Have you been following this kerfuffle between filmmaker Michael Moore and author/climate change activist Bill McKibben? Moore executive produced a documentary called Planet Of The Humans, which he released on YouTube on Earth Day. Written and narrated by Jeff Gibbs, the movie takes a critical look at solar, wind, and biomass technologies and the environmental costs they exact. It is also reproves certain personalities that dominate the climate change activism scene, including Bill McKibben and environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and some big name environmental organizations, such as the Sierra Club and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
I first learned about it when I read a piece that McKibben wrote in his defense in response to the movie. Something about the tone of McKibben’s article put me off—I guess it felt both whiny and righteous—and I decided to see the film. One of McKibben’s big points in the article was that Moore’s film unreasonably deals damage to the climate change action movement; he quotes a “hard-working climate activist” from Montana: “The problem is, this movie is…like they detonated a bomb in the center of the climate action movement.”
It reminded me of an experience I had about ten years ago. With my daughters, I had done a climate change action facilitator training at the Ecology Center in Berkeley. Months after the training, the Ecology Center worked with the city of Berkeley to put on a mini-conference on climate change action.
At one point in the proceedings, the event facilitator opened up the floor to questions. One woman in the audience asked about compact fluorescent bulbs, which, at the time, had become popular as an energy efficient alternative to incandescents. She expressed concern, as the mercury in compact fluorescents posed its own set of environmental concerns when it came time to dispose of the spent bulbs; so how, she asked, could one properly analyze the risks/benefits of compact fluorescents vs. incandescents? I was grateful that she asked that because I had been wondering the same thing; I bet others in the audience felt similarly.
The facilitator said, “Let’s keep the tone of this event positive,” ignored the question, and called on another, apparently more positive questioner.
Boy, did that leave a bad taste in my mouth. If we couldn’t engage honestly with questions like that one, how could we be confident that we were doing the right thing for Planet Earth?
I feel similarly about the criticisms of the Moore/Gibbs film. One of the main objections to the documentary is that it presents outdated information, e.g., about the longevity of solar panels and wind turbines, and their viability as replacements for fossil fuel-based energy.
But many of the questions raised by the movie—directly and by corollary--are real and they’re not going away.
What are the environmental costs of mining rare earth minerals for solar panels and wind turbines? What do we lose by cutting down trees for biomass energy production? What are the energy and environmental costs of producing new tech—solar panels, wind turbines, hybrid and electric cars—to meet our bottomless energy needs?
And while we’re at it, let’s ask some questions that the movie did not tackle. What happens to the lead and cadmium in solar panels when they come to the end of their life? Why is it okay that factory workers are exposed to carcinogenic cadmium as they assemble our solar panels, and to nervous system toxin n-hexane as they put together our smartphones?
On a related topic, I have always been irked by the idea of carbon offsets. A company that spews tons of carbon into the air buys “offsets.” The money presumably funds projects that reduce carbon emissions. But it doesn’t erase the damage and filth that’s already been emitted. How do you “offset” the razing of the Amazon rainforest? How do you “offset” the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef’s coral? How do you “offset” the loss of biodiversity as more than one million species are expected to become extinct in the next few decades?
You don’t. You can’t. The carbon offsets racket offers a great way for somebody to make money peddling “offsets” and for somebody else to continue with business and polluting as usual, with the added benny of seeming “green” because of buying dopey offsets.
In Planet Of The Humans, the only environmental leader who comes off looking reasonable and completely honest is Vandana Shiva. I love Vandana Shiva’s ideas. Reading Shiva’s work was the first time I came across the term “powering down.”
We have to get real about the fallacy of simply substituting “alternative” energy sources for coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power as a cure-all. With that model, life continues as it has now for decades, with humans over-consuming and dealing irreparable damage to Earth and her many interlocking systems. The real alternative, of course, is to figure out how to power down, to use less and less energy, and to create more localized systems of energy production and consumption.
All that money and energy and effort that goes into procuring and processing the fossil fuels we use to heat and cool: Could we earmark some of it to fund a federal program to insulate people’s homes and public buildings with nontoxic materials so we wouldn’t be so dependent on those fossil fuels for heating and cooling? All that $$ and energy and effort that goes into making hybrid cars: Could we use it to develop walkable communities? By placing small essential shops in areas that are strictly residential? Could we allow telecommuting for all who can do their jobs remotely? In 2018, Permaculture magazine closed its offices, moving all work between editors, writers, production and arts staffs online. They did that in order to increase their resilience and decrease their collective dependence on fossil fuel-powered transportation. They powered down. If it can be done, it’s doable.
My household participates in California’s Ohm Connect hours, which means that, every week or so, we shut off our main circuit breaker, which cuts electrical service to the house, for an hour or sometimes two. Every time we do it, I find myself saying, “Oh! So that’s what quiet sounds like,” as we extinguish the hum of the fridge and the buzz of electric lights.
Maybe, as a society, we could get used to having electrical power unavailable for certain periods every week. I realize that some people have medical devices that must be powered, so maybe this could be an option that households could opt in to, like Ohm Connect Hours, but more frequently or for longer duration. When I lived in southern Italy for a couple of years in the 1980s, power would go out—without warning and sometimes for long periods—and people worked around it. The lack of a heads-up was more of a problem than the actual absence of electricity, so addressing that piece would be useful.
It’s reasonable and very important to thoroughly interrogate any so-called “green” undertakings about details regarding their sustainability and eco-friendliness. Planet Of The Humans, I think, is worth watching for the questions it raises. It’s available to see, free on YouTube, for another six days or so. Here it is:
And this guy, Mark Boyle, leads a very interesting life--without running water, tech gadgets, electricity, or gas. I appreciate his thoughtfulness about the choices he’s made. He wrote a book called The Way Home: Tales From A Life Without Technology. Here’s an interview with him: