Michael Moore Has Become a Hero to Climate Deniers

[ralfy + 55]

On 5/11/2020 at 3:52 AM, UNC12345 said:

I agree he doesn't neatly fit in the MSM mould.  But he's made about 13 films that millions have watched on various hot button topics.  I'd say he approaches mainstream just in terms of his popularity and number of views.

Does this source make you think any different?  Seems like his truth might not be "unvarnished" after all.

https://theconversation.com/3-times-michael-moores-film-planet-of-the-humans-gets-the-facts-wrong-and-3-times-it-gets-them-right-137890

For the first point, 15-20 pct efficiency isn't very good. Also, what's usually given as the energy return for solar is nameplate power. The actual energy return is as low as 2 or 3.

Renewables can't replace fossil fuels because up to 70 pct of manufacturing requires them, a significant part of manufacturing and even mechanized agriculture, and much of shipping, especially given extensive supply chains.

Finally, forecasts are not the same as reality. Even the batteries needed to store energy will require fossil fuels for mining, manufacture, and shipping.

About 6 GW, the world consumes 20 TW of energy. In order to minimize poverty worldwide, it will need around 50 TW. To meet those plus a population of around 10 billion, around 90 TW. To meet those plus deal with the effects of environmental damage, even more.

 

 

 

[ralfy + 55]

15 hours ago, 0R0 said:

First, Right On. Population growth is in its final slowing phase, and in all the large energy consuming nations it has either started declining or will do so soon. India's peak babies was a decade ago. Global peak babies has already happened 2018 or last year if you believe China births stats. 

Second, NG is rapidly displacing coal, and is on the way to displacing diesel. and oil petrochemical inputs, thus will lower demand for that too, within the decade we should be consuming up to 40% less oil for this reason. Thus whatever non-benefit is being had by renewables is complemented by 40% CO2 and all particulates reduction against coal, and 30% against oil.  

China, the sole substantial source of environmental damage growth is reaching a demographic brake on its growth as consumer demand is falling as its boomers retire and its milennials age into the savings demographic. It provided 65% of global growth and 85% of monetary expansion over the last 20 years. It is a wonder why the "capitalist polluters" diatribe was not aimed at China even once. 

Generally speaking, I am just hoping for cheaper and more abundant energy as the costs of solar and offshore wind fall. By my reckoning, price is energy. If the renewables cost more, then it is because they produce less energy vs. energy put into them. Even a Tesla doesn't produce less CO2 against a ICE car until 10 years on the road. So, though hopeful, I never considered renewables ready for primetime nor deserving of subsidy. 

The most damning part of the film was the absolute idiocy of "biofuels" and the actual very real damage it does environmentally and socially, as well as economically. The harvesting of the greening of the planet with the CO2 fertilization effect by 30% is not unreasonable, but this is definitely not the way.  

Population is expected to reach 10 billion because of population momentum. That is, birth rate is lower but the number of child-bearing people worldwide is high.

Currently, ave. ecological footprint per capita is higher than biocapacity, which is why ecological damage is taking place on a significant scale, and that's given the point that most people worldwide are poor but want to avoid that plus join the middle class. In order to meet basic needs, biocapacity has to double. In order to meet middle class conveniences, which is part of a global capitalist economy, up to four times. To meet a population that will reach 10 billion, even more.

 

[ralfy + 55]

On 5/11/2020 at 5:02 AM, BradleyPNW said:

Michael Moore conned liberals for two decades. Now he's conning conservatives. I don't understand how people can be so gullible. 

That's because there was no "conning" involved. That is, both liberals and conservatives avail of basic needs and middle class conveniences through industrial civilization, which is essentially built upon fossil fuels and  extensive use of resources in a biosphere with physical limitations. Both assumed that we could deal with the latter through fossil fuels or renewable energy, but the documentary showed otherwise.

That idea was first raised in the early 1970s.

 

[Jee + 27]

They are making a second episode: Ultimate answer for climate change - fossil fuel.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

12 hours ago, ralfy said:

That's because there was no "conning" involved. That is, both liberals and conservatives avail of basic needs and middle class conveniences through industrial civilization, which is essentially built upon fossil fuels and  extensive use of resources in a biosphere with physical limitations. Both assumed that we could deal with the latter through fossil fuels or renewable energy, but the documentary showed otherwise.

That idea was first raised in the early 1970s.

 

When human bands foraged 300 to 10 kya the physical limitation was land mass and the associated ecosystem. During that time, the Earth could only sustain a population of 1 to 2 million humans. What happened that allowed the human population to grow from 1 million to 7+ billion? The first and second agricultural revolutions in conjunction with the industrial revolution. Population trends look like we'll max out around 10 billion humans in 2050. Is the population growth rate slowing because we're running into physical limits resulting in human misery? No. It's slowing because we're generating wealth. Low income country's are still reproducing but high income countries such as Japan have mostly transitioned into negative growth rates. 

The documentary is a joke. I don't see the geoscience/climate science community praising the documentary. I do see them criticizing the documentary and assigning it to the trash bin. Why are those who have expertise in the relevant subject areas unimpressed by Moore's documentary? 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by BradleyPNW

[BradleyPNW + 282]

deleted post

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by BradleyPNW

[Fiver 0]

There are limits to growth, however, that does not mean a dark future for mankind as the film seems to imply. According to the UN population studies world population growth will peak somewhere between 2055  -2065.

   Many nations are not replacing their population currently and most are heading the same way. It will certainly be a different kind of world going forward, but, let's not forget mankind's ability to adapt and innovate.

[ralfy + 55]

11 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

When human bands foraged 300 to 10 kya the physical limitation was land mass and the associated ecosystem. During that time, the Earth could only sustain a population of 1 to 2 million humans. What happened that allowed the human population to grow from 1 million to 7+ billion? The first and second agricultural revolutions in conjunction with the industrial revolution. Population trends look like we'll max out around 10 billion humans in 2050. Is the population growth rate slowing because we're running into physical limits resulting in human misery? No. It's slowing because we're generating wealth. Low income country's are still reproducing but high income countries such as Japan have mostly transitioned into negative growth rates. 

The documentary is a joke. I don't see the geoscience/climate science community praising the documentary. I do see them criticizing the documentary and assigning it to the trash bin. Why are those who have expertise in the relevant subject areas unimpressed by Moore's documentary? 

 

The reason why they are not impressed is because the wealth that they value essentially consists of  numbers in hard drives. We have a global credit market with a notional value of around $1.2 quadrillion. Apparently, if there's anything we can create easily, it's that.

In contrast, there's energy needed to mining, manufacturing, shipping, and even mechanized agriculture, not to mention backing up all those numbers.

The global population is currently using around 20 TW of energy, where the majority earns less than $10 daily. In order to meet their basic needs (which is what the global middle class wants because their income and investments are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services) 50 TW will be needed. In order to meet that plus a population of around 10 billion, around 90 TW. To maintain economic growth, which involves a growing global middle class, not to mention repairing ecological damage caused by economic activity, more than that.

 

 

[ralfy + 55]

1 minute ago, Fiver said:

There are limits to growth, however, that does not mean a dark future for mankind as the film seems to imply. According to the UN population studies world population growth will peak somewhere between 2055  -2065.

   Many nations are not replacing their population currently and most are heading the same way. It will certainly be a different kind of world going forward, but, let's not forget mankind's ability to adapt and innovate.

The optimistic premise is that the population will peak because of aging. One of the reasons why several nations are experiencing that is because of prosperity. In terms of resource use, theirs is many times higher than those of poorer countries where population is growing due to momentum.

That means in order to achieve that premise most of the population will have to follow what these countries are doing, which is use more resources and energy per capita. But that also means countering limits to growth, which shows that the biosphere has physical limitations.

This has been taking place for two decades: a growing global middle class.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

What are the energy and resource requirements needed to meet such a world population? That population as it grows to 10 billion? That plus dealing with ecological damage?

 

 

 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

29 minutes ago, ralfy said:

What are the energy and resource requirements needed to meet such a world population? That population as it grows to 10 billion? That plus dealing with ecological damage?

Not that much more than what we use now because technology advancements are continually allowing us to do more with less energy. For example in the past 20 years US real GDP has grown by @40%  but energy usage has been fairly flat.  Seems our GDP completely detached from energy usage about the time the Internet entered wide use.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 5/12/2020 at 11:08 AM, ralfy said:

Population is expected to reach 10 billion because of population momentum. That is, birth rate is lower but the number of child-bearing people worldwide is high.

Currently, ave. ecological footprint per capita is higher than biocapacity, which is why ecological damage is taking place on a significant scale, and that's given the point that most people worldwide are poor but want to avoid that plus join the middle class. In order to meet basic needs, biocapacity has to double. In order to meet middle class conveniences, which is part of a global capitalist economy, up to four times. To meet a population that will reach 10 billion, even more.

 

So, once again, the ballooning world population is identified as the primary driver for EVERY environmental issue, but nobody wants to address it. We will simply let nature take it’s course until it starts reducing the global population.

Fair enough, culling the herd has many ethical and religious issues to it.

But if we are going to let Mother Nature sort out the population, and therefore the environmental issues which arise from it, why are environmentalists so interested in forcing Mother Nature’s hand...NOW!🤔

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, Fiver said:

It will certainly be a different kind of world going forward, but, let's not forget mankind's ability to adapt and innovate.

Kudos to you for saying this.  It seems to be a forgotten part of the conversation on so many issues today.

[ralfy + 55]

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Not that much more than what we use now because technology advancements are continually allowing us to do more with less energy. For example in the past 20 years US real GDP has grown by @40%  but energy usage has been fairly flat.  Seems our GDP completely detached from energy usage about the time the Internet entered wide use.

When you have a global market with a notional value of over $1.2 quadrillion, then it's obvious energy intensity will drop. The problem is that much of that wealth consists of numbers in hard drives. The base of the global economy still consists of energy and material resources, and given the point that most belong to developing economies, we will need a lot more of both.

 

[ralfy + 55]

12 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So, once again, the ballooning world population is identified as the primary driver for EVERY environmental issue, but nobody wants to address it. We will simply let nature take it’s course until it starts reducing the global population.

Fair enough, culling the herd has many ethical and religious issues to it.

But if we are going to let Mother Nature sort out the population, and therefore the environmental issues which arise from it, why are environmentalists so interested in forcing Mother Nature’s hand...NOW!🤔

It's increasing population plus increasing resource consumption per capita. In order to meet the basic needs of the current population, we will need more than one earth. In order to meet increasing consumption as part of middle class conveniences, a lot more. More still given increasing population plus environmental damage.

 

[ralfy + 55]

11 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Kudos to you for saying this.  It seems to be a forgotten part of the conversation on so many issues today.

If any, that's what we say by default. What's said in the documentary is what's forgotten.