>>11726849I think I need to get at the thesis of my problem with this film. He lays out a bunch of problems with varying degrees of accuracy in their representation. There are some legitimate concerns in there that do need addressing. But the way it is presented tries to make the green energy movement seem nearly equivalent to fossil fuels when all the data shows that is patently not true. So it gives a springboard for bunches of people to try and lambast green energy movements with bad faith arguments. It's already being used by think tanks funded by actual coal companies as "why green energy is evil and stupid and dumb".
Basically he laid out a bunch of stuff, painted a bunch of poorly drawn targets then refused to check the context of his arguments both temporally or compared to the current alternative costs. It's like that essay you wrote about the government freshman year filled with zeal, you identified a lot of good points based on what you researched, however you had no better alternatives. It just amounts to a list of points with a wide variation in quality of research done for each. Now imagine that essay being put on blast to the whole country and having a whole lot of people with no desire to fact check those points reading it.
You could have done the research into his points yourself, but you did come ask other people about it instead of just glibly accepting everything. Most people don't and won't. So they will equivocate a bank or corporation investing in biofuels heavily in 2010 when the tech was new to companies that added lead to our gas and ruined the life of the guy who tried to get it out when it was poisoning us or that commissioned studies in the 1980's with pretty accurate models showing climate change is gonna get us from their product and then burying it with intent. There are questions that need to be asked yes problems to be fixed yes, but pretending the two sides are equivalent is disingenuous at best.
