McKibben also defends his previous championing of biomass energy, saying,
I thought it was a good idea [at the time]. And as that science emerged, I changed my mind, becoming an outspoken opponent of biomass. (Something else happened too: the efficiency of solar and wind power soared, meaning there was ever less need to burn anything.)
So, McKibben may justifiably feel as if he's been called to task for a view he no longer holds. But he's most irate about the insinuation that he's a "sell out". McKibben feels the need to spend much space in the Rolling Stone piece defending his record of achievement over the years. And this may be entirely unfair to his activism.
However, McKibben may be off when he says little science is at play in Planet of the Humans. While it's true that it relies heavily on anthropological and psychological considerations (because that's really the concern of the film), Moore and Gibbs do cite a relevant study by Richard York, a much-lauded professor of environmental studies at Oregon State University, who published a peer-reviewed article in Nature magazine, "Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels?" His answer is No, not really. Other pieces there suggest similar findings, such as York's more recent article, co-written with Shannon Elizabeth Bell, "Energy transitions or additions?: Why a transition from fossil fuels requires more than the growth of renewable energy" and the Patrick Trent Greiner (et alia) piece, "Snakes in The Greenhouse: Does increased natural gas use reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal consumption?" They say, No, not really.
In a private communique to me, York clarifies how his work was used in the film,
My research that Gibbs draws on found that in recent decades, nations that have added more non-fossil energy sources don't typically reduce their fossil fuel use substantially (controlling for economic growth etc.) relative to nations that don't add a lot of non-fossil energy. Thus, it's not a simple case where there is a fixed energy demand so that adding renewables necessarily pushes out fossil energy, but rather adding energy sources is typically associated with rising energy consumption.
So, again Gibbs and Moore, if somewhat inarticulately, are drawing attention to renewables a s an expansion of energy options without a significant drop in the use of fossil fuels. "I find the movie frustrating," writes York, "because I don't think they do a good job of articulating a vision for action."
Even a recent Guardian article meant to defend McKibben and the environmental movement against the slights of Planet accidentally, it seems, underlined Gibbs's point. Oliver Milman links to a study touting the extraordinary increase of efficiency in renewable technology designs - a study that brags, "Decarbonization of electric grids around the world by an average of about 30% will result in approximately 17% lower battery manufacturing emissions by 2030." This, to Gibbs and Moore, is merely improvement (and only a best guesstimate at that) and insufficient for the long haul. Milman writes,
Scientists say the world must reach net zero emissions by 2050 to head off disastrous global heating, which would likely spur worsening storms, heatwaves, sea level rise and societal unrest.
By 2050. That's exactly why Moore and Gibbs seem to be throwing in the towel. That's not going to happen.
Moore and Gibbs have put together a sober and quiet response to the reactions of fellow environmentalist against Planet of the Humans. (You could argue that the 17-minute discussion is better than their film.) Once done with watching Planet and listening to rebuttals and getting dismayed, you may want to pull an Edward G. and have a lounge-down with a bev or bone and remember how much you love Being and Nature by watching the Qatsi Trilogy at Documentary Heaven. You could start with Koyaanisqatsi: Life out of Balance. A Palate cleansing after a hard-to-swallow reality check.
Or you could go the whole Earth Abides route, and prefer to see it the late George Carlin's way. Cynical, but realistic, for a species that just doesn't seem to give a sh*t about most things for very long. Distracted from distraction by distraction, as T.S. Eliot puts it. Of course, Carlin's Way is unavailable to anyone with a family.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
