Meet the New Flack for Oil and Gas: Michael Moore

Planet of the Humans is wildly unscientific, outdated, full of falsehoods, and benefits fossil fuel industry promoters and climate deniers.

Like many of Moore’s fans, I thought, “Cool, how timely!” Trump is in the White House ripping every environmental law to shreds, rolling back dozens of environmental rules, trashing the Paris Agreement, denying climate change, and opening up millions of acres for fracking. We need a movie on this complex and dramatic moment.

In the past 10 years, despite Trump (and the not-so-environmentally-friendly Obama administration), the environmental movement has become a formidable, organized, paradigm-shifting game changer. The achievements have been stunning: The codification and structuring of the Green New Deal, the Fossil Free movement championed by Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein, which has led to universities, pension funds, and foundations to commit to divesting trillions of dollars from fossil fuels, huge advances in renewable energy efficiency, the proliferation of 100 percent renewable energy plans put forward by Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson and others, a burgeoning youth movement inspired by Fridays for Future and Greta Thunberg; the remarkable successes of the anti-fracking movement—which finally reached the mainstream, espoused by progressives like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but also by moderates like Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg. And the incredible civil disobedience uprising at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline. What a decade for the environmental movement! Those achievements deserve celebration on film.

But after watching Planet of the Humans for about 10 minutes, I wanted to turn it off. Instead, I took notes.

Because the film is so dangerous, so wildly off-track and full of misinformation, fossil fuel industry taking points, and unfounded, wacky statements you could be forgiven for thinking it was created by Breitbart News or Steve Bannon and not the erstwhile bastion of progressive bombast that is Michael Moore. (As if to prove that the world is upside down, when world-renowned author and climate scientist Michael Mann, Naomi Klein, and I came out with a sign-on letter protesting the film’s inaccuracies and falsehoodsBreitbart actually piped up in defense of Michael Moore!) What’s wrong with Planet of the Humans? To begin with, the film utterly ignores the new emboldened environmental movement. Even more baffling, it totally ignores Trump.

Instead, it directs its attack on renewable energy and on the basic premise of all climate action and modern environmentalism: that humanity must end our addiction to fossil fuels. The film even attacks and tries to demonize Bill McKibben, one of the most selfless and influential fighters for the climate over three decades.

With his latest film, Michael Moore has become the new darling of Breitbart and the frackers. Meanwhile, the rest of us find ourselves once again mired in the false debates of a decade ago.

Planet of the Humans repeats a simple contrarian—and nonsensical—premise: Renewable energy doesn’t work.

I realize that sounds insane. Renewable energy—solar and wind, the most important energy innovations of this (or any) century, and which represent the only way civilization can possibly decarbonize—is just a big fat sham. According to Planet of the Humans, renewables are actually worse than fossil fuels.

There is an old saying in politics: “As soon as you start explaining, you have lost.” It becomes incredibly difficult to counter misinformation with a point by point rebuttal—even when you are trying to bring science to bear. Any liar and propagandist knows this.

Even so, I feel obligated to address a few of the film’s more glaring falsehoods. The film starts its descent into madness when producer/director Jeff Gibbs interviews Ozzie Zehner, who has attacked wind and solar energy and electric cars since the publication of his deeply misguided polemic Green Illusions nearly a decade ago. (Oddly enough, Zehner is also one of the film’s producers.)

Of course, this is utterly false. Wind and solar are vastly better when it comes to emissions (and every other environmental consideration). These charts from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory show how energy coming from wind and solar and other renewables over their life cycle are not even close in emissions to fossil fuels. The film gallops down a road of lies and misinformation. And it only gets worse.

In another scene, a solar panel array in Michigan is shown, and the panels are described as having less than 8 percent efficiency, “If you happen to be NASA, and you happen to own a rover running around Mars, they have very efficient panels. But we can’t afford those.” The implication is that solar is wildly inefficient and the whole premise of solar power is a lie.

This interview is presented as being current. But it isn’t—and the solar panels aren’t either. The panels shown are from a generation of solar dating to 2008, when this site was constructed. Today’s panels are vastly cheaper—and far more efficient. This is like trotting out a gas-guzzling 1979 T-bird and ridiculing it—while pretending it is a Prius. It is utter, deceitful nonsense.

It is also, I might add, utter journalistic malpractice. When these solar panels were made, AOC was an undergraduate at Boston University, George W. Bush was president, and Greta Thunberg hadn’t even entered kindergarten. To show this interview as if it were current is a travesty.

Having misinformed its audience about solar, the film moves on to wind: “You’ve got to have a fossil fuel power plant backing it up
and idling 100 percent of the time,” says an uncredited anti-wind protester.

And here we have the most egregious of the film’s false tropes: intermittency. The fossil fuel industry and its shills loved to trot out this argument (again, back in 2008–13) saying, “Well, the sun doesn’t always shine, the wind doesn’t always blow, therefore renewable energy will always need a fossil fuel back up. What about that?”

Intermittency was a problem renewable energy scientists spent a lot of time figuring out a decade ago. Thousands of renewable energy scientistshundreds of peer-reviewed studies, and dozens of 100 percent renewable energy plans have been addressing this for nearly a decade. But to Planet of the Humans, none of that work ever happened!

The film’s overwhelming message: Renewable energy is a sham, it doesn’t work, it is a lie and an illusion.

The film goes on for what seems like an eternity “exposing” Bill McKibben for supposedly pushing biomass. But McKibben has been on the record opposing it since at least 2016. Also, for the record, biomass currently contributes just 1.4 percent of US energy—a small fraction of the amount from other renewable sources. In the grand scheme of things, as Cornell scientist Tony Ingraffea put it to me, biomass is “totally inconsequential.”

But here is the problem: Most people don’t know these things. Renewable energy is still so new, so fast-changing that the facts about renewable energy are not universally known. We still have far to go in teaching people the basics of renewable energy. And the film trades on this widespread ignorance in appalling and deceitful ways.

Anyone well-versed in solar and wind or in the Green New Deal knows, within the first few minutes, that this film is false from the get-go. Not only does renewable energy work, it is working like gangbusters. Renewable energy has experienced exponential growthNew York and California have rapidly expanding 100 percent renewable energy programs, and the wind and the sun are providing ever increasing amounts of power nationally and around the world.

The Green New Deal lays out not only the route to a rapid transformation away from fossil fuels but a host of important transformations. It outlines the retraining of fossil fuel workers, the creation of 20 million new jobs, delivering environmental justice and healing to frontline communities, and holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for the damage it has caused. It is an intersectional call to justice.

Moore’s film ignores all of this and backs itself into a nihilistic, apocalyptic corner. Then comes its most immoral and damning gambit: the claim that reducing the population is among the only effective remedies.

We see old white male after old white male declaring there is no solution to climate change except reducing the population. (With this many white guys, we can only guess which groups of people are supposed to stop reproducing.) We are told to face up to our own apocalypse—that humans should “know when it’s their time to go.”

The claim that it is all those overpopulated countries that are causing the problem (especially coming from a boomer white guy in Michigan) would be deeply problematic even in “normal” times. But in the middle of a global pandemic that is killing a disproportionate number of black and brown people, it is more than just racist. It can be seen as an incitement to eco-fascist population controls.

We shouldn’t be surprised to see the pushers of population control and the oil industry on the same side. But even this hides a much darker truth: The fossil fuel industry is already engaged in a form of population control—the murderous kind. Air pollution from the fossil fuel industry kills a staggering 5-7 million people a year. Every year. Jacobson and a team at The Solutions Project have conducted a worldwide study to measure the health effects of pollution. They concluded that if the world moved to renewable energy the planet would collectively save $30 trillion in health care costs—and more than 5 million lives.

The fossil fuel industry is a global pandemic. Pollution caused by the fossil fuels are also an inherent part of that other pandemic, the coronavirus. From cancer alley in Louisiana to Queens, New York—the most polluted areas in the country have far higher death rates from Covid-19. Lung disease and heart disease are at the top of the list of co-factors in coronavirus deaths—and these conditions are often related to pollution from fossil fuels.

Releasing this on the eve of Earth Day’s 50th anniversary is like Bernie Sanders endorsing Donald Trump while chugging hydroxychloroquine. Planet of the Humans delivers all of the fossil fuel industry’s misinformation points tied up in a bow, sold to us by one of the progressive left’s loudest voices.

Who benefits?

The film is already being used by pro-fracking groups to attack renewable energy and environmentalists. And there is one other beneficiary: Michael Moore.

Mike has had a lot of time to respond to these criticisms. Instead, he’s chosen to stick cotton in his ears and continue to promote his campaign of falsehood and smears.

Advocating population control when poor people are dying in droves from the fossil fuel industry and the coronavirus is so insensitive it’s almost impossible to fathom. It’s actually worse than the snake oil Donald Trump peddles about Covid-19. Because we actually have a cure for the fossil fuel pandemic—the Green New Deal and renewable energy. But instead of advocating this cure, Michael Moore wants you to join the doomsday death cult and drink the fracked Kool-Aid of the fossil fuel industry.

Please, Mike: Start listening to science, to reason, to the movement—and retract and apologize for this film.

To everyone else, don’t despair! We have a future if we want one. No amount of attention-grabbing bloviation from Trump, Breitbart, or Moore will stop the sun from shining, the wind from blowing—or the truth from coming to light. SOURCE

Josh FoxTWITTERJosh Fox is an Oscar-nominated filmmaker whose latest film, How to Let Go of the World and Love All the Things Climate Can’t Change, is now available on HBO Now and HBO Go.

The Big Picture: Michael Moore’s eco documentary

One thought on “Meet the New Flack for Oil and Gas: Michael Moore”

  1. I think the documentary brings up a lot of good points, but leaves out others. It ignores nuclear power, which I think is very dangerous, and it ignores deep geothermal, which is very safe compared to nuclear. I have found the facts a long time ago– 7 years to be exact. Human overpopulation is the cause of most of our problems, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not. Think about this: If you live on an island and you can never leave, like Guam, eventually you will cut down all the trees and eat all the animals, as you overpopulate it, there is nowhere left to go. Planet earth is an island…for now. It comes down to ARABLE LAND. Our planet is a fixed size, true or false? Our planet has a fixed amount of arable land, true or false? We can’t grow crops on mountains or in deserts without water. As our population grows EXPONENTIALLY, and it has doubled in my short lifetime, we build houses, roads, offices, cut down forests, built on wetlands, etc. etc. Our population is OVER 9 billion today, and increasing by 300,000 people EVERY DAY. Every single person born will need a lifetime of those resources- food, water, shelter, will buy a car, will buy a computers, etc. We are already over what is the sustainable level of people per acre of arable land. Way over. And every day the burden is compounded. PLUS, every year more teenagers become of age to have children, and DO have children, whether they are ready or not. Here is what the documentary didn’t dare go into- the solution- because he doesn’t know what it is. But the solution is a global halt to births and a legal limit to the number of children per family, in every country that is overpopulated. Now, no one needs to die or be killed. So don’t let your imagination run wild. Just think- birth control, plan on two parents having a kid, perhaps an age minimum to have a kid. A clean record and a clean bill of health. A minimum number of years BETWEEN kids. And eventually a max of 3 children per family. Is that extreme? No, it just takes self control, intelligence, foresight, and care. Even if it takes hundreds of years, no one has to die or be killed. But there are evil people who know that the world is overpopulated, and are doing it for us without our consent. So let’s be proactive and just think ahead, hundreds of years ahead, to save our species. It is really difficult to process at first, but if you dwell on it and break down the reasoning, over time it makes absolute logical sense.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: