Planet of the Humans

A powerful new US film from Michael Moore has been doing the rounds. Directed by Jeff Gibbs, this full length documentary challenges just about all aspects of environmentalism as currently practiced in the USA, and by implication elsewhere. Paralleling some other deep green critiques, and drawing on Ozzie Zehner’s work, it claims that we have been misled into believing that renewables like wind and PV can save the day, whereas the reality is that their construction (and in some cases operation) requires fossil fuel, as well as other dangerous materials. And despite the widespread deployment of renewables, emissions have not fallen, and coal use continues. Biomass is if anything even worse: it’s seen as basically being about burning trees for profit, with a net rise in emissions, loss of biodiversity and destruction of carbon sinks. The film attacks the Sierra Club and other major US environmental groups and individuals for their alleged complicity in all this and in what it depicts as a corporate take-over of green energy. So it’s a pretty bleak tale, ramped up further by insisting on the need to cut growth, consumption, and population.

Some of the take-downs (of old discarded renewable energy projects and Electric Vehicles if using fossil derived grid power) are a little contrived, dated and selective. There are some derelict wind and solar projects in the USA, but in general renewables are booming there and elsewhere, heading for or exceeding 50% shares in grid power production in several EU countries and accelerating massively in China, led by wind power.  The film does briefly mention Germany, one of the EU green energy leaders, but simply asserts that 60% of its renewable power production is from biomass: it’s actually more like 20%, including biogas from waste. So although there are some accurate and targeted critical points, there are also some confusions, for example in its depiction of the energy content (and therefore carbon debt) of renewable technology as high. In fact, their embedded energy/carbon construction debts are low compared to nuclear and fossil fuel technology, and can anyway be progressively offset for the construction of new projects by using renewable sources of energy as they come on line. So, although it is true that global emissions have stayed high despite renewable growth, that is mostly due not to renewables, but to the continuing growth in energy demand, which arguably links to the main and very valid point that the film makes: the endless growth in demand for most things has to be cut back. But how? The film doesn’t really say. It’s mainly concerned with portraying renewables as a failed and dubious technical and corporate fix, promoted to shore-up the delusion that growth can continue indefinitely. The role of corporate interests in all this is clearly one of Michael Moore’s key concerns and it does open up some important political issues. But why then use dated examples- and why not promote locally controlled community-based renewables more? Or mention the ‘energy justice’ movement?

The film was made before Covid 19, which actually has led us to cut our use of many things, at least for while. But will we learn from this experience? The film doesn’t inspire much confidence that we will, or indeed much hope for the future: in its portrayal, we are mostly a rapacious, destructive species, destined it seems, in our greed for more and more, to trash the planet and its (other) inhabitants. It’s a strong case at the general level and in relation to many local heartrending examples, as the film shows. Yes, we have often behaved appallingly, the rich (who generate most emissions) especially. But does that mean that all is lost, or that we can’t improve? And more specifically, does it mean that renewables are also irredeemable?

I have tried to put the case for renewables as a key way forward in a new book for Polity (Renewable energy – can it deliver?), which is out shortly - in July in the UK, September in the USA. In effect it deals with most of the points raised in this film, including the environmental impact issues. It notes that there are scenarios that seek to avoid the problems of the type that the film highlights. For example, the ‘100% renewable’ global 2050 scenario produced by Prof. Mark Jacobson et al at Stanford University avoids the use of biomass, while still achieving a carbon free and nuclear free future, with full grid balancing. As my book explores, there are many other 100% renewables scenarios, with a range of renewables at various scales in the mix and some with hydrogen being used to aid balancing. So it can be done- and at reasonable cost. 

That is not to say that we can have unconstrained growth for ever. In my book, I conclude that technical fixes like the adoption of renewables backed up with energy saving and some lifestyle changes may be able to deal with climate change, if given proper support, but that this will probably not be enough to allow for economic expansion to continue globally longer term – there are other social and environmental limits to growth on a finite planet with a limited carrying capacity. We need to cut energy and material demand substantially and change the way we live, possibly quite radically. Though I admit that it remains to be seen if we are up to doing this, or rather how much change we will be forced to accept if we don’t change voluntarily- with population issues being a big area of contestation. 

The new film certainly highlights the challenges to those of us that want to be optimistic about the future. Although its forthright denouncement of renewables may be a little overblown, there are issues with them - their use of scarce/toxic materials for example.  However, there may be solutions to problems like this. But that really is not what this film is looking for. Instead it is more confrontational; we have to abandon growth of just about all sorts and talk of renewables is just delusional. It may be right about growth. Though, even so, we will still need some energy. I argue in the new book that renewables are the only viable supply option. And that, if we are to move to a stable, balanced, sustainable system, their rapid development is one area where, for the foreseeable future, growth is vital.  Richard Heinberg, from the Post Carbon Institute, contributed to the film, but he does agree that renewables have a place, so maybe we are not all quite so far apart, though his views do seem rather bleak, with even digital media powered down!  He looks to ‘a process of triage whereby, as population & resource consumption shrink, the digital world does as well, until it’s small enough to be powered by renewable electricity that can be generated with minimal & acceptable environmental damage’.