmental footprints would also be smaller if we reduced the amount of factory farm meat and dairy products we consume.

It's hypocritical to oppose nuclear power while enjoying the benefits of a fossil fueled highly industrialized society.

Having solar panels on one's roof, and a Tesla in the driveway signifies wealth, but not enlightenment.

[Finishline42]

18. Rather than becoming a huckster for solar and wind power schemes

Rather than becoming a huckster for solar and wind power schemes

What a bunch of hogwash.

What I like about solar is that at some point they will produce enough electricity that you break even on your investment. That time today is well within their warranty period. At that point I will be able to enjoy free electricity for the rest of my days. Decades into the future. My purchase will help to drive down the cost for those that follow.

I've always thought that a program to install Solar PV on schools made a lot of sense. Utilities are typically the 2nd largest cost item for schools. Schools are open when the sun shines. They don't move around. The school I went to was initially built in the 30"s and is still open today. And anything not spent on electricity can be redirected to educating children instead of making Utilities richer. Plus most school systems have lots of buildings with lots of land. There's another thing about solar - you don't have to do it all at once. If you have 50 buildings in the system - install a system that covers say 20% of the use on 5 buildings a year. Each year will be cheaper than the year before.

[hunter]

19. "Break even on your investment..." is part of the philosophy that is killing the planet.

This thing we now call economic "productivity" isn't productivity at all. It is in fact a direct measure of the damage we are doing to the earth's natural environment and our own human spirit.

All the public schools in my community are solar powered... whenever the sun is shining. One of our local discount supermarkets has solar panels built over the parking lot which is very nice when I want to park in the shade. This kind of solar doesn't bother me much.

But I'm extremely hostile toward solar and wind power projects built on previously undisturbed land. I look upon large scale wind energy projects with disgust. To me these only represent a commitment to natural gas power plants which are supposedly "back up" power to wind and solar. Unfortunately the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine most of the time. Gas power plants end up as the primary power source.

There is enough natural gas in the ground to destroy earth's natural environment as we know it, even when gas is used merely for "back-up" power.

I would rather concentrate my efforts building walkable community housing that has a very small environmental footprint, preferably in recycled structures. Car free urban lifestyles generally have the smallest environmental footprint. That's just the reality we have to accept as the human population approaches ten billion.

Wind turbines and solar panels powering mini-ranch McMansions and Tesla automobiles are not going to save the world even if the owners of such are "breaking even" on their investments.

[Finishline42]

23. To your point Hunter

Just read a piece written by David Byrne (yes that David Byrne - of The Talking Heads) about how a state known for conservatives and oil became a leader in not only the US but also the world for wind power. So last year Texas generated 23.4% of their electricity from wind. That's more than any other state and it would rank 5th in world.

But to Hunter's point - the state of Texas consumed 40% more energy than California with 25% less people. I don't how that breaks down but that's a lot of energy usage. Is that from oil refineries, chemical plants or is because at night there is an excess of electricity and the utilities basically give it away? 40% is a lot of air conditioning...

My personal view is that wasting energy is the main culprit in climate change. With that it's easy to agree that our lifestyles play a big part in that as well. IMO the number one thing that has driven an energy wasteful culture is that it's been cheap because of coal and no pollution controls. Cheap doesn't push people or companies to waste or use less.

https://electrek.co/2020/04/28/david-byrne-explores-how-texas-become-no-1-in-the-us-in-wind-power/

There's been a lot written on how the Depression changed those that lived during that time. I wonder if this pandemic will convince people that a simpler life can be a better life?

[hunter]

24. It may be that some economist in Texas realized that wind power commits the state to natural gas...

... in a way that nuclear power or serious lifestyle changes do not.

The problem with hybrid wind/natural gas power systems is that by today's accounting they work.

What's not accounted for is the environmental damage caused by gas extraction, methane leaks, and carbon dioxide emissions.

In California, where I live, home electricity rates are tiered. The more you use, the more it costs. Many Californians also live in places where air conditioning is unnecessary. Over 90% of the homes in my community don't have air conditioning. There are only a few days a year where we wish we did.

In California's Central Valley the climate is more like Texas. But high housing costs and tiered electric rates make people intensely aware of air conditioning efficiencies. Super insulated homes and smaller super-efficient air conditioners that automatically shut down when electricity demand exceeds certain limits will rapidly "pay for themselves."

California has plenty of oil refineries producing California blend fuels formulated to reduce air and water pollution. That's one reason our gasoline and diesel prices are somewhat independent of national prices. Gasoline that might be legal to sell in Texas probably isn't legal in California.

[Finishline42]

27. Texas and wind has to more with ERCOT

Texas has their own grid that serves 85% of the state.

Wind farms started being built in West Texas and ERCOT built the transmission lines to get the power to where it can be used. It's pretty much that simple. They have closed most of their coal plants - can't compete. Nuclear can't compete with wind and solar - too expensive. At that Texas has 2 plants with 2 reactors each.

RE: refineries - 48 for Texas and 18 for CA. They are all over the Gulf coast. There is a pipeline system that distributes different products from the refineries to at least Ohio and maybe further.

I've not seen anything in the past that explains why Texas uses so much energy. Was really surprised at that number. Climate is obviously hot and humid for the entire state vs Calif but Southern Calif has 24 million vs Texas 30 million so that doesn't explain it completely.

All the high tech industry in the Bay Area and their server farms have to account for a lot of energy use.

[progree]

28. Nope, not going to let you get away with that

Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2020, 06:52 PM - Edit history (1)

It may be that some economist in Texas realized that wind power commits the state to natural gas...

... in a way that nuclear power or serious lifestyle changes do not.

Wind is not incompatible with nuclear -- at least not the kind of nuclear that would provide the load-following abilities needed for 100% or nearly 100% nuclear systems that some extol as the only way to quit smoking or whatever the analogy du jour is (nuclear is not carbon-free, by the way, nor is any other electricity source).

But with the current cost of power sources, more electricity from wind energy means burning less natural gas.

As for "serious life-style changes", more insulation is not going to end our need for electricity. It will help us use less electricity, but not all of it. (So to use your smoking analogy, it's like cutting back, but not quitting smoking)

But I'm all for anything that helps cut electricity use, since no source of electricity is entirely carbon-free. "Serious lifestyle changes" are not incompatible with producing electricity from lower-carbon sources for the electricity that we will continue to consume.

And getting people to make the life-style changes ... I live in Minnesota ... in the summer I wake up and often it's in the 60's deg F outside and I step outside and I hear the neighbors' damn air conditioners blasting away (I live in a 60 townhouse community). It's like people demand that the temperature be within half a degree of perfect, and supplementing their air-conditioning with fans (or supplementing fans with a little air-conditioning as I do) is just too much of a bother.

[progree]

21. Thanks for what you are doing to reduce your carbon footprint, and for not letting the perfect be

the enemy of the better.

Some people are excellent at pointing out how your solar installation is not perfect at eliminating all fossil fuel burning. Others are better than some others at actually reducing the amount of carbon in the electricity they use.

I never understood the argument some try to make that somehow solar or wind require more fossil fuel burning than having neither solar or wind. A MWh coming from either solar or wind is pretty much one MWh less from other sources. But oh well, what do I know, I'm only an MSEE that worked in the planning and the operational planning departments of an electric utility for more than a decade.

And why does backup power to solar and wind have to come from fossil? We're told all this is an argument for why our systems must be 100% nuclear. Well, why can't the nuclear be the backbone to a system that includes wind and solar? After all, a 100% nuclear system will have to load-follow, so such a system ought to be able to handle the fluctuations of wind and solar output as well. Particularly when assisted by battery storage.

[Finishline42]

22. It seems to me

Because the cost to produce electricity from wind and solar is cheaper than all other types of electricity they will win the auctions to sell their power to the grid when it is available. And anytime they win over Natgas, coal or nuclear it drives up the cost to produce from those sources. When their costs go up it further justifies the building of more wind and solar. And economies of scale drives down the cost to do so.

Transmission lines are key. All you have to do is look at the growth of wind in Texas to understand that aspect of the problem. And they are now building a lot of utility grade solar to offset the lull periods of wind.

It seems every new project of wind and solar includes batteries. One that read specified that the batteries would be enough to cover a 4 hr time period.

I wonder what the prospects are of natgas not being cheap anymore? Wouldn't that change things in a hurry.

[hunter]

25. In this case the perfect is not the enemy of the better.

"Better" simply isn't good enough.

Quitting fossil fuels is a lot like quitting smoking.

Sure, there may be some health benefits going from a pack a day habit to a pack every two days habit, but the real health benefits start when you quit smoking entirely.

[progree]

26. Well, people aren't going to quit using electricity. That's just the reality of the situation.

And as I said before, solar and wind does not necessarily have to be backed by fossil fuel, it could be nuclear that provides the backbone of firm power (which isn't 100% carbon-free either incidentally). And battery storage costs are coming down and are a part of most new solar projects that I read about. In the meantime, I prefer anything that cuts fossil fuel use to not doing anything.

[Finishline42]

29. RE: Carbon cycle of nuclear

I agree nuclear isn't carbon free.

Everything before you get to the nuclear power plant is very carbon intensive. Mining, processing and mfg fuel rods.

Then you get to after the nuclear plant. A typical nuclear plant goes thru 20 tons of fuel rods a YEAR. So what does it cost to hold safe a ton of spent fuel rods per year? Per 100 years? Per 1000 years?

120 nuclear plants in the US x 20 tons x 50 years = 240 million pounds of highly radioactive fuel rods to keep secure. And every year we add another 5 million pounds to the total.

Doesn't seem carbon neutral to me.

[hunter]

31. A society that embraces nuclear power has no need for wind turbines.

Off-peak nuclear power might be used for all sorts of interesting things, including environmental remediation.

[progree]

32. Sorry, but wind is a lot cheaper to build, without the enormous cost overrruns. The "fuel" is free

Last edited Thu Apr 30, 2020, 12:54 AM - Edit history (3)

and without the multi-millenial toxic waste. Meanwhile the cost of wind keeps coming down, while nuclear ... it keeps going up. And unlike nuclear, wind projects don't take at least 10 years to build.

Even when the construction costs have long been paid for, many utilities are finding them uneconomical and asking for bailouts to keep running them.

Think of how the money saved could be used for some of the very worthwhile things you mention like super-insulating homes and making cities much more pedestrian- and bike-friendly.

[Finishline42]

33. Windmills don't need a river to heat up either

When ever there's a drought in the South the nuclear plants have to shut down - not enough water in the river to keep the cooling towers working.

I wonder what that does to the habitat?

[progree]

34. And sadly, that's when customer electrical demand is the highest - on hot summer days

kind of blows the reliability argument, as in "when it is needed the most, ... uhhh, how does that go again?"

Nuclear is less thermally efficient than fossil fuel plants, meaning they heat up more water per MWh of electricity produced. (Leaving aside wind and solar that don't have that issue at all). Many nukes have been shut down or had to reduce power on hot days because of the high temperature of their discharged cooling water into the river or bay. Imagine what would happen thermally if all electricity was produced this way.

[Rhiannon12866]

20. It's been available online since last week on YouTube:

Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary | Directed by Jeff Gibbs

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

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

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

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

Music by: Radiohead, King Crimson, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Blank & Jones, If These Trees Could Talk, Valentina Lisitsa, Culprit 1, Patrick O’hearn, The Torquays, Nigel Stanford, and many more.

[caraher]

30. Important messages marred by bad arguments

The film does a decent job of pointing out rampant greenwashing, with a side of "gotcha" journalism. That alone wouldn't bother me; what does annoy me immensely is the degree to which the film eschews careful analysis for ridiculous false equivalencies. For example, fossil fuels are used to make solar panels; therefore, we might as well not bother making solar panels. Zero effort to quantify how much carbon emissions are associated with producing those solar cells.

Some negative reviews focus more on the film's criticism of capitalism, but I do think the cult of unending exponential growth does need to be called out. This could have been done without trying to smear virtually every environmental leader as a fraud and ignoring careful analysis of the return on energy investment for various alternative energy technologies. And they pretty much ignore nuclear energy completely.