Contrarian to a fault ... Moore's "

For Earth Day, Michael Moore has released “Planet of the Humans”.

x Thanks to all who watched my appearance on Stephen Colbert. And to those who are still up on the West coast, Colbert is on right now! Over 130K views of Ã¢ÂÂPlanet of the HumansÃ¢ÂÂ on Day 1 on You Tube. Here it is for those who want to see it: https://t.co/XjUbneDJQe — Michael Moore (@MMFlint) April 22, 2020

Sadly, with this, Moore demonstrates how not to do a quality film about important issues.

Environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli (publications) clearly makes the case of Moore’s failure in the following twitter thread:

x There is soooooooo much misleading junk in this film. Most of it is focused on biomass from wood, which supplies 2% of energy in the US. And wind turbines are bad because ... they only last several decades and NIMBYs don't like them?



I yelled at the screen 3 times watching this. https://t.co/FEhHCYOKSE — Dana Nuccitelli (@dana1981) April 21, 2020

x My favorite part was when they looked at a former solar farm location in Daggett, CA, now just sand, and declared the revelation that it's become a "solar wasteland."



I pulled up Google Maps and found Daggett in the Mojave Desert. It's all sand out there!!! WTF?! — Dana Nuccitelli (@dana1981) April 21, 2020

x The film also wrote off EVs because of one example in Michigan where the electrical utility got 95% of its electricity from coal. Even in that circumstance an EV would produce less carbon pollution than a gas car, and most of the grid is cleaner and becoming increasingly clean. — Dana Nuccitelli (@dana1981) April 22, 2020

x The film mentioned creosote-soaked railroad ties being burned in biomass facilities. Not mentioned in the film - there are regulations on how much of that is allowed, and many locations are advancing legislation to ban it. — Dana Nuccitelli (@dana1981) April 22, 2020

Basically the film presented any imperfect energy source (which is every energy source) as inherently bad. No consideration of pros vs. cons, just the cons.It's fine to look at downsides; we're already working to improve most of them. But ignoring the upside is not constructive

Moore’s work, btw, has many moments of borderline slander/libel.

x Sadly, you gave a really, really bad film that misrepresented re clean energy air time.



And, well, @MMFlint misrepresents to the point of (potentially actionable) libel/slander.



For example, @billmckibben: https://t.co/VBwxanugcE — A Siegel (@A_Siegel) April 22, 2020

Not surprisingly, Moore’s failure has been embraced by those who have long attacked renewables. And, sadly, been promoted across the media as Moore as this ‘left-wing’, man-of-the-people contrarian makes good press such as occurred with The Late Show.

x Director @MMFlint joins A Late Show tonight to discuss his new film Ã¢ÂÂPlanet Of The HumansÃ¢ÂÂ #LSSC pic.twitter.com/RSG65b5HQ7 — A Late Show (@colbertlateshow) April 22, 2020

Some other reactions.

The excellent Leah Stokes lays out Moore’s delivery of a “lump of coal” for Earth Day.

x The idea that clean energy is not clean because it was built while the system is driven by fossil fuels is idiotic.



That's why it's called a clean energy transition. You move away from fossil fuels by making clean energy. Eventually the entire system is clean energy. pic.twitter.com/7Ot0p2AmpO — Leah Stokes (@leahstokes) April 22, 2020

Economist Mark Paul identifies Moore’s philosophical grounding.

x Didn't realize Michael Moore was a malthusian. Sad. — Mark Paul (@MarkVinPaul) April 22, 2020

And, Jeff Nesbit has some people Moore could have spoken with.

x Maybe next time time @MMFlint makes a climate film, he could consult with a few folks who know what theyÃ¢ÂÂre talking about? https://t.co/D2FiU2cvYC — Jeff Nesbit (@jeffnesbit) April 22, 2020

Yeh, perhaps this would have turned out better if Moore had focused on those who know what they’re talking about.