Michael Moore’s documentary Planet of the Humans was
released on YouTube in conjunction
with Earth Day, 2020—a casualty of the Covid-19 pandemic as a theatrical
release was precluded. I had heard of the movie and knew that it was about the limitations
of renewable energy sources. I was glad that a renowned documentarian like
Moore was putting a spotlight on the shortcomings of “renewables,” because
the public has been largely seduced into believing that wind, solar and biomass
can provide us with all our energy needs while averting climate change. Last
weekend, I finally got to see the movie.
I
had mixed reactions as I watched the documentary. Although Michael Moore is the
Executive Producer, he does not appear in the film. The film is narrated by Jeff
Gibbs who tells his journey of disillusionment with the green movement. I liked
how effectively Gibbs dispenses with the myth that wind and solar lead to
reduced emissions! Reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be our main
objective, not simply installing renewable energy sources. Gibbs points out the
massive amounts of steel, concrete, and other materials required for any wind
turbine, which would last for only 20 years. Similarly, large quantities of
commodities are also needed for a solar farm. Production of the commodity
materials requires tons of fossil resources, which cut into the “greenness” of
these installations. All the mining necessary to obtain the raw materials also
degrades the environment.
Gibbs
loses credibility when he asserts that it takes more energy from fossil sources
than what is produced by wind and solar power plants. Many reputable life-cycle
analyses show that these sources are net positive energy producers after five
to seven years. By overstating his case against wind and solar and not acknowledging
their contribution to carbon-free electricity, he leaves himself open to easy
criticism by advocates of renewable “green energy.” And he has been criticized
for that by many environmentalists.
That
said, Gibbs is right in his overall criticism. Life-cycle analyses do not count
emissions from sources needed to back up wind and solar. Those emissions are
counted as emissions from coal or natural gas plants, even though in many
instances these plants are expressly built to support a new wind or solar farm.
The necessity to back up intermittent sources is the reason why Germany’s greenhouse
gas emissions did not decrease even though the country spent over $500 billion
on its Energiewende (Energy Transformation) program.
Another
fallacy of the “renewables” is that it considers biomass carbon neutral. Burning
wood chips (actually forests, as the movie points out) is not good for the environment
and is ruining habitat. It also can take a hundred years or more for new trees
to grow and offset the carbon dioxide emitted during the burning of wood chips.
Gibbs dwells a lot (indeed, too much for my liking) on the environmental damage
done by growing biomass for fuel or devoting farmland for growing crops to make
biofuels.
Gibbs
next turns his attention to the moneyed interests behind the “green” movement. He
exposes many promoters of green energy as deeply vested in fossil energy
sources. The reason fossil companies support wind and solar installations is
that they know the renewables will have to be backed up by new natural gas
plants or the predominately coal-based grid. [i]
Gibbs
portrays many leaders of the environmental movements such as Bill McKibben and Al
Gore as being in the pockets of fossil energy companies. Without convincing evidence,
such portrayal is sure to raise the ire of the green movement. The movie seems
to make the case that nothing good will come if we rely on market forces,
forgetting the counterpoint that profit motive is exactly what drives innovation
and solutions.
I
was particularly disappointed by the documentary because it offered no
solutions. It completely ignored nuclear power and just harped on the
Malthusian theme that we humans are the problem since we have so increased in
numbers and each of us is consuming too much! The last part of the movie showed
scenes of rampant environmental damage and an orangutan clinging on to a lone
tree surrounded by devastated landscape. Pure environmental porn; ugh!
The
movie leaves the viewer hopeless, and with a sense of despair that can lead to
inaction, when what the world needs is rational thinking and concerted action. In
an interview with Stephen Colbert, Michael Moore said that his objective in
producing this film was to raise the alarm and motivate the younger generation into
action. I am afraid, by not offering any hope the movie fails on that front.
So,
what are we supposed to do? Revert to 17th
century lifestyles? That seems to be the message but recall that back then life
expectancy was barely 40 years and infant mortality was ten times higher than
today, and people spent almost all their time in the drudgery of procuring food
and fuel rather than other pursuits. The world population in the 17th
century was less than 1 billion; today it is 7.5 billion and about half are living
in unacceptable poverty without access to electricity, clean water, and
adequate food. It will take energy to lift them out of poverty so they too can
lead healthy, productive lives. Where is that energy going to come from?
Incidentally
population growth, a theme that the movie touches, is best addressed by raising
living standards. The need for copious quantities of clean energy is evident. The movie makes it amply clear that the
required energy cannot be produced through the magical thinking of 100% renewables.
It will require a substantial expansion of nuclear power—the one clean source
that is safe, scalable, and cheap enough for global deployment.
As an antidote to the movie, I suggest watching this interview by Michael Killen of me and Alex Cannara. https://youtu.be/IjhnE-hgx0M
[i] Battery storage
just does not scale to provide the required back up; besides it too is fraught
with issues of materials supply.
