"planet of the humans" documentary

Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

AT5760

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
711
Reaction score
1,036
Location
Omaha, NE
I agree that use less isn’t the only solution. But it needs to be part of the solution. Get cars and trucks off the road and get people onto public transit and cargo to rail. In your neck of the woods for example, Mass could completely ban cars east of 93/95 and cut down on tons of emissions. Couple that with making consumers pay the true cost of disposable products (looking at you Apple) and you encourage people to buy durable goods and hold onto them longer.
 

ian

Refined, yet toothy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,465
Reaction score
8,342
Location
Boston, MA
In your neck of the woods for example, Mass could completely ban cars east of 93/95 and cut down on tons of emissions.
Sure, less use is part of the solution. I'm definitely cutting way down on air travel, for instance; used to travel to conferences all the time. But let's acknowledge that banning cars in Boston is infeasible, barring some complete reworking of the infrastructure. The city is not set up to function like a European walking city or Manhattan. Some huge percentage of the city would suddenly have to spend an exorbitant amount of their day in transit; people would lose their jobs, and there'd be a mass exodus. Now if you're talking about reworking infrastructure in the US to increase the efficiency and reach of public transit, that's a great idea that I support.

But I was mainly arguing with the phrasing of "use less". That seems to indicate that individual people should just change their polluting ways. What we need to do is rework how our society functions so that it's possible and practical for people to consume less energy.
 

Kippington

A small green parrot
KKF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
1,554
Reaction score
2,639
Location
Melbourne
I enjoy reading about major prehistoric events.
Maybe some of you haven't heard of the Great Oxidation Event.

In a nutshell:
  • The Earth's original atmosphere used to be very different from how we know it today
  • It was "polluted" with oxygen by the first photosynthesising life
  • The resulting change in atmosphere and climate caused mass extinctions and almost killed all life
Fossil fuels also have an interesting story, in that they were non-biodegradable at the time they were "dumped" in what what could be called "landfills" today.

In other words, we owe our existence (and quality of life) to extreme climate change, mass extinctions and the dumping of non-biodegradable waste. Hooray!
 

Keith Sinclair

Supporting Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
4,473
Reaction score
798
Location
Hawaii
his take is incredibly wrong, but there's a huge issue in that anyone with the level of numeracy to understand why he's wrong doesnt need it explained to them.

as I stated earlier though, the model with by far the highest ability to explain observed temperature is atmospheric co2 levels (example paper from Nature). if Keith wants to come in here and argue against the consensus, more than just disputing the consensus he should offer us an alternative which better explains observed temperatures, except that he cant, at least if that explanation is expected to contain quality work.
Mistake to write an opinion that defers a little from the absolute facts of climate change. I know 97% of climate scientist agree that all global warming is caused by co2, methane & personally believe that part of it is Human caused. Nature releases co2 including the oceans. Earth has been in a warming trend last
10,000 yrs.

That 97% is repeated over & over again. I know
that oil, coal, & gas has spread biased propaganda to discredit climate change.

From 1940 until 1970's was a cooling period. All through WW2 & Atom bombs, ocean & underground nuclear testing. From Russia, US, France.

Oahu is about 3.5 million years old Volcano's in the sea. In that time period sea levels have been -300 feet to +95 feet over time. We went on field trips around Oahu when took Geology at UH. To see reef much higher than sea level.
I didn't say don't believe in climate change its a ongoing fact of life.

When I was a kid in Va. we had bald eagles on our property. Nest high up in the pine trees swoop down to grab fish out of the water.
By young teens they were gone. Learned later
that Langley Air Force Base spayed the swamps with DDT it softened the eggs. Wiped out the Eagles. Early 1950's.

Later when living in Hawaii my Dad was upset because Allied Chemical had dumped Kepone in the Chesapeake bay. Early 1970's it was a small building behind a gas station. Workers were getting sick from handling. It was only place that manufactured Kepone a pesticide sent to Africa
No safety measures, dumping of Kepone down the drain into James river. Dumping it on the grass next to the river. Fish had levels of Kepone it killed fishing & crabs & oysters for some time. It's hard to believe how screwed up things were back then. In Hawaii working on fishing boat would see Humpback whales up close. At that time harpoon boats were killing whales to low species levels with explosive harpoons. The whales didn't have a chance.
They were getting wiped out.

I could give you some names of climate scientist who don't share the view that all warming is caused by man but won't make any difference. I will say that have read Confessions
of a Greenpeace Dropout. The making of a sensible environmentalist. By Patrick Moore.
He was one of the founders of Greenpeace.
Phd in ecology. Agree with most of his views.
That's my right it's a free country.
 

ian

Refined, yet toothy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,465
Reaction score
8,342
Location
Boston, MA
I enjoy reading about major prehistoric events.
Maybe some of you haven't heard of the Great Oxidation Event.

In a nutshell:
  • The Earth's original atmosphere used to be very different from how we know it today
  • It was "polluted" with oxygen by the first photosynthesising life
  • The resulting change in atmosphere and climate caused mass extinctions and almost killed all life
Fossil fuels also have an interesting story, in that they were non-biodegradable at the time they were "dumped" in what what could be called "landfills" today.

In other words, we owe our existence (and quality of life) to extreme climate change, mass extinctions and the dumping of non-biodegradable waste. Hooray!
🥳 Can’t wait to see what life form takes over after the Great Carbon Dioxidation event! Bet those ungrateful cockroaches won’t know their history either.
 

tcmx3

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
795
Reaction score
741
Mistake to write an opinion that defers a little from the absolute facts of climate change.
the actual mistakes here are thinking that you can say something patently untrue and just say "well, it's just like, my opinion, man".

frankly if I were a mod I'd have deleted it for misinformation.
 
Last edited:

ian

Refined, yet toothy
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
4,465
Reaction score
8,342
Location
Boston, MA
Idk, KKF isn’t a news outlet. It should be fine for people to voice their opinions on here, and it should be fine for people to question each other respectfully. It’s not useful when it becomes a shouting match, and censoring people’s opinions on here will just make them justifiably pissed off.
 

Luftmensch

Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,516
I watched the film when it came out.

It is worth noting that the film is made by Jeff Gibbs - a collaborator of Moore's. While Moore did not write/direct the film, he has endorsed it (and given it a platform). The problem with the movie is that it is a narrative mess, peppered with factual errors.

My annoyances with the film are:
  • It uses questionable/outdated/incorrect arguments to cast doubt on renewables and green technology.
  • One of the main arguments is that the environmental movement has been captured by big corporations. This is complex. True; it is bad if corporate money is being used to create faux environmental groups to manipulate the narrative. On the other hand, you have to be very careful you dont slide into a puritanical argument about 'dirty money'. The profit motive infects anything where a buck can be made... I couldnt care less if corporate money is being used to move the world to a more sustainable model. I am happy to look past 'dirty money' if it is being spent on a fundamentally good cause.
  • It subtly shifts from a narrative about energy to population. While these two are coupled, I believe they ought to be discussed separately.
  • It offers no solutions.

So what is the movie about? Corporate capture of the environmental movement? How renewables are 'flawed'? Overpopulation? It is like Gibbs rammed these concepts into a shotgun and aimed it at a storyboard. I found it a meandering mess. One topic articulated well may have been more impactful.

My chief annoyance with the film is that it is fodder for climate change deniers and those who are opposed to green energy.


The most powerful part of the movie is at the end of the film. There is no dialogue - so you can come to your own conclusions. That said, the footage is deliberately chosen to evoke a reaction. If you don't have the emotional reaction the scene is deliberately trying to elicit... we have a problem. Jump to 1:30:40 for this scene and watch for about 3 minutes (the link should have the correct timestamp):

 
Last edited:

Luftmensch

Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,516
I feel the most important priority today is expanding our nuclear industry to secure relatively cheap emissions-less-ish energy for the near term future. Second is increased funding for fusion research, which has been making some exciting progress recently. Most of the other stuff is a drop in the bucket, more social cohesion than practical solution.
It seems that at the moment "clean" nuclear is our best option. There are new developments that seem very promising and maybe more resources should be spent developing these instead of just doing something that makes us feel good.
Nuclear Fusion for the future. :party:
The 'right'* mix of technologies depends on many factors. I am not against nuclear power but think it should only be used as a power source of last resort. If local resources support solar/wind/tidal/geothermal energy... use them first. If you can trade clean power, do that second. If there is no other solution, new reactors should be restricted to modern designs.

Disposing nuclear waste is a serious problem. Uranium-234 has a half-life of 245,500 years. To put that in perspective... modern humans are only about 300,000 old. Simply put, unless we can develop a way of processing nuclear waste, certain forms of waste have to be stored safely many times longer than there has been modern human activity. That is no small ask.

As for nuclear fusion... i love big science. The Tokamak is cool. But grid-scale nuclear fusion simply does not exist. Nor is there any promise of it being an available technology a within a useful timescale.

The imperative at the moment is to stop releasing sequestered, million-year old carbon into the atmosphere. We need to decarbonise now. I believe the moral action is for Governments to implement policies that rapidly shift power towards renewable sources. This is our best option and should be our number one priority. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Governments should still fund research into safe nuclear technologies with short-lived waste. Governments should still fund research into nuclear fusion. That said, until these technologies outweigh the benefits of renewable energy or are even available, they are just a distraction.




* in so much as there can be a correct decision
 
Last edited:

Keith Sinclair

Supporting Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
4,473
Reaction score
798
Location
Hawaii
More like 300 million year old carbon 😆 When trees covered the land & Dragonfly & other insects were huge because of high oxygen levels.
 

Keith Sinclair

Supporting Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
4,473
Reaction score
798
Location
Hawaii
Actually used nuclear fuel has been reprocessed & recycled as new fuel in reactors.

France, Germany, Switzerland, India, Russia have recycled fuel & used it again. Spent nuclear pellets can be stored a long time & used when needed. Also newer reactors are better, in the future technology will get better.
A good thing about the drive to lower co2 is that in many areas there will be ways invented to produce energy. It is growing science.
 

Kippington

A small green parrot
KKF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
1,554
Reaction score
2,639
Location
Melbourne
🥳 Can’t wait to see what life form takes over after the Great Carbon Dioxidation event! Bet those ungrateful cockroaches won’t know their history either.
Just think of the perks - No more rust on our carbon steel knives! 🤣
 

Dhoff

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2018
Messages
627
Reaction score
379
Location
Denmark
Although I cannot find a credible source in the timeframe I have atm, I recall from Paleontology course at the university that carbon dioxide levels have been quite a bit higher than they are now in prehistoric times.
 

Luftmensch

Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,516
For sure! 👍

The same sort of financial/engineering/collaborative scale as the LHC. I find those projects inspiring! Note that ITER is a tokamak design!


Although I cannot find a credible source in the timeframe I have atm, I recall from Paleontology course at the university that carbon dioxide levels have been quite a bit higher than they are now in prehistoric times.
Indeed! The "Great Oxidation Event". Thanks to our friends the Cyanobacteria. Speaking of timescales... 2.45-2.7 billion years ago 😲.
 

Kippington

A small green parrot
KKF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
1,554
Reaction score
2,639
Location
Melbourne
Indeed! The "Great Oxidation Event". Thanks to our friends the Cyanobacteria. Speaking of timescales... 2.45-2.7 billion years ago 😲.
I beat you to it. ;)
 

Dhoff

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2018
Messages
627
Reaction score
379
Location
Denmark
What is interesting is the effects of increased carbon dioxide, not only on climate, but on e.g. plants. I've read a couple of articles that tried growing plants in environments with high carbon dioxide content. In brief, plants were larger but much less nutritious per weight unit.

This might then affect herbivores, and in turn predators, omnivores and omnomnomivores!
 

Kippington

A small green parrot
KKF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 13, 2015
Messages
1,554
Reaction score
2,639
Location
Melbourne
What is interesting is the effects of increased carbon dioxide, not only on climate, but on e.g. plants. I've read a couple of articles that tried growing plants in environments with high carbon dioxide content. In brief, plants were larger but much less nutritious per weight unit.

This might then affect herbivores, and in turn predators, omnivores and omnomnomivores!
This video covers the topic quite well, in my opinion.

 

Luftmensch

Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
1,492
Reaction score
1,516
I beat you to it. ;)
True! Right you are sir!

This video covers the topic quite well, in my opinion.
Nice one.

Agriculture knows CO2 increases yield (bulk mass). Commercial greenhouses are often CO2 enriched to accelerate growth. The weed study in the video was interesting though... very cool. I believe there are games growers can play with fertilisation midway through grain growth to manipulate protein concentrations (usually positively correlated with 'quality').

The mechanism for creating energy in plants is the Calvin cycle - carbon dioxide is converted into sugars. These carbon sugars can be synthesised into structures like cellulose. If you remove the water content from a plant, most of the remaining material is sucked out of the atmosphere. Pretty cool when you think about how large and heavy trees are! And therein lies carbon sequestration!
 

Dhoff

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2018
Messages
627
Reaction score
379
Location
Denmark
This video covers the topic quite well, in my opinion.

A quite good content video. I really cringed when he called CO2 plant food but thats what gets the message across i guess :)

Will be interesting to read the article behind the comparison of Goldenrot from ye olden days and today.

I know of a study in comparing nutritional value of certain crops where they had seeds/plants that had not been extensively bred. Wonder if I can locate it again. Basically they found the sugar content in e.g. carrots has risen quite dramatically through breeding.
 

Keith Sinclair

Supporting Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
4,473
Reaction score
798
Location
Hawaii
this is somewhat related to plants being modified: https://edepot.wur.nl/447321

Good articles both.

Arugula grows like a weed in my garden. We eat it almost everyday most in salad. Purple Okinawan sweet potato instead of processed french fries & potato chips. We don't starve at all but stay away from processed food and sugar. Both lost a lot of weight without even trying.

As mentioned above the Calvin cycle that plants trees take in co2 photosynthesis give off oxygen. That's why cutting down & burning Rainforest to grow cane for "green" energy & grinding up trees for chip fuel is not good.

Also burning the cane puts more into atmosphere. Remember the cane burns & how the sky blackened. Sugar co. are gone in Hawaii. People are saying we should grow cane again to use in bio fuel plant here. That land would be better served to plant vegetables & fruit.
Trees & plants need co2 then give off oxygen.
Animals need co2 also. It's the opposite from trees with every breath we inhale oxygen goes into bloodstream. Co2 balances the pH in our blood. Plants or animals could not exist without
Co2. This is just high school chemistry basic.

Greenhouse effect is paramount in climate change. Burning as fuel old 250 million year old carbon based plants & trees puts more co2 into the air it's higher now than has been in a long time. That's a good reason to cut down on fossil fuels.

Greenhouse we need to survive as well it creates a warming in the lower atmosphere
Without greenhouse effect life would not exist.

People will have to change. Not so much air travel. Jet's put carbon at high altitudes.

It may seem bad now, but man is adaptable that's how he survived through drastic climate change in the past. Some say that climate change was the driver of a larger brain.

A lot is economics it's not cheap to change habits & infrastructure. So far action has been
too slow. The younger generation must have a different mindset. That's not to say a lot has been learned about ecosystems & good work is being done. It's just the bad news gets the media. With all the negative news believe me things are better than when I was young. Polluted rivers, Killing Whales.
 

Keith Sinclair

Supporting Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
4,473
Reaction score
798
Location
Hawaii
Since trees & plants have been on Earth they have pumped oxygen into atmosphere as waste product. Before that oxygen came from simple blue green algae. Does not make sense to burn for bio fuel. Plant more trees instead of laying more concrete.

Not sure the message of Planet of the Humans.
Seems like saying too many of us
We consume too much

Poor countries per capa pollute less. Cuba was so poor esp. when Russian support dried up.
They have unspoiled coral reef a benefit of being poor.

Nature & Animals do better with less humans

North Atlantic Right Whales once plentiful were almost hunted to extinction even now haven't rebounded much in the Atlantic less than 400 &
Not growing. EU, Canada, esp east coast USA are industrial countries.

The Southern Right Whales down by Enderby island in Pacific have rebounded since global
protection. No human contact except a few scientist.
 
Top