Why Moore Is Less | Biased, Misguided film-making at its worst
It’s all in the name. Michael Moore’s latest film production “Planet of the Humans” bears a resemblance to the 1968 science fiction film “Planet of the Apes”.
The bastardisation of the name indicates the lack of creativity, relevance and scientific basis for this film. In other words, this film is a blatant, misguided and damaging attack on the renewable energy industry.
One naturally suspects that it has been funded by the fossil fuel industry establishment desperate to retain the support of the American people.
Contrary to what is said in this documentary, the renewable energy industry is making a bold and measurable contribution to the reduction of emissions to the atmosphere that cause climate change.
A few of the scenes are so poorly executed as to be comical.
For example, the scene where they visit a solar field that was constructed 12 years ago.
The progression of the solar industry during this time has been exponential, however, Jeff Gibb, the filmmaker, a self-prescribed environmentalist, a title that is indefensible in his film and Ozzie Zehner, the only “scientist” in the film, prefer to focus on defending their position that renewables are dependent on fossil fuels and are more damaging to the environment.
Perhaps 20 years ago this was true.
Sadly, it took them so long to release the film, ironically on Earth Day 2020, that the main premise of the film, that people are killing the planet and it cannot be saved by renewable energy, is obsolete.
Comparisons with another famous eco turncoat | Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace
Michael Moore’s transition from hero to traitor of the people is mimicked co-incidentally by another man named Moore.
Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace, became an advocate and outspoken activist for nuclear power and other toxic, polluting energy industries after he fell out with the other Greenpeace founders and started his own “green” consultancy.
Patrick Moore then spent the next 30 years actively supporting nuclear energy when mainstream environmentalists clearly understood that it is a “dangerous and expensive distraction from real solutions to climate change”1 .
Time has proven environmentalists correct.
The latest news, that one of the turbines at Sizewell B, the most modern nuclear power station in the UK, may need to be shut down because of reduced power demand bears this fact2.
At 600MW, the turbine at Sizewell B is slightly larger than the 400MW Rampion windfarm in Sussex, but costs the taxpayer exponentially more to maintain and control than the windfarm.
It will also cost the taxpayer billions to decommission at the end of its useful life, compared to the windfarm, which does not produce any toxic waste from its energy production.
The Sizewell B plant also emits toxic radioactive particles into the air and seawater, chemicals that are not measured by the Environmental Agency, because to measure is to gain intelligence that would require action contrary to the political mandate to advance the civil nuclear programme because it supports the nation’s military nuclear programme3.
Sadly, this pursuit is outdated, as the biggest threat to the nation is not a nuclear threat, but a cyber and climate change threat.
At age 66, it may be the Michael Moore doesn’t care about his reputation anymore.
He may not care about the damage that he has potentially done to the environmental movement in the USA by supporting Jeff Gibb’s documentary filled with inaccuracies, while attacking people who have sincerely and selflessly dedicated themselves to helping others through their tireless work advocating for our planet.
What we can conclude is that in the interests of the planet and to combat climate change, Moore is definitely less.
What so you think?
Leave a comment in the section below.