Yes, capitalism. And when we observe capitalism as a total system we see that it's not just about market economies. It's about concealment! Capitalism depends upon concealment of crucial facts from the investor and the public. Without such concealment, capitalism as we know it cannot function as it presently does.
Capitalism also depends upon false narratives, lies and propaganda to function. And so capitalism is a system of concealment, lies, propaganda, disinformation, fraud, delusion and ignorance.
If it were not for concealment, lies, disinformational propaganda, fraud, delusion and ignorance ... capitalism could not exist as we know it.
There is a fair amount of good information in this film, but again--early on we have the statement that green technologies are "worse than fossil fuels." This is bullshit. The film proves no such thing. What it does prove is that electric cars in particular are far from "zero emissions" or "clean." Yet they could be a solution--if we intended to produce fewer of them than the gas guzzlers they replace, and make them all small, slow microcars. As for solar and wind power--they are not without environmental impact. But to show us places in China and Chile where mining has impacts on the land, water, local communities and health, while the federal government pays cursory attention and the local government is too fixated on revenues to care, and whole towns end up evacuating--I have seen all of this in West Virginia. For coal mining, the mining-on-steroids known as mountaintop removal mining. That's for coal--to be sent after a filthy refining process to power plants to burn for energy. Pollution at every step, emissions especially in the burning--the difference is that all that pollution is for just the fuel--the power plant also requires cement and steel, etc. At least with the windmills and solar farms, once they're installed there is almost no ongoing emissions or pollution. When these films and essays and books claim that renewables are "worse than fossil fuels or nukes" they lead the viewer to the conclusion that "there is no alternative except living naked in a cave eating berries. SO WE MIGHT AS WELL STICK WTH BAU," which makes me wonder whether sometimes the oil industry funds these things. It's very true that the idea that we can transition to world powered by sun and wind but otherwise just like today, is a dangerous delusion, a dishonest marketing claim, which this film says at the end. That's a legitimate and necessary message. But when you start with an assertion that these things are even worse than the fossil fuels that are killing our world, you make it even less likely that anyone will do anything to avert the crash. If you want to make it a little less impossible that the public will wake up to reality and embrace limits, you need to talk about real solutions. If this vision is a false one, what COULD we do?
I'm not recalling a place in the film where somebody says that 'renewable energy' is 'worse than fossil fuels', but that hardly means it wasn't in there. I'll watch and listen again. My own personal view is that likely renewable energy (so called) is slightly better than fossil fuels, but that both require massive fossil fuel inputs, and neither can or should be called 'green' or 'renewable' or 'safe' or 'clean'... because they are none of these -- and especially not if the intent is to keep business as usual going while swapping a similar amount of energy use into the 'renewable' ('green') kind.
As far as "What COULD we do?" goes, I'll say we could dramatically reduce energy and materials use. That's what degrowth is all about. So we could adopt degrowth policies -- though of course governments are extremely unlikely to do this at the necessary scale. So it seems to me that we ought at least to try and do it without asking the government's help or approval.
Will either approach be sufficient? Not likely. But we ought to do something rather than nothing, and my thought is that we ought to at least try to grow a movement outside of governments to do what governments are extremely unlikely to do, which is degrow.
I think renewables are more than slightly better than fossil fuels, and "degrow" is not a sufficient prescription. In particular, the question is not just "How do we avert devastating climate change and biodiversity loss?" but also "How do we meet the needs--not the desires, habits or whims, but the needs--of the 8 billion humans who are inarguably here--without causing devasting climate change and biodiversity loss?"
I certainly agree that we ought to try our very best to meet the actual needs of the billions of humans on the planet, and that we ought to also protect the climate system, biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide. But there's no way to do this without dramatically -- very dramatically, and rapidly--reducing energy and materials use in the so-called "developed nations" -- i.e., 'the global north'.
This mostly means putting an end to all of the excessive uses of materials and energy -- such as in the form of automobiles, jet travel, mass tourism, oversized and underutilized houses and buildings...., and on and on. That's what degrowth basically amounts to, ending excessive consumption in the rich countries. Right? And also doing all we can to protect ecosystems, species, land, water.... What more can we do than that?
No disagreement. My point is, if we want to get buy-in from a significant number of people, we can't just say "This whole green growth thing is an illusion--there's no such thing as an energy source that;s sustainable" and leave the impression that if they ever drive any kind of vehicle, or use any electricity, or anything made of plastic, the they're committing environmental crimes. We have to acknowledge that it isn't possible for most people (in the rich world anyway) to instantly transition to a low-impact lifestyle--but it's incumbent on them to begin, and we need to SHOW THE PATH. I think solar panels and windmills ARE much greener than fossil fuels or nukes, and we should build and install more of them. But most people who do "go solar" put up a lot more solar panels than they really need; they could use some illumination about what is need and what is waste. If we educated people about the issues maybe we could legalize, and get car manufacturers making a line of electric microcars, so we don't get quite as much dangerous investment in the production of e-behemoths. I don't accept the argument that it's useless to try to get people to accept limits, to accept a lower-impact lifestyle. But we need to show a path that doesn't demand a choice between BAU and an impossible instant reduction to zero. For one thing, the demand that everyone use public transportation may work in cities, but the larger cities will not be sustainable much longer, and neither will the mega-farms that depend on fossil fuels as a substitute for human labor. So many more people will be moving to farms. Mostly we need to travel a great deal less but we will not cut it to zero. I think we could have e-bikes and microcars that use like a hundredth to a tenth of the materials and energy of modern behemoths, and that this would be acceptable. We need to transition from today's industrial monoculture agriculture to many more, smaller farms that produce multiple crops, and trade with nearby towns and cities. A considerable number of farmers are already transitioning to no-till, cover cropping, reducing their pesticide and artificial fertilizer needs, pioneering the way for the rest (if you can use the word "pioneer" for something that's mostly, tho not entirely, a return to past ways).
Disturbing. Towards the end it becomes clear that the main problem is capitalism. Thanks for sharing. I have passed it on.
Andy W -
Yes, capitalism. And when we observe capitalism as a total system we see that it's not just about market economies. It's about concealment! Capitalism depends upon concealment of crucial facts from the investor and the public. Without such concealment, capitalism as we know it cannot function as it presently does.
Capitalism also depends upon false narratives, lies and propaganda to function. And so capitalism is a system of concealment, lies, propaganda, disinformation, fraud, delusion and ignorance.
If it were not for concealment, lies, disinformational propaganda, fraud, delusion and ignorance ... capitalism could not exist as we know it.
Thanks James. We'll watch. Bright Green Lies is also goodly in this space. x
Oops, just saw you've linked to it.
Bright Green Lies Trailer
https://vimeo.com/346171480?embedded=true&source=vimeo_logo&owner=26027810
Gravitas Plus: The dark side of Electric Vehicles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFHvq-8np1o
Another film with a similar message:
Toxic Cost of Going Green | Unreported World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipOeH7GW0M8
There is a fair amount of good information in this film, but again--early on we have the statement that green technologies are "worse than fossil fuels." This is bullshit. The film proves no such thing. What it does prove is that electric cars in particular are far from "zero emissions" or "clean." Yet they could be a solution--if we intended to produce fewer of them than the gas guzzlers they replace, and make them all small, slow microcars. As for solar and wind power--they are not without environmental impact. But to show us places in China and Chile where mining has impacts on the land, water, local communities and health, while the federal government pays cursory attention and the local government is too fixated on revenues to care, and whole towns end up evacuating--I have seen all of this in West Virginia. For coal mining, the mining-on-steroids known as mountaintop removal mining. That's for coal--to be sent after a filthy refining process to power plants to burn for energy. Pollution at every step, emissions especially in the burning--the difference is that all that pollution is for just the fuel--the power plant also requires cement and steel, etc. At least with the windmills and solar farms, once they're installed there is almost no ongoing emissions or pollution. When these films and essays and books claim that renewables are "worse than fossil fuels or nukes" they lead the viewer to the conclusion that "there is no alternative except living naked in a cave eating berries. SO WE MIGHT AS WELL STICK WTH BAU," which makes me wonder whether sometimes the oil industry funds these things. It's very true that the idea that we can transition to world powered by sun and wind but otherwise just like today, is a dangerous delusion, a dishonest marketing claim, which this film says at the end. That's a legitimate and necessary message. But when you start with an assertion that these things are even worse than the fossil fuels that are killing our world, you make it even less likely that anyone will do anything to avert the crash. If you want to make it a little less impossible that the public will wake up to reality and embrace limits, you need to talk about real solutions. If this vision is a false one, what COULD we do?
Hi Mary Wildfire -
I'm not recalling a place in the film where somebody says that 'renewable energy' is 'worse than fossil fuels', but that hardly means it wasn't in there. I'll watch and listen again. My own personal view is that likely renewable energy (so called) is slightly better than fossil fuels, but that both require massive fossil fuel inputs, and neither can or should be called 'green' or 'renewable' or 'safe' or 'clean'... because they are none of these -- and especially not if the intent is to keep business as usual going while swapping a similar amount of energy use into the 'renewable' ('green') kind.
As far as "What COULD we do?" goes, I'll say we could dramatically reduce energy and materials use. That's what degrowth is all about. So we could adopt degrowth policies -- though of course governments are extremely unlikely to do this at the necessary scale. So it seems to me that we ought at least to try and do it without asking the government's help or approval.
Will either approach be sufficient? Not likely. But we ought to do something rather than nothing, and my thought is that we ought to at least try to grow a movement outside of governments to do what governments are extremely unlikely to do, which is degrow.
I think renewables are more than slightly better than fossil fuels, and "degrow" is not a sufficient prescription. In particular, the question is not just "How do we avert devastating climate change and biodiversity loss?" but also "How do we meet the needs--not the desires, habits or whims, but the needs--of the 8 billion humans who are inarguably here--without causing devasting climate change and biodiversity loss?"
Mary Wildfire -
I certainly agree that we ought to try our very best to meet the actual needs of the billions of humans on the planet, and that we ought to also protect the climate system, biodiversity and ecosystems worldwide. But there's no way to do this without dramatically -- very dramatically, and rapidly--reducing energy and materials use in the so-called "developed nations" -- i.e., 'the global north'.
This mostly means putting an end to all of the excessive uses of materials and energy -- such as in the form of automobiles, jet travel, mass tourism, oversized and underutilized houses and buildings...., and on and on. That's what degrowth basically amounts to, ending excessive consumption in the rich countries. Right? And also doing all we can to protect ecosystems, species, land, water.... What more can we do than that?
.
No disagreement. My point is, if we want to get buy-in from a significant number of people, we can't just say "This whole green growth thing is an illusion--there's no such thing as an energy source that;s sustainable" and leave the impression that if they ever drive any kind of vehicle, or use any electricity, or anything made of plastic, the they're committing environmental crimes. We have to acknowledge that it isn't possible for most people (in the rich world anyway) to instantly transition to a low-impact lifestyle--but it's incumbent on them to begin, and we need to SHOW THE PATH. I think solar panels and windmills ARE much greener than fossil fuels or nukes, and we should build and install more of them. But most people who do "go solar" put up a lot more solar panels than they really need; they could use some illumination about what is need and what is waste. If we educated people about the issues maybe we could legalize, and get car manufacturers making a line of electric microcars, so we don't get quite as much dangerous investment in the production of e-behemoths. I don't accept the argument that it's useless to try to get people to accept limits, to accept a lower-impact lifestyle. But we need to show a path that doesn't demand a choice between BAU and an impossible instant reduction to zero. For one thing, the demand that everyone use public transportation may work in cities, but the larger cities will not be sustainable much longer, and neither will the mega-farms that depend on fossil fuels as a substitute for human labor. So many more people will be moving to farms. Mostly we need to travel a great deal less but we will not cut it to zero. I think we could have e-bikes and microcars that use like a hundredth to a tenth of the materials and energy of modern behemoths, and that this would be acceptable. We need to transition from today's industrial monoculture agriculture to many more, smaller farms that produce multiple crops, and trade with nearby towns and cities. A considerable number of farmers are already transitioning to no-till, cover cropping, reducing their pesticide and artificial fertilizer needs, pioneering the way for the rest (if you can use the word "pioneer" for something that's mostly, tho not entirely, a return to past ways).