# "planet of the humans" documentary



## inferno (Apr 2, 2021)

found it on youtube. about 1:40 long. its about green energy and that it might no be that green afterall. 
anyone else seen it? michael moore is involved somehow. i found it pretty disturbing.


----------



## Keith Sinclair (Apr 3, 2021)

I'll check it out. Just watched Extinction The Facts, & Climate Change The Facts on PBS

When I hear all scientist agree & if we don't act now Earth's going to hell, treat it as agenda TV
not totally fact. 

Don't get me wrong believe conservation is of upmost importance. So support Sierra club even if don't agree with all their statements the good they do & others. Was involved in Save Our Surf & Save The Whales around 1971 when populations were getting decimated by Steel hull harpoon boats. Insane the stupidity of man.


----------



## inferno (Apr 3, 2021)

look it up on youtube keith. youtube is trying pretty hard to bury it it seems. i got the best results when filtered for "upload date" and duration "long".


----------



## MarcelNL (Apr 5, 2021)

the greenest energy is the energy you did not use, for me planet of the humans was the 6th hit or so in YT



https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=planet+of+the+humans+documentary


----------



## Keith Sinclair (May 3, 2021)

inferno said:


> look it up on youtube keith. youtube is trying pretty hard to bury it it seems. i got the best results when filtered for "upload date" and duration "long".



Just watched. It is disturbing. Knew about some of it already like what it takes to make batteries & how it's not green. Solar panels & windmills not a cure all by a long shot. Read greenpeace dropout book by Moore. Talks about Germany example. Covers other misinformation sold as truth. 

Al GORE what a slime ball. Never liked that guy
Now even less. Don't think Homo Sapiens will go extinct any time soon the world when I'm not around anymore will be different. When I was a teenager read The Population Bomb. Put it this way since I was born 1949 there are almost 4 times as many people in the world just in my lifetime. Janice is always trying to save energy she is a good example keeps me on my toes. 

Hominids, Homo Erectus, & us Homo Sapiens survived because through huge climate changes in the past we were able to adapt. Fire & tools game changer a larger brain is a high energy consumer. Fueled by meat in hunter gatherer lifestyle. Think how small those populations were 100,000 years ago. Smart enough to live in wonder looking up at the night sky.


----------



## Michi (May 3, 2021)

There's a pretty good critique of the documentary here:









3 times Michael Moore's film Planet of the Humans gets the facts wrong (and 3 times it gets them right)


Environmentalists say the new film has caused untold damage at a time when change has never been more urgent. So why is it so controversial?




theconversation.com


----------



## daveb (May 3, 2021)

Mod note: It will be difficult to have any discussion about MM and "green" without violating what this forum is about. So far, so good, but tread lightly.


----------



## tcmx3 (May 3, 2021)

Keith Sinclair said:


> I'll check it out. Just watched Extinction The Facts, & Climate Change The Facts on PBS
> 
> *When I hear all scientist agree & if we don't act now Earth's going to hell, treat it as agenda TV
> not totally fact.*
> ...



there's no agenda.

there is an actual fact at the core here: the model that (by far) best fits the historical record is global warming being caused by co2 emissions. does that mean that it is settled "fact"? close enough.

that's completely the wrong question.

the fact that there is any "politics" around this topic makes me want to vomit.


----------



## gregfisk (May 3, 2021)

For me there’s no question whether global warming is real, the melting icecaps should make it clear to everyone. Michael Moore is pretty over the top, which is why he’s so controversial. The fact that so many species are going extinct on a daily basis should be another clue we’re not doing a good job of taking care of our home. We’re going to be okay, it’s the grandkids and their kids who are going to pay. And no, politics has no place in the survival of our planet.


----------



## Keith Sinclair (May 3, 2021)

The cost of solar has dropped, but majority of people still can't afford it. Wind & Solar will expand as it should. Hopefully other technology 
will be found to produce clean energy. 

It is common sense to do everything we can to off set dependence on fossil fuel, because it's supply is not unlimited. Cutting down trees to burn bio mass clean energy is not sustainable.

Japan & US have reforest policies but wood is not unlimited either. Many places clear forest for cattle, sugarcane, palm oil. We should be planting more trees. 

Ice masses have been expanding & retreating for millions of years. Warmer planet had much more forest during warm period oxygen levels were higher. The oil & coal we use is from this period. When planet cooled savana & deserts increased and forest retreated.


----------



## spaceconvoy (May 3, 2021)

adults terrified by youtube videos lol... if your world view can be changed by a two min vid, you haven't been educated you've been manipulated


----------



## tcmx3 (May 3, 2021)

spaceconvoy said:


> adults terrified by youtube videos lol... if your world view can be changed by a two min vid, you haven't been educated you've been manipulated



you can explain Bayes' theorem, p-values , or the trail of tears in two minutes so Im gonna disagree.


----------



## spaceconvoy (May 3, 2021)

tcmx3 said:


> you can explain Bayes' theorem, p-values , or the trail of tears in two minutes so Im gonna disagree.


Those things expand your worldview. Before learning about the trail of tears, did you think America treated its indigenous population well?


----------



## tcmx3 (May 3, 2021)

spaceconvoy said:


> Those things expand your worldview. Before learning about the trail of tears, did you think America treated its indigenous population well?



well, my education was a bit different than most kids' so personally no, but I've taken a look at my younger sister's American history textbooks and that's definitely the impression theyre trying to give.

Im not sure whether I understand your distinction between expanding and changing, isnt an expansion a positive change?


----------



## spaceconvoy (May 3, 2021)

Maybe 'flipping' would be a better term. If you've been living your life completely unbothered by ____ and then become super fearful about it after watching a short video, then you've been manipulated. If you can be convinced in two min that something you've never worried about is suddenly the most important problem facing the world, then you haven't been paying attention. It's not like this is a new emerging thing people haven't heard of. I learned about global warming thirty years ago in school. Changes to your worldview that are expansive shouldn't completely reorder your emotional response.


----------



## tcmx3 (May 3, 2021)

spaceconvoy said:


> Maybe 'flipping' would be a better term. If you've been living your life completely unbothered by ____ and then become super fearful about it after watching a short video, then you've been manipulated. *If you can be convinced in two min that something you've never worried about is suddenly the most important problem facing the world, then you haven't been paying attention.* It's not like this is a new emerging thing people haven't heard of. I learned about global warming thirty years ago in school. Changes to your worldview that are expansive shouldn't completely reorder your emotional response.




ok yes, but also yes.

look I agree that this stuff shouldnt come as a surprise to people but that's sort of a thing. just in my own life I can think of several events in our own country where it was like a light switch; Columbine and 9/11 being excellent examples (neither was the first of their kind in my short lifetime, either). 

also, if someone's been manipulated, ok that's an issue, but if they've been manipulated into understanding an existential threat they were writing off before, then well maybe it increases our chance of dealing with it.


----------



## ian (May 3, 2021)

spaceconvoy said:


> adults terrified by youtube videos lol... if your world view can be changed by a two min vid, you haven't been educated you've been manipulated



1:40 meant 1hr 40 min above, fwiw.

I watched a little bit of the video and read the wikipedia synopsis. Certainly is made to be depressing. Sure, electric cars are only as green as the grid they're powered on, so they're only partly a solution, but the hope is to mature the technologies so that it's possible to have a more green grid. Anyway, I don't know much, but doesn't it seem better to invest and research these technologies than to just give up and rely on technologies that are inherently polluting? I guess if someone can figure out a way to someone burn coal or gas with zero emissions that's one thing, but seems like that's not as likely as improving renewables, and in the very long term those resources are still finite. If he wants to advocate for some sort of campaign to get people to reduce their carbon footprints, that's great, and I approve. But why not do that at the same time as investing in ever improving renewable energy technologies? This sort of defeatist video doesn't seem helpful, in my uneducated opinion.


----------



## spaceconvoy (May 3, 2021)

tcmx3 said:


> ok yes, but also yes.
> 
> look I agree that this stuff shouldnt come as a surprise to people but that's sort of a thing. just in my own life I can think of several events in our own country where it was like a light switch; Columbine and 9/11 being excellent examples (neither was the first of their kind in my short lifetime, either).
> 
> also, if someone's been manipulated, ok that's an issue, but if they've been manipulated into understanding an existential threat they were writing off before, then well maybe it increases our chance of dealing with it.


Leaving aside minor quibbles I agree. "ok yes, but also yes" for me too. I'm still not sure I can fully accept the idea that emotional manipulation is good when it achieves good things. I know that's how much of our progress has been haphazardly made, but it's also how the worst atrocities have occurred.


----------



## tcmx3 (May 3, 2021)

spaceconvoy said:


> Leaving aside minor quibbles I agree. "ok yes, but also yes" for me too. I'm still not sure I can fully accept the idea that emotional manipulation is good when it achieves good things. I know that's how much of our progress has been haphazardly made, but it's also how the worst atrocities have occurred.



to be clear, Im not advocating for it as a strategy.

admittedly though after a while though it does get exhausting that you have a lot of people who refuse to accept an impending existential crises.


----------



## inferno (May 3, 2021)

ian said:


> 1:40 meant 1hr 40 min above, fwiw.
> But why not do that at the same time as investing in ever improving renewable energy technologies? This sort of defeatist video doesn't seem helpful, in my uneducated opinion.



the video tries to show that these new "renewable energy technologies" are mostly just BS, in the end it will probably work in the exact opposite way to what we're told. the people that deciedes how we must reduce our carbon emissions are economically invested in these technology companies. its just a money grab. like always.


----------



## M1k3 (May 3, 2021)

Ok, so solar is inefficient.
So were the early internal combustion engines.

Have to start somewhere. Right?

And if the scientists are wrong about global warming, wouldn't breathing clean air still be a nice benefit instead of trashing the planet?


----------



## tcmx3 (May 3, 2021)

inferno said:


> the video tries to show that these new "renewable energy technologies" are mostly just BS, in the end it will probably work in the exact opposite way to what we're told. the people that deciedes how we must reduce our carbon emissions are economically invested in these technology companies. its just a money grab. like always.



there's a big difference between "there's some hidden ecological cost to these technologies" (true) and "this is all a cynical money grab" (not true). 

btw the scientists who do the modeling that determines how much we actually have to reduce emissions are not going off and founding the companies making the tech and getting mega rich. now if we want to talk about how literally all American politics are a grift game with no intention of making material policy advancement, well Id personally love to get into that but I suspect that's a bit too much re the no politics rule.


----------



## spaceconvoy (May 3, 2021)

Maybe I had advanced knowledge of this stuff as an architecture student in the mid 00s. My professors treated it like common knowledge that solar was not going to save the world, even the solar panel guy.

My view for a while has been that we will achieve fusion one day and until then we just have to keep the wheels spinning on this crazy contraption (aka, civil society). A lot of these harmless fictions like recycling and plastic straw bans are inconvenient but ultimately useful as a tool of social cohesion.

Some of the renewable energy stuff crosses the boundaries into actually impacting people's health and well-being by making essential services more expensive. Post covid we'll see resources squeezed tighter and faster than ever, so I think this currently harmless fiction has good potential to become less than harmless.

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.


----------



## Keith Sinclair (May 3, 2021)

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988.
Partnership with meteorologist & United Nations. They hold view that humans are causing global warming, that we are changing the climate and this will be negative for civilization & the environment. This is the view the mass media has latched on to. Gloom & Doom true believers.

On the other end of the spectrum considerable contingent of scientist Earth & Astronomical science who believe climate is largely influenced by natural forces & cycles.

There is no overwhelming consensus among scientists on the subject of climate. 

Meteorologist think about weather and climate in terms of recent human history. The famous pogo stick graft showing temperature spiking up since 1980's.


----------



## ian (May 3, 2021)

Keith Sinclair said:


> On the other end of the spectrum considerable contingent of scientist Earth & Astronomical science who believe climate is largely influenced by natural forces & cycles.



Do you have a reference for how many of these people there are, and what kind of scientists they are? Although this is kind of thing is repeated a lot by certain news outlets, the statement that they form a significant percentage is strongly at odds with every rigorous survey I’ve seen of the scientific community. E.g. this one









Expert credibility in climate change


Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific...




www.pnas.org





There’s lots more hard data available on scientist opinions via a google search on the matter too. As I’m not a climate scientist, I don’t feel equipped to argue the case for man made climate change on an empirical level, even though it seems very believable to me for a variety of reasons. But if you look at actual surveys of opinions rather than OP eds and the like I’m not aware of any survey where the “nature caused this” contingent is like more than 5% or something.


----------



## tcmx3 (May 3, 2021)

ian said:


> Do you have a reference for how many of these people there are, and what kind of scientists they are? Although this is kind of thing is repeated a lot by certain news outlets, the statement that they form a significant percentage is strongly at odds with every rigorous survey I’ve seen of the scientific community. E.g. this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Barmoley (May 3, 2021)

spaceconvoy said:


> Maybe I had advanced knowledge of this stuff as an architecture student in the mid 00s. My professors treated it like common knowledge that solar was not going to save the world, even the solar panel guy.
> 
> My view for a while has been that we will achieve fusion one day and until then we just have to keep the wheels spinning on this crazy contraption (aka, civil society). A lot of these harmless fictions like recycling and plastic straw bans are inconvenient but ultimately useful as a tool of social cohesion.
> 
> ...



This⬆



M1k3 said:


> Ok, so solar is inefficient.
> So were the early internal combustion engines.
> 
> Have to start somewhere. Right?
> ...



In my opinion this is one of the problems with all these arguments, by non-specialists. Most people agree that pollution is bad and don't really argue with that, but the above very popular and common statements that sound obvious on the surface are basically used to create an emotional response. The argument is not if pollution is bad or good, but where to spend limited resources. Saying, "well if scientists are wrong" and "at least we need to start somewhere" and "at least we'll have clean air" glosses over the potential problems of spending time and resources on dead end projects while these resources could be spent on actually doing something that would decrease pollution. 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. For example, let's say CO2 is not an issue, not saying it isn't just an illustration, but we spend all the resources decreasing CO2, we might end up in a worse situation over time. Doing "something" is not a solution, we need to be doing what has the best chance to succeed and will have the greatest positive effect on the environment.


----------



## AT5760 (May 3, 2021)

There’s a solution. We just don’t like it.




MarcelNL said:


> the greenest energy is the energy you did not use,


----------



## ian (May 3, 2021)

Barmoley said:


> This⬆
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion this is one of the problems with all these arguments, by non-specialists. Most people agree that pollution is bad and don't really argue with that, but the above very popular and common statements that sound obvious on the surface are basically used to create an emotional response. The argument is not if pollution is bad or good, but where to spend limited resources. Saying, "well if scientists are wrong" and "at least we need to start somewhere" and "at least we'll have clean air" glosses over the potential problems of spending time and resources on dead end projects while these resources could be spent on actually doing something that would decrease pollution. 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. For example, let's say CO2 is not an issue, not saying it isn't just an illustration, but we spend all the resources decreasing CO2, we might end up in a worse situation over time. Doing "something" is not a solution, we need to be doing what has the best chance to succeed and will have the greatest positive effect on the environment.



Yea, basically agree with everything you say here. But enough scientists seem to think that solar and wind are feasible that I don’t think they’re dead end projects. Nuclear power seems attractive to me, although betting everything on cold fusion like @spaceconvoy mentioned seems extremely risky when the technology isn’t even out there. But I am just a stupid internet commenter.



AT5760 said:


> There’s a solution. We just don’t like it.



I don’t think “use less energy” is a feasible option on its own. And it’s more than not liking it, our entire infrastructure is centered around energy consumption.


----------



## tcmx3 (May 3, 2021)

ok so we're all agreed that the warm glow of the atom is the way forward? good.


----------



## AT5760 (May 3, 2021)

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 (May 3, 2021)

AT5760 said:


> 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.


----------



## AT5760 (May 3, 2021)

Nah, we’re on the same page @ian. Widespread institutional change is needed on top of changes in personal decision making.


----------



## Kippington (May 3, 2021)

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!


----------



## Slim278 (May 4, 2021)

Nuclear Fusion for the future.


----------



## Keith Sinclair (May 4, 2021)

tcmx3 said:


> 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 (May 4, 2021)

Kippington said:


> I enjoy reading about major prehistoric events.
> Maybe some of you haven't heard of the Great Oxidation Event.
> 
> In a nutshell:
> ...



 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 (May 4, 2021)

Keith Sinclair said:


> 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.


----------



## ian (May 4, 2021)

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 (May 4, 2021)

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):


----------



## Luftmensch (May 4, 2021)

spaceconvoy said:


> 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.





Barmoley said:


> 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.





Slim278 said:


> Nuclear Fusion for the future.



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


----------



## Keith Sinclair (May 4, 2021)

More like 300 million year old carbon  When trees covered the land & Dragonfly & other insects were huge because of high oxygen levels.


----------



## Slim278 (May 4, 2021)

@Luftmensch ITER - the way to new energy


----------



## Keith Sinclair (May 4, 2021)

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 (May 5, 2021)

ian said:


> 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 (May 5, 2021)

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.


----------



## Kippington (May 5, 2021)

Dhoff said:


> 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 (May 5, 2021)

Slim278 said:


> @Luftmensch ITER - the way to new energy



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!




Dhoff said:


> 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.





Kippington said:


>



Indeed! The "Great Oxidation Event". Thanks to our friends the Cyanobacteria. Speaking of timescales... 2.45-2.7 _billion_ years ago .


----------



## Kippington (May 5, 2021)

Luftmensch said:


> 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.  




__





"planet of the humans" documentary


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...




www.kitchenknifeforums.com


----------



## Dhoff (May 5, 2021)

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 (May 5, 2021)

Dhoff said:


> 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 (May 5, 2021)

Kippington said:


> I beat you to it.



True! Right you are sir! 



Kippington said:


> 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 (May 5, 2021)

Kippington said:


> 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.


----------



## MarcelNL (May 5, 2021)

this is somewhat related to plants being modified: https://edepot.wur.nl/447321









Opinion | Breeding the Nutrition Out of Our Food (Published 2013)


Much of our produce is relatively low in phytonutrients — compounds that may reduce the risk of many diseases.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## Keith Sinclair (May 7, 2021)

MarcelNL said:


> 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.


----------



## Slim278 (May 8, 2021)

Report: China emissions exceed all developed nations combined


The country is responsible for 27% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report.



www.bbc.com


----------



## inferno (May 8, 2021)

surprize surprize.


----------



## Keith Sinclair (May 11, 2021)

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.


----------



## Slim278 (May 13, 2021)

Interesting read.








Building's hard problem - making concrete green


Concrete accounts for 8% of carbon dioxide emissions, but some firms are hoping to cut that down.



www.bbc.com


----------

