'Green' Energy Attacked From the Left?

Over the weekend, I have encountered references to a Michael Moore-backed movie called Planet of the Humans. I have not watched it myself, but it is presently available on YouTube. Here, I'll pass along the gist of the references and my take, as well as a good resource on the matter of politically popular, but expensive and unreliable ("green") energy.

The first mention of the film I encountered was by Dilbert Creator Scott Adams, who briefly mentions it towards the end of a podcast. His summary is that, the "Green New Deal [has been] decimated by [a] Michael Moore backed film."

His comments are brief, but worth considering: Essentially, they boil down to the idea that, when the subject of the Green New Deal comes up, one of the first things that someone might now say is, "But have you seen Planet of the Humans?" This, he says, will occur because the film casts a strong light on the many drawbacks of solar and wind energy, in the forms being pushed by environmentalists and subsidized by governments today.

The gist of Moore's attack is quite predictable, as we see from his writeup at YouTube:

[W]e are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road -- selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America. This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement's answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It's too little, too late.

Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption... [bold added to de rigueur (but wrong) equivocation of capitalism and cronyism]

(Also notably absent from the film, according to Adams, is any mention of nuclear power, which is the only remotely viable alternative to fossil fuels we currently have.)

So, yes, Moore might have given ammunition to the argument that unreliables are impractical, but I am less sanguine than Adams. Leftists have repeatedly impressed me over the years with their willingness -- and speed! -- to dismiss as "propaganda" or moral treason anything that might call their causes into question in any way.

But Michael Moore backed the film! you might reply. Leftists have a long, time-honored tradition of turning fellow travellers who make their power grabs difficult into non-persons. They'll find some excuse to ignore, suppress, and discredit this film, whatever its merits; even if it means ruining Moore. Just give them time.

A post by John Hinderaker of the conservative Power Line blog indicates that this is starting to happen already. If how and on what grounds Moore would attack solar and wind were predictable, the thuggish reaction on the left has been even more so:

Despite his loony point of view, Moore is right about wind and solar: they are intermittent, unreliable, ridiculously expensive, and bad for the environment. That message was too much for the lavishly funded "green" establishment, which has responded by trying to shut Moore up and ban his film...

The claim that Moore's distributor had "retracted" the film was false. The distributor is Moore's Rumble Films. A single outlet, Films For Action, took Planet of the Humans down from their site, but later restored it. The movie is available on YouTube, where it has already been seen more than 2.5 million times. Talking about film distribution at the moment is a little ironic, since all of the theaters are closed.

While they were wrong about their claimed success, the "green" left has indeed tried to suppress Moore's documentary. They say it is full of lies and misinformation, but are slow to cite any instances. Mostly it is generalities... [links omitted]

In the interest of having a clearer idea of what people are talking about, I have already downloaded the film -- in case it gets pulled -- and plan to watch it.

But will it be that helpful to the noble and life-giving cause of cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy? Will it be helpful at all?

Adams rightly notes that many conservatives are already aware of the shortcomings of wind and solar, so some eyes might be opened in that regard among rank-and-file supporters of "green" energy. That will be a good thing, but it will be of limited value. Worse, if that lesson gets framed as, "Green energy is a noble, but impractical cause," it risks allowing the greens to continue to appear to occupy the moral high ground that fossil fuel advocates deserve.

Hinderaker signs off by recommending a resource about wind and solar. I'll see that and raise him by offering an outstanding resource that has the further advantage of comparing all of the pros and cons of all of the currently available energy sources out there: Alex Epstein's The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

-- CAV