Michael Moore posted it for free. Happy Earth day!
https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/michael-moore-presents-planet-of-the-humans/
God damn environmental groups like the sierra club are in bed with the Koch brothers to cut down trees instead of using coal power. Meanwhile the typical American thinks we can get out of the problem if we simply just all buy teslas. We have to cut consumption. We have to end this goal of unsustainable "forever growth". I was a bit disappointed that nuclear wasn't really covered in this film. I'm pro-nuclear but want to hear more from environmentalists who think its bad in France.

I brought this here because the movie is really just a documentation of examples of how the Green movement has been coopted by capitalists, democrats, and environmental leaders who may have meant well at one point, but have reached a point where they are driving towards inadequate change that fills their pockets while allowing the same system that created the problem to continue to operate without major disruption.

I say this because its a pattern that has driven my disgust with the democratic party, "good capitalism", and american exceptionalism; the idea that we are a good nation and as long as we get rid of the "bad guys" (fossil fuel energy) we will find a way to be "good again". Wash and repeat for the following topics:

Climate change
Health care
Income inequality
Education
Foreign policy
Immigration
Criminal justice
Trumpism

They are all broken systems and the mainstream resistance to these systems are also all broken. Its not that they have incorrectly identified the problem, they usually have an accurate description of the problem. Its just that their value system ALWAYS prioritizes "getting something done, anything" over ever actually achieving the actual goal.

[Edited on April 22, 2020 at 4:49 PM. Reason : its all connected]

4/22/2020 4:48:01 PM

Quote :

"Don't even bother. horosho's stupidity is a feature designed to waste your time. It's incurable."

4/22/2020 4:50:33 PM

Quote :

"We have to cut consumption. We have to end this goal of unsustainable "forever growth". "

Cutting consumption is easy. A carbon tax tied to the elimination of the Payroll tax would cut consumption while being revenue neutral and harm neutral for our poorest citizens. After-all, a carbon tax would be regressive, the Payroll tax is regressive, about even.

As for your thing about "forever growth", I don't understand what you think you mean. "Growth" just means we figured out how to accomplish more for society using the same inputs of land, labor, and resources. There is no way that halting efficiency gains would be a good thing. What you want is for people to choose to work less, not have them get less for their work.

Well, a carbon tax will accomplish everything good. By increasing prices of inputs, society will work towards improving efficiency even more, cutting carbon emissions in the process. The reduced taxation of the poor's labor will improve their lives more than the taxation of their energy will harm them, thanks to incentivizing substitution. The poor will react to the high energy prices by cutting consumption more than their wealthier peers. Meanwhile, the lower taxes on their labor will incentive them to work more, boosting their incomes more than the lowered tax.

This isn't something magical about a carbon tax. It is always a terrible idea to tax the poor. But, if you insist on taxing the poor, it is far better to do it via goods taxes, which is what a carbon tax is, rather than income taxes.

[Edited on April 22, 2020 at 6:26 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/22/2020 6:23:41 PM

Quote :

"As for your thing about "forever growth", I don't understand what you think you mean. "Growth" just means we figured out how to accomplish more for society using the same inputs of land, labor, and resources. There is no way that halting efficiency gains would be a good thing. What you want is for people to choose to work less, not have them get less for their work."

Growth can also mean just doing more. Making more stuff and using more stuff. A lot of growth happens from decreases in efficiency. From planned obsolescence of things like consumer electronics to simple things like single use disposable items. If you make it so that they don't use it as long, you get to sell more and more.

The example in the movie was thinking about fossil fuel energy generation increasing at the same time as the green revolution. Their most basic example was cutting down trees to generate energy as an addition to fossil fuel energy but not a substitute like many think is happening. We need to be decreasing total energy use but all we are doing is slowing our rate of growth.

4/27/2020 2:38:00 AM

Quote :

"A lot of growth happens from decreases in efficiency. From planned obsolescence of things like consumer electronics to simple things like single use disposable items. If you make it so that they don't use it as long, you get to sell more and more."

While it is true that many people are upgrading their electronics to get the newest thing, their old electronics tend to be handed down to someone else that isn't chasing "the newest thing". All those traded in old iPhone's are turned around and resold by Apple to the poor. Overall, cell phones, cars, pretty much everything we use is continuing to be used for longer than they used to be. Electronics and cars used to break down and become un-repairable. Now our Toyota's last 15 years at least. My car is 25 years old, original engine and transmission.

We sell our old TVs on craigslist not because they stopped working, but because we want an upgrade. Old equipment invariably gets sold down-market when the well-to-do overpay for brand new stuff. My cell phone was cheap, purchased used, but it is the top of the line model, just of 2 years ago.

This is how quality of life surveys always find America's poor with far more stuff than they should be able to afford. They got their PS4 from their wealthier cousin which upgraded to a PS4 Pro and didn't want their day of release PS4 anymore.

Do you think manufacturers are happy with all of this? In a sense, they are. People that buy $1000 cell phones don't want them to quit working on them. Any hint of unreliability will be punished mercilessly by high end consumers. However, to design a phone so that 98+% of them make it through the entire year long high-end life cycle, means that 95+% of them will still be working by year 2, 90+% will still be working by year 4, 80+% will still be working by year 8, etc. etc.

What manufactures really want is for consumers to give them money in exchange for nothing. But, what manufactures want doesn't actually matter. All that matters is what consumers want and what consumers are willing to pay for. And it seems clear in my experience that consumers want their durable goods to last, so they do.

4/27/2020 4:45:38 AM