I haven't see it, but I heard about it recently when I saw this review by "ecomodernist" environmentalist Mark Lynas on Facebook:

So last night I sat down with my wife Maria and did something I have dreaded for over a week: we forced ourselves to watch Planet of the Humans. This is the much talked-about film, executive produced by Michael Moore, which purports to take down renewable energy and expose leading environmental campaigners as self-serving capitalists. It's now had nearly 6m plays on YouTube.

Man it was hard going! That's two hours of my life I'll never get back. It has to be one of the worst documentary films I have ever seen, and I've sat through a few. It was slow, badly organized, voiced in a dull monotone and fundamentally dishonest. The cinematography was dreadful, with long black screens, no obvious narrative and strange old sequences that looked like VHS video from the 1980s. By the end we were just desperate for the credits to roll, to end the pain and misery.

And the content? It starts with a flawed premise, supported by misleading arguments and incorrect data, and reaches a conclusion that is - surprise, surprise - utterly wrong on almost every count. The most obvious reason is that it's all just REALLY OUT OF DATE! All the sequences about how bad wind and solar are have a dated feel about them - and for good reason, as it turns out most of the footage is a decade or more old.

Those solar cells that are 8% efficient? They were installed in 2008. The industry standard is now 20%, and rising all the time. Those picturesquely rusty dead wind turbines? First generation. The electric car run from a coal grid? Shot 10 years ago. (The UK grid is now almost entirely coal-free - back when this film was made it was at 40% coal.) The arguments about needing fossil backup to intermittent renewables? Not borne out by any experience, with renewables now comprising far higher proportions of grids than was ever imagined possible when this film was conceived a decade and a half ago. The only thing it gets right is that burning trees for biofuels is really bad, but anyone with a brain has been saying that for years already.

So what's the truth about renewables? Crunch the figures, and it turns out that with current technology an area of solar PV the size of 8% of Western Australia (or a quarter of Namibia or an equivalent area of hot desert) can supply sufficient energy to replace the entire world's oil industry, all 90 million barrels/day of it. So don't let any attention-seeking film-maker tell you the clean energy transition isn't possible. If they do, they're lying, and you need to ask why.

And who are these people who are set up as environmental 'leaders'? RFK Jr! A man who has so far lost his mental marbles that he's now become a full-time anti-vaccination campaigner. Nothing he says should be taken seriously by anyone, especially in a pandemic. The man is a dangerous lunatic. Who else? Vandana Shiva? She's an Indian eco-guru who has long opposed science. The only genuine leader featured is Bill McKibben, who is framed to look as if he's taking money from bad people - this also is untrue, as is obvious from the flimsiness of the evidence provided.

Now I would count Bill as a friend, but even so I would say this: take down McKibben if you have some evidence of bad faith or foul play, but doorstepping him at a rally and showing out-of-context gotchas about 350.org’s funding is not going to convince me. No wonder the right-wing climate denial lobby is having a ball. Michael Moore, the celebrated lefty, has done their dirty work for them!

It all leads up to a gloomy catastrophist fantasy where various elderly white Americans (and they are all old and white, and mostly male) muse misanthropically about how how the "elephant in the room" - that tired old cliché - is population. I mean degrowthers like Richard Heinberg et al, who are presented as prophets whereas in actual fact they are just lifelong professional pessimists who are as wrong now as they have always been (where's your peak oil now Richard?).

This Malthusian bilge I think is probably the most egregious part of the movie, and has received too little pushback - there are plenty of people out there quite rightly calling out the lies about renewables and defending Bill McKibben, but we need to look carefully at what these population de-growthers are actually saying. Where is population growth highest? Africa, of course. They won't tell you this outright, but basically this comes down to a white nationalist fantasy about stopping black people from breeding. I could correct them on points of fact and tell them how the best way to reduce population fertility rate is actually to lower rates of infant mortality and empower women, but what's the point? There's not a single African voice given airtime in the movie either, not surprisingly.

I guess Heinberg and the population-crash fantasists should be cock-a-hoop right now thanks to the pandemic. Here at last there's a good chance that millions of people will die quickly, in Africa most of all due to its poor healthcare systems and high rates of malnutrition. Yay! It's an ugly vision, and it makes me shudder for the darkness of these peoples' hearts. This is not just a bad film, it's morally repellent. Watch it if you must, but be prepared to feel sick as well as bored by the end. — Mark Lynas

https://www.facebook.com/mark.lynas.71/posts/3770369539644440

I’ve haven’t seen it either.

I have looked at previous sets of statistics about how effective the allocation of funds are and the results looked pretty conclusive to me. That is most of the things that get hyped up are seriously inefficient in terms of cost versus benefit and items like eco-plantations for bio fuels caused a six-fold increase in carbon footprints.

The clearest, and most effective means of combating climate change is, quite ironically, what many people keep complaining politicians focus too much on ... that is GDP. As GDP rises so does healthcare, education and access to opportunity, whilst malnutrition, disease and child mortality fall.

And before anyone says it, increasing GDP does necessarily mean inequality will likely go up (almost certainly for the cream at the top). Poverty causes damage to the environment that wealth.

Also, many millionaires and billionaires are the ones able to plug the holes governments would be criticized for trying to fill. This is because the attitude of ‘Why help children in Africa when kids are dying here?’ Will necessarily persist to sone degree or another - after all people have every right to suggest their taxes go toward helping their country/people regardless of what anyone else’s opinion is (and thankfully people still actively argue about this).

It’s worth throwing this out there again: https://www.gapminder.org/

A great resource that helps shed some light on what use disembodied statistics can be.

Thanks for the reply. I can agree with a bunch of the criticisms pointed out. I think it's problematic to accuse the filmmakers of "making the oil industry's argument for them", because not only does this miss the basic message of the film, it's also essentially a genetic fallacy.

I have some thoughts on the review you linked.

So what's the truth about renewables? Crunch the figures, and it turns out that with current technology an area of solar PV the size of 8% of Western Australia (or a quarter of Namibia or an equivalent area of hot desert) can supply sufficient energy to replace the entire world's oil industry, all 90 million barrels/day of it. So don't let any attention-seeking film-maker tell you the clean energy transition isn't possible. If they do, they're lying, and you need to ask why. — Mark Lynas

This criticism seems a bit tangential to what is said in the documentary, which is not that the capacity isn't there, but rather that the costs of producing and maintaing the capacity are themselves not sustainable.

The arguments about needing fossil backup to intermittent renewables? Not borne out by any experience, with renewables now comprising far higher proportions of grids than was ever imagined possible when this film was conceived a decade and a half ago. The only thing it gets right is that burning trees for biofuels is really bad, but anyone with a brain has been saying that for years already. — Mark Lynas

One thing the documentary points out a lot is that what is classified as "renewable" in the statistics isn't necessarily renewable, and that the vast majority of that capacity is made up by burning trees.

This Malthusian bilge I think is probably the most egregious part of the movie, and has received too little pushback - there are plenty of people out there quite rightly calling out the lies about renewables and defending Bill McKibben, but we need to look carefully at what these population de-growthers are actually saying. — Mark Lynas

On that part, I totally agree with Lynas. It was really weird how the documentary handled that. It never actually makes an argument about population growth specifically, it just has these soundbites about how population growth is the "elephant in the room". It really makes it seem like they secretly think we need population control, but are afraid to say so out loud. Maybe it was just bad filmmaking, though.

The clearest, and most effective means of combating climate change is, quite ironically, what many people keep complaining politicians focus too much on ... that is GDP. As GDP rises so does healthcare, education and access to opportunity, whilst malnutrition, disease and child mortality fall. — I like sushi

But that only works so long as you have the natural resources to feed that growth. But do we?

Yes

Populations are unwilling of give up luxuries, which is a major step in habitat renewal.

We focus too much on the problem and not the solution - I bet you never heard 'habitat renewal' before...

In short, you're right, our solutions are poor, but the problem is people's luxury and power in the hands of the weak minded.

Heatlhcare is an alternative. I don't care if you think it's important.

I don't care if you or your children get sick.

I care more about the adult friend of mine getting sick, and if he does, I hope he gets well, but I wouldn't support that we sacrifice, a whole world, to cure him.

Until humans can get out of the weak minded selfishness, we can do as OP does and ignore the problem.

People will be punished for this, some people will have their faces cut, some people, will just not be rewarded.

How is it fair that the same people who expect doctors, cut the cow?

To combat climate change we need to create an emergency, globally. If we are not prepared to do that, as a species we are poor performers.

It's a struggle we must face and not ignore, if we expect to goto heaven.

Those there legitimately ready to face this problem, are respected. Those willing to give up healthcare and burger kings are good minds who will be forgiven for their indulgence in such. So a major part of the problem is the weak minded, and especially those powerful people who support weak mindedness.

So is this based on a "we're going to fix things once they're impossible to ignore" attitude, where we'll just scrape by on incremental improvements in both our ability to deal with the problems and reduce their causes?

Do you think a major technology breakthrough will make this whole discussion irrelevant (Fusion is a candidate here)?

Or is there some other fundamental assumption behind your position?

I am familiar with gapmider, by the way. I read the book and did like it. I usually lean towards a more optimistic and perhaps technophile outlook, but at times the situation seems very grim to me, especially considering that the quality of governance doesn't seem on an upward trend worldwide.

Methinks, rate and/or volume are the culprits. The problem isn't fossil fuel based machines per se but the rate at which they're used (rate) and how many there are (volume). Had industrialization taken place slowly, the environment wouldn't have taken such a big hit as it has - natural compensatory mechanisms could've easily handled what would've been a manageable stress.

So, it seems then that there's nothing wrong with technology itself. All living things produce CO2; I'll give in to the temptation and say that every schoolboy knows that. What leads to the possibility of a major environmental catastrophe is the way we've used technology - without moderation. Sola dosis facit venenum.

So is this based on a "we're going to fix things once they're impossible to ignore" attitude, where we'll just scrape by on incremental improvements in both our ability to deal with the problems and reduce their causes? — Echarmion

What is based on that? Sorry, you lost me. You mean ‘resources’? We have enough. The data, ALL the data, indicates that raising the standard of living in developing countries help preserve them environment. Lots of money pumped into dealing with climate change and environmental issues does little to nothing - usual due to misinformed activist who understand little and don’t bother to look at the bigger picture.

Money was pumped into biofuels for no good reason. The factual evidence points directly at what I said. Raise GDP so people can be in a position to give shit, have smaller families and have time to focus on more than finding food to eat that day (poverty results in ravaging the immediate environment.

When in comes to developed countries the US needs to step up. Europe has made some steps that are better than nothing.

Yeah, things don’t look peachy, but they never really have. I do believe we’ll get through it and perhaps events will rouse some people and make them understand our vulnerability, or not. The human race is extremely adaptable. It’s a case of whether or not we can prepare and deal with what’s coming. I think we can, but it may be less than pleasant.

I genuinely believe the human race is up to the task. If not, so be it, many will die and it will mark an epoch in humanity’s history.

Here’s more info on some of the false claims: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/what-michael-moore-new-film-gets-wrong-about-renewable-energy?fbclid=IwAR3ymZTNIFlmrwSAub1hC6KKUM9ERXuRwRn1A_-NS2B2weS8VnSuPx9hW3c

Fusion will probably be with us by the end of the century: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XNcGpQCX8a0

What is based on that? Sorry, you lost me. You mean ‘resources’? We have enough. The data, ALL the data, indicates that raising the standard of living in developing countries help preserve them environment. — I like sushi

This is simply not true. China has had the fastest rise in standard of GDP and living standards (according to our shortsighted metrics), but at large environmental cost.

In the West there was a phase of "getting so rich we can have nice plants around", but this was achieved by simply offshoring all dirty production to mostly China and India and resource extraction to mostly Africa and South America. Furthermore, fracking and tar sands, soil degradation, and insect declines (likely due to poisonous pesticides) are strong clues this phenomenon was short term (lobbies are now strong enough to on-shore environmental destruction), and of course if climate change turns large parts of Europe arid then the recent European net-reforestation doesn't matter in the slightest.

Is your position just denying these environmental costs?

Or are you arguing that sacrificing the environment for short term economic development has some sort of magical green teleological end?

The alternative view is that it's environmental protection requires regulation, to internalize environmental costs. Do you disagree with this statement?

Lots of money pumped into dealing with climate change and environmental issues does little to nothing - usual due to misinformed activist who understand little and don’t bother to look at the bigger picture. — I like sushi

If lots of money wasn't pumped into making conservation reserves, many more species would be extinct.

It lots of money wasn't pumped into environmental research, we wouldn't even understand the problems very well.

If lots of money wasn't pumped into research and development and then subsidizing renewable industries, even the "not there yet" technologies the film describes wouldn't exist.

If the comparatively little money (compared to fossil fuel company propaganda) wasn't pumped into advocacy and public awareness, we could easily be in a situation where there is no general alarm and anxiety about climate change or other problems (that's it's just "natural cycles" or small amounts of damage we can ignore).

Raise GDP so people can be in a position to give shit, have smaller families and have time to focus on more than finding food to eat that day (poverty results in ravaging the immediate environment. — I like sushi

This is simply not the cause of our global environmental problems.

GDP growth does not result, in itself, in people people giving a shit. US and China have high GDP but the prevailing attitude is to not give a shit about the environment.

The poor people of the world do nearly insignificant environmental damage on a global scale. The poor, especially the people so poor they cannot have any environmental considerations, emit insignificant amounts of green house gases and also do insignificant amounts fisheries damage and rain forest clear cutting and river and lake pollution.

The few issues that "poor people" are associated with (such as poaching and disastrous blood mining), it's wealthy economies creating the demand. It's not poor people who say "hmm, I think we need more blood diamonds and ivory around here". It is the high GDP nations creating the demand for these resources, and supplying all the bribes and weapons to make sure poor countries don't develop governing institutions to be able to deal with these problems themselves. Likewise, where you have massive influx of agricultural poisons, its not the poor countries that produce those poisons.

Destruction of the environment is a rich mans game.

As I mentioned in another thread, of the factors Technology, Affluence and Population, it's only Technology (i.e. the environmental cost of a unit of production) and Affluence (how many units of production we choose to consume above what we need) that we can act on at order or magnitude scales.

Yes, definitely we should strive to alleviate poverty, but that alleviating poverty through expanding our present unsustainable production system will somehow magically result in people caring about and then solve environmental problems is a complete chimera.

Money was pumped into biofuels for no good reason. — I like sushi

Here, you and the the film is correct. However, what you and the film ignore is that plenty of environmentalists were against biofuels. When these policies were being discussed, commentators would always add on "some groups say push for biofuels could lead to increased food prices in poor countries"; those groups were environmental groups. The biofuels thing was a fossil fuel company marketing coup; a way to slap "green" on gasoline by adding 5%-10% ethanol derived from the Amazon (only possible with subsidies because it took as much fossil fuels to make the ethanol as it represented).

You can see plenty of presentations on youtube (from that time until today) laying out the calculations that it's simply impossible to produce enough biofuels to replace gasoline, that clear cutting the amazon to make biofuels is absurd, and biofuels production is not even fossil-energy negative.

Biofuels was something politicians could get behind to say "look! we're doing something green", but I know of no environmentalist who lobbied for the biofuel policy we have today.

Of course, there are nuances like with everything. Environmentalists aren't against biofuel research to see how efficient it's possible to make and under what conditions is it an actually renewable energy source of energy (not taking more fossil fuels to make, not degrading the land base it's on). And although it's easy to show that whatever improvements are made biofuels cannot possibly replace gasoline on the scale we use it today, there is of course niche things that need a liquid fuel source boats: helicopters, propeller planes, trucks (where trains aren't an option), off-grid construction equipment, are difficult to replace by rail or batteries. Of course, this is only sustainable if these niche applications represent a volume that can be sustainably supplied.

And these prediction about the biofuels policy have come true (there was never any doubt): biofuels has done nothing to significantly reduce gasoline consumption (the volume is totally meaningless), biofuels have raised food prices, biofuels aren't energy positive, and biofuels degrade the land base. I.e. nothing about the current biofuels policy is sustainable.

However, the "deep ecology" or "basic math" side of environmental movement never supported biofuels and accused organizations that did of participating in corporate green washing. Mostly, organizations lobbying for biofuels were corporate groups (wanting to get the subsidies or oil companies realizing it's an excellent situation to shift focus from trains and batteries to biofuels), but the plausibly legitimate environmentalist that did support biofuels didn't make a counter argument to the above points but rather "trusted the policies would address and resolve those problems, not the full solution but a good incremental step, we need other technologies and changes on a massive scale too, etc." In other words, they were completely fooled and served as useful idiots, but they were never so stupid as to claim "biofuels can replace gasoline on the scale we currently use it" to begin with.

The film is correct about the massive amounts of green washing, but is incorrect in believing "environmentalists" wanted the biofuels policy we have today; it was always a corporate thing.

When in comes to developed countries the US needs to step up. Europe has made some steps that are better than nothing. — I like sushi

What's the cause of these better policies? GDP? US has has higher GDP per capita than Europe.

Look at anything Europe has done which has helped the environment and you'll see regulations that industry was against and that represented an economic cost in the short term, and you'll see lots and lots of money poured into subsidies or new industries, again an economic cost in the short term.

In other words, sustainable policies cause sustainable development, not GDP increases as such, and those policies have a short term economic cost both in harming incumbent industries (internalizing cost of production) and massive subsidies required to create new cleaner industries.

It’s a case of whether or not we can prepare and deal with what’s coming. — I like sushi

Way phrase this in a way that implies our environmental problems are an externally imposed force that all we can do is try to prepare. There is no self balancing limit to our environmental problems; the limit is extinction for which there is no preparation.

I agree with your positive attitude that "we can solve these problems" but I disagree with you framing that environmental groups have been somehow counter productive (some have, but the one's that haven't are the reason the entire world isn't smog choked and nearly completely oblivious to impending systemic environmental collapse), that raising wealth standard of the poorest people on the world will in itself accomplish something environmentally significant (making people less poor is of course morally significant and we should do), or that technological breakthroughs like fusion will save the day (where we have cleaner industries, such as in Europe, it's due to regulation, large investments in R&D, large subsidies to incubate cleaner industries; of course, the more research breakthroughs the better, but they are a small element; lot's of technologies are hundreds of years old, such as trains, and we can constantly improve them but there's no need to wait around for breakthroughs).

I agree with your positive attitude that "we can solve these problems" but I disagree with you framing that environmental groups have been somehow counter productive — boethius

In terms of distribution of funding, they are. The ‘trendy’ causes that get the limelight and funding tend to be the least effective (short term and long term).

If it was a business model for how to get the best results the vast majority of environmental activists would be sacked for wasting both time and money.

This is simply not true. China has had the fastest rise in standard of GDP and living standards (according to our shortsighted metrics), but at large environmental cost.

In the West there was a phase of "getting so rich we can have nice plants around", but this was achieved by simply offshoring all dirty production to mostly China and India and resource extraction to mostly Africa and South America. Furthermore, fracking and tar sands, soil degradation, and insect declines (likely due to poisonous pesticides) are strong clues this phenomenon was short term (lobbies are now strong enough to on-shore environmental destruction), and of course if climate change turns large parts of Europe arid then the recent European net-reforestation doesn't matter in the slightest.

Is your position just denying these environmental costs? — boethius

If they’re taking from poorer countries then it goes with what I say (plus in terms of emissions China is comparatively low per capita compared to western and middle eastern nations. China isn’t exactly a ‘poor’ nation).

I can’t find the paper I was referring to. If I do I’ll post it.

Note: I haven’t seen the film nor do I plan to. I find Micheal Moore quite obnoxious.

In terms of distribution of funding, they are. The ‘trendy’ causes that get the limelight and funding tend to be the least effective (short term and long term). — I like sushi

This isn't determined by environmentalists, but mostly by the mainstream media and corporations and the super wealthy.

This happens in a few ways.

First, raising 10 million, or even a a few hundred thousand, can in itself propel you into the limelight.

Second, mainstream media focuses mostly on corporate friendly messages and criticism, so these are the "environmentalists" that are allowed to talk. When something "environmental" is proposed as a success, there is not allowed any criticism from environmentalists that disagree. It will be the "environmentalist" against denialist, without exploration that the "environmentalist" has a partial, or simply wrong, understanding of things; this leads to both inadequate policy as well as fueling the denialism by advancing lot's of stupid that have legitimate critiques (biofuels being a great example of this process), and so the media does another round of apologists for stupid and denialists.

What's never addressed is that there is an alternative to both a stupidly insufficient analysis of things as well as absurd levels of denalism and mental gymnastics. Again, biofuels is the best example where experts since the beginning have made the clear cut, irrefutable case, that biofuels cannot possibly displace gasoline on any meaningful scale (it can be a useful technology in the context of extensive and radical changes to our production systems: lot's of trolley, trains, bikeable cities, local gardening, decentralized closed-loop systems, and so on; things that are becoming trendy today were not invented today).

Third, when something not corporate friendly does reach public attention the mainstream media does its best to discredit it, so it's a "negative attention". Al Gore had a simple "these problems are real and severe", "we can't continue business as usual message", "money vs the entire planet is a false dichotomy", "the sooner we act the better", that couldn't be ignored because he was famous (but still only got media attention after some years of touring with his talk). Mainstream media pretends that Al Gore is somehow discredited or then "it's old had". Al Gore presented a good analysis, not perfect but completely adequate to inform policy, but you don't remember this "limelight" because the mainstream wasn't fawning over him.

Mainstream media fawns over projects and proposals that do not represent a threat to business as usual. The people championing these projects and proposals are generally useful idiots if not fantasy utopists. They easily get funding because "they are passionate" and have things that are easy to discuss, because they don't threaten anyone -- such as "fusion is coming! hurray" or "we're going to have trains ... Trains In Tubes!!! OMG! Hurray!" or "look at this render of a futuristic vertical farm in a futuristic city that does not exist that I've done zero calculations about the presumably solar based renewable energy needed to power these artificial lights" -- and they get media attention for the fundamental same reason.

However, talk to any serious environmentalist and you'll likely hear the same simple message again and again: business as usual is not sustainable and will lead to destruction (that's what unsustainable means), the more business as usual continues the more our ecosystems will be damaged and the less and less easy "fixing anything" becomes and the less richness we leave our descendants and the more suffering we create in humans and other species; business as usual won't fix itself (that's what makes it business as usual) and will push back (incumbent industries can finance lobbying for no change; future clean industries that would exist but don't yet exist do not balance this lobbying because they don't exist to be able to lobby; it is left to poorer to stand-up to big corporations and the super wealthy). There's lot's of difference of opinion on what exactly to do, but I think you will be hard pressed to find a credible environmentalist (someone who has really done serious reading and thinking) that disagrees with this message.

What you are addressing is the circle of hype that is a side affect of the mainstream media not doing credible journalism and credible analysis. The problems can no longer simply be ignored, so there is now recognition that "there is a problem", but without proper analysis they simply promote what is essentially magical thinking that talks about the problem: the latest startup making outrageous claims, the fanciest futuristic render, and most of all the economist that says things like "what about these coal jobs, what about the investors?", and "economic growth needs to grow; regulation, no matter how well intentioned, harms that growth", while giving "equal time" to anyone willing to make any plausible denialist claim even if conflicts of interest are up front and obvious and that the claims can't withstand any scrutiny.

If they’re taking from poorer countries then it goes with what I say (plus in terms of emissions China is comparatively low per capita compared to western and middle eastern nations. China isn’t exactly a ‘poor’ nation). — I like sushi

What's even your claim then? You say that it's making these poor people less poor, not just focused on survival, that will make them concerned about the environment, and so lead to ecological prosperity. China was poor, now is less poor (maybe even not poor), but has caused massive ecological damage throughout this entire process.

Likewise, the US is not poor, on per capita basis anyway (most Americans, the median, seems miserably poor to me from a Canadian-European-Nordic-Switzerland perspective), yet the US does massive ecological harm. I agree, we don't want poor and miserable living conditions, in poor countries nor the US, but there is no evidence that wealth magically leads to environmental concern and adequate policies. The hypothesis that "dirty growth is needed to get going and with that wealth clean growth will magically take-over" simply has no basis in reality. You can have clean growth (both wealthy and poor nations have demonstrated clean growth policy successes), but not only does dirty growth not lead to clean growth, but dirty growth creates path dependency on more dirty growth: the US cannot now easily leverage its wealth to create a network of high-speed rail; it is further away from creating efficient rail infrastructure rather than closer, compared to countries that made such long term investments and central planned schemes decades ago.

The most famous example of dirty-path-dependency is a car friendly policy in city centers displaces walking and bicycles leading to more cars and then congestion which then actually decreases speed compared to the previous bicycle / rickshaw / trolley based system; not only does a car system cost way more in terms of money people need to "economically compete" and has large health costs, it gets people places slower than before. Once entrenched it's difficult to reverse. Not only is this dirty development, it doesn't even accomplish anything; cities that pursued bike and walk friendly planning (internalizing the cost of driving in the city to the driver), attract business and have a built in higher standard of living of less pollution and more daily exercise. In terms of policy alleviation, mobility is one of the highest predictors and a system where you need a car to be mobile becomes nearly by definition a system where the poor stay poor since they can't afford a car, or just barely (so cities try to have some minimum public transport anyways, but there's little money for that when massive resource, planning and health externalize subsidies for cars are maintained).

Dirty development leads to dirty outcomes, clean development leads to clean outcomes. Clean policies can be put in place at every step of economic development. Dirty industries put a lot of effort into getting poor countries on a dirty path-dependency development process, but this does not benefit them (it benefits elites that take bribes and then stash that cash offshore, and benefits a small middle class that directly or indirectly manage clear-cut logging, slash and burn, unsafe factories and can feel like "a real civilized westerner") nor does it lead to magical clean outcomes: it is a dynamic of corruption, slumification, political oppression, and environmental destruction (and it is a dynamic that can be implemented in the middle of Africa or the middle of Detroit).

This is kind of pointless. I’ve the figures.

What you are addressing is the circle of hype that is a side affect of the mainstream media not doing credible journalism and credible analysis. — boethius

What I was actually saying was an international body did a global survey of how environmental issues were being funded and tackled by governing bodies and organizations. I’ll have another look for it later.

The point about biofuels was not that the fuel made couldn’t meet demands it was that due to land clearance and planting the crops the net effect was to raise carbon emissions 6 fold (for this ‘green fuel’). It was both more damaging to habitats and accelerated carbon emissions.

I’ve the figures. — I like sushi

Present the figures then.

What I was actually saying was an international body did a global survey of how environmental issues were being funded and tackled by governing bodies and organizations. I’ll have another look for it later. — I like sushi

Environmental policy is a disaster, that's why we have environmental problems so severe that studying the mechanisms and probability of a short-term (within the century) world-wide ecological collapse is now the cutting edge of ecological research.

However, it is not the case that "environmentalists" did not have a correct analysis since decades that has been continuously refined and continuously proven to be the best body of analysis available.

If you're a billionaire you can fund whatever you want and call it environmental and get lot's of press, it is only a label however.

*seen* the figures. It was about 2 years ago, I’ll do what I can.

Gapminder does pretty much show how raising GDP helps everyone in many ways.

The point about biofuels was not that the fuel made couldn’t meet demands it was that due to land clearance and planting the crops the net effect was to raise carbon emissions 6 fold (for this ‘green fuel’). — I like sushi

In other words, it cannot meet demand in a sustainable way, not even close.

If it can't even get even close to meeting demand, it's a completely irrelevant policy action. If even the tiny part that it can provide has a high and unsustainable environmental cost, it's not even a token measure; it's straight-up counter productive. This case was made at the time by ecological experts and the environmentalists that are concerned with correct analysis. The environmentalists that promoted biofuels did not have any environmental reasons for doing so; it was being hyped and they either joined the hype or they had convoluted incrementalists theories that yes it doesn't matter but somehow it does. Mostly, it was corporations (including the oil companies) and politicians that promoted biofuels when they saw the hype made an easy "eco win" (just as the lobbyists intended).

To be frank, the earth is unsaveable. Even if we would find a way to create efficient fusion reactors and invent amazing new eco friendly tech, the earth will still crash into the sun eventually. And even if we would create great high tech interstellar space ship to go to a new planet, the whole universe is heading towards a heat death. So, in other words, this world is screwed.

Gapminder does pretty much show how raising GDP helps everyone in many ways. — I like sushi

No it does not help everyone. Being a slave in a factory or in a mine or being murdered by poachers or ranchers doesn't help you.

It also drives environmental destruction far higher than if that dirty development didn't happen.

It's entirely possible to develop cleanly and inclusively, but it's also possible to develop dirtily and oppressively and there's no evidence that if you develop dirtily and opressively long enough ... Poof! freedom and clean air.

And, in the long term, even merely local clean and inclusive development does not matter one way or another if global ecosystems collapse. It is also just a short term benefit and part of the problem if getting products and resources from those dirty and oppressive places; a geographically segregated middle class that leaves the hands-on work of exploitation and oppression to others.

Gapminder is an extension of Hans Rosling’s work, which I agree with, but it's responding to a false population dichotomy to begin with (that "African's are the problem" not white people). So great, false dichotomy deconstructed! I'm happy about that, but this does not establish that the technological and affluence part of the Impact equation is solved, just that the risks are in those areas and not population and if you look closely the risks are existential for the human species and most other specieis.

Of course, population still needs to be high for our systems and affluence to cause major problems, but if we look at our technological and affluence systems and there are orders of magnitude scale potential improvements with existing technology then we know already anyone primarily concerned about population (such as Bill Gates) is a useful idiot at best or simply protecting their privilege at worst.

To be frank, the earth is unsaveable. Even if we would find a way to create efficient fusion reactors and invent amazing new eco friendly tech, the earth will still crash into the sun eventually. And even if we would create great high tech interstellar space ship to go to a new planet, the whole universe is heading towards a heat death. So, in other words, this world is screwed. — Arvid M

You'll die eventually, does that mean you should take no actions to sustain your existence?

All the Jews would have died anyways, is therefore the Nazi's not morally responsible for their actions making those deaths sooner rather than later?

If you're not defending genocide in this way, then why is genocide of everyone by ecological collapse exempt in your moral system?

And, even if you did make some moral argument that the human species needs to last eternally, a mere 100 trillion years until heat death doesn't cut it, you haven't proved that case. Heat death of the universe is not entirely provable; within 100 trillion years maybe we discover our current cosmological theory is incomplete. So, even if you had some moral foundation, which I'm going to predict you are too cowardly to even attempt, you clearly lack the imagination to realize your empirical claim is not certain and the only way to be more certain is for humanity to continue.

I’ve suddenly lost interest. Take it up with someone else, sorry.

Then maybe you weren't interested enough in these topics as to be well informed to have a serious discussion to begin with.

Unless those big, bad black holes aren't so ominous after all.

One theory goes "what is a black hole in this universe sucking matter in, is a white hole in another universe spitting matter out". Just a theory of course. :D

Theoretically, that could mean everything needed to produce or sustain life would be present. Suppose you'd have to subscribe to multiverse theory though.

Anyone wanting to continue the debate, after 1 minute of searching on youtube I found this lecture series: 10-week course for non-science majors focuses on a single problem: assessing the risk of human-caused climate change.

This was made 10 years ago, and I'd draw attention to Lecture 11: Six Degrees, that reviews a book "Six Degrees" that was written in 2007 by a journalist going through decades of research.

But if you want the state of knowledge from over 40 years ago from a "leader in climate change science", look no further than Exxon:

From the late 1970s and through the 1980s, Exxon, one of predecessors of ExxonMobil, had a public reputation as a pioneer in climate change research.[1] Exxon funded internal and university collaborations, broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach, and developed a reputation for expertise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO
2).[2] Between the 1970s and 2015, Exxon and ExxonMobil researchers and academic collaborators published dozens of research papers.[3] ExxonMobil provided a list of over 50 article citations from that period.[4][5]

In July 1977, a senior scientist of Exxon James Black reported to the company's executives that there was a general scientific agreement at that time that the burning of fossil fuels was the most likely manner in which mankind was influencing global climate change.[6][7][8] In 1979–1982, Exxon conducted a research program of climate change and climate modeling, including a research project of equipping their largest supertanker Esso Atlantic with a laboratory and sensors to measure the absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans.[9][10] In 1980, Exxon analyzed in one of their documents that if instead of synthetic fuels such as coal liquefaction, oil shale, and oil sands the demand for fuels to be met by petroleum, it delays the atmospheric CO
2 doubling time by about five years to 2065.[11][12] Exxon also studied ways of avoiding CO
2 emissions if the East Natuna gas field (Natuna D-Alpha block) off Indonesia was to be developed.[13]

In 1981, Exxon shifted its research focus to climate modelling.[14] In 1982, Exxon's environmental affairs office circulated an internal report to Exxon's management which said that the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic, and that a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption would be necessary to curtail future climate change. It also said that "there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."[15]

[...]

In 1989, shortly after the presentation by the Exxon's manager of science and strategy development Duane LeVine to the board of directors which reiterated that introducing public policy to combat climate change "can lead to irreversible and costly Draconian steps," the company shifted its position on the climate change to publicly questioning it.[1][24] This shift was caused by concerns about the potential impact of the climate policy measures to the oil industry.[1] A study published in Nature Climate Change in 2015 found that ExxonMobil "may have played a particularly important role as corporate benefactors" in the production and diffusion of contrarian information.[25]
— wikipedia - ExxonMobil climate change controversy

The key phrase is "there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."

Now that climate change is measurable and noticeable in our lives, catastrophic consequences may very well not be reversible. This is why environmentalism today is dominated by depression and the debate is about whether anything of significance is now doable or whether we missed our chance and if so how bad will it be (extinction or some polar communities).

People that stayed on the sidelines assuming "we'll certainly figure out all the science and the correct policy response at some point" were lulled by propaganda into believing it's static problem that once we build up "enough understanding" we can solve. But it's not, it's a dynamic risk management problem that gets harder and harder to solve the longer we wait to solve it, until a tipping point is reached where feasible actions are no longer available. We may already be passed this tipping point, we don't know; the basis for action is the "maybe" part, and now people are all confused that there are not clear and constructive policy plans available that are politically feasible (they were available in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, and now are no longer available).

However, doesn't mean serious environmentalists were making wrong recommendations this whole time like the film "Planet of the Humans" suggests; they were outplayed by the fossil fuel lobby. True, they could have done even better and maybe succeeded, but there wasn't incomplete analysis as the film suggests. The analysis has been available and completely actionable from a risk management and technological point of view since the 70s, but the environmental movement has been too small and too weak to compete in public awareness and political access. Whatever "environmental" steps have been taken have been insufficient, but it is not the failure of "environmentalists": it is humanity's failure.

Now that we are passing the political feasibility window, environmental groups have a choice between presenting something politically infeasible and be dismissed or then presenting the problem but no politically feasible solution and be dismissed, or present fantasy and be welcome with open arms. The environmental groups and startups that do the former and the latter get funding, but not the middle. The latter are not even environmentalists but trying to make some edgy marketing and be "mission driven"; they know what the media wants and they oblige. The former are zombie organizations stumbling along, they may know internally that what they're proposing is no longer credible but they still need to eat. 350.org was created at the end of the "we can still do something fairly easy that is likely to succeed" window with a plan that was feasible at the time; the "Paris Climate Agreement" was the potential "we're turning this around!" moment and environmental groups going into those discussions had a clear message "make these measures ambitious (with peak emissions in the short term) and binding (tariffs for countries that don't meet targets) or we're headed for disaster: this maybe the last chance". This "last chance" was not hyperbole, but simply what all the analysis concludes. The targets were not ambitious and not binding; ok, now the chance maybe gone, but it wasn't the environmental organizations in those negotiations that were pushing for failure.

Environmentalists had no backup plan to the Paris Climate Agreement, it was nearly universally agreed among environmentalists that "this is it". The opportunity passed, there really was no plan B for environmentalists; that was totally honest assessment. The negotiators representing environmental organizations that came back from the Paris negotiations largely gave up and started exploring the intellectual space of giving up. There was not a rally around the next plan (as happened after previous failures) since there was no longer a credible next plan. Yes, people continue to work in those organizations because they still need a job, but, no, they do not believe what they are proposing is feasible, but it's unfair to not consider that their plan was politically and environmentally feasible when those organizations were founded. If you find rotten food in your fridge it doesn't imply you bought rotten food in the first place; maybe you din't make use of it in the long time you had to do so.

Why did Gretta become famous? Because the adults in the environmental movement no longer know what to say or do, nor what to say to the younger generation. Gretta figured out her generation is being served a nihilistic project that there's no rational reason to participate in. A good and brave story, the media paid attention for a bit (the analysis of a child is cute but not threatening to business as usual) while giving equal or more time to useful idiots as always, like every previous time someone broke through the denialism and managed to make a serious moral point which propaganda didn't already exist to neutralize (a small amount of time; propaganda quickly smooths things out and the story gets old anyway). Gretta represents the failure of the environmental movement -- that the consequences are now unthinkable and seemingly unsolvable and there is no credible project and even a child can figure it out now -- not a success.

I continue working on edge-case alternative plan's not because there's any reason to assume Exxon scientists were wrong when they said "that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible" nearly a half century ago, but because I am a Kantian and I am concerned with acting according to Maxim's that can be made universal regardless of consequential analysis of what is likely to happen, and you can't get a much more universal principle than preservation of the basic living conditions of humanity. It's a mystery to me why humanity has chosen this path, but that's not a reason to not try my best.

That would be a solution, going to another universe.

https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/post-2015-consensus

I watched this doco and it supplemented some other commentary I have seen. While it does have inaccuracies, I think it broadly supports a couple of essential points. First that renewables (if by this we mean wind and solar primarily) are extremely unlikely to power the world any time soon AND it is extremely environmentally damaging to attempt to do so, and second that we have too many people trying to live too well. The only way to keep on producing more people is to substantially scale back on material wealth. Again, this is very unlikely any time soon.

The concern around population isn't merely that there are too many of us, but rather how that many live. Very few people really believe that we should substantially scale back our modern society. Worse, I think too many people believe that all we need do is wheel in some solar panels and wind turbines and we can continue as we are. I don't see how we can do that, not if we also expect the rest of the world to share in first world lifestyles. We shouldn't believe that wind and solar are saviours of first world extravagance, we shouldn't believe that they are not harmful to the environment, and we shouldn't believe that the pursuit of renewable energy is somehow linked to both some kind of new socialism and environmental responsibility.

In the end, we simply have to step back a long way from the present lifestyle of the first world, because I don't see how we can find the resources to maintain that strategy (which includes the strategy of hoisting the rest of the world up to that level). Equally though, I can't see how we'd constrain global society from pursuing that strategy. Who sets the limits? Why would everyone agree to those constraints?

All that renewables are doing, really, is maintaining and building upon the broader strategy of exhausting our niche, which after all, is the entire planet.

Returning to the OP's questions, I think that firstly, it doesn't really matter whether we want to know or not - collectively we will always act as though we don't. And secondly, no. But what would be an effective replacement for capitalism? Some kind of socialism? In the latter case, unless we enforce constraints we are effectively saying that we should increase global prosperity which will lead to resource overshoot sooner. Wouldn't capitalism postpone this longer due to the essential inequality - fewer people have much? We'll still overshoot, it will just take longer.