Film Review: Planet of the Humans

I watched this film last night on Youtube and I found it very interesting.  When I checked out my usual political sites today I saw that alot of people are highlighting its critique of the environmental movement and the alternative energy industry, many indicating that this film proves that they are all a lie and therefore can be ignored.

These people missed the whole point of the film.

The key message of the film is humans, as a species, are consuming the resources of the planet at an unsustainable rate and that the alternative energy industry is being sold to us as a way to allow us to keep doing that without facing the consequences.  In essence we are being told that if we handle global warming and climate change things will be alright and we will not have to worry about all of the rest, such as the destruction of biodiversity, the polluting and emptying out of our oceans and global deforestation.  

The film points out the the focus on climate change and renewable energy sources is not a panacea.  Indeed, it points out that big oil is behind much of the renewable energy boom, as they continue to make big profits from it.  That is not a bad thing.  Until we come up with a new way of organizing ourselves economically the profit motive will be necessary to change behaviours.  

Unfortunately, that message is lost in the film's over-the-top critique of the green energy industry.  The film is 1 hour and 40 minutes long but only focuses on its key message for about 15 minutes.  The rest is spent trashing the green energy industry and some environmentalists.  

Much of the critique is off base.  The film maker mentions that solar panels and wind turbines require fossil fuels to manufacture and to install.  This is not a revelation as some would like us to think.  We live in a world addicted to fossil fuels.  They are everywhere and in everything.  The whole point of green energy is to provide an alternative way of generating energy than fossil fuels.  If a country requires 100 mW of energy each year and 25 mW can be generated by green energy then that is 25% less fossil fuel being burned each year with the commensurate reduction in the production of GHGs.  Yes, GHGs would have been emitted during the manufacturing and installation of the green energy systems but those are upfront costs that would be canceled out over the life of the system.  It cost me a sizable chunk of money to have new windows put into my house 10 years ago but the savings on my heating and cooling bills in the last ten years have offset that cost and the windows should be good for another 15 years.

The other assertion of the film is the green energy systems, such as solar panels and wind turbines have a life cycle of only about 10 years.  That is just silly.  Everything made my humans has a life cycle.  Nothing we make lasts forever.  Everything we make requires regular maintenance and eventual replacement.  Too expect anything less from green energy is an extremely unfair expectation.  Further, like everything else, as demand for something increases the greater the innovation that goes into the product.  Such innovation can increase the life cycle of any product.

The one critique of the green energy industry that makes sense is its critique of the burning of biomass.  As the film indicates that is just burning wood.  There is a reason why humans switched from burning wood to burning coal.  Coal provides more energy per tonne.  To revert back to burning wood to produce energy is silly and it is counterproductive because it means we have to accelerate the deforestation of the planet in order to produce this energy.  

The maker of the Planet of the Humans could have been much more balanced in his approach to proving is initial thesis.  It is true that global warming and climate change are not the only environmental challenges we face.  Human action is presenting us with a whole host of environmental challenges which if they are not addresses, and soon, could have a profound negative impact on our civilization and maybe even our species.  Unfortunately, the film maker missed an opportunity to better highlight that reality.

WTH is Andrew Scheer doing?

I really have to wonder what he is doing by being so obtuse with regard to having in-person meetings during an global pandemic.  It really is a no win strategy.  So why is he doing it?  As I have indicated politics is changing during this global pandemic and it would appear that Andrew Scheer and the Conservatives have not realized it.  Why?

I see four possibilities.

He really is as thick as some people believe.  However, that does not make alot of sense.  He did win the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada and you do not do that without having some smarts.  So his actions and words are calculated.

He is seeking revenge on the Conservative Party because they dropped him after the last election.  He may very well believe that he reduced the Liberals to a minority and added more seats for the Conservatives and that earned him another shot.  He is wrong of course.  As I have explained in this space before the seats he gained were traditional Conservative seats that only switched because of the general disgust with Stephen Harper in 2015.  As well, it was the Bloc that denied the Liberals a majority government.

He is trying to sabotage the electoral prospects for Mr. MacKay, the front runner for his replacement because Mr. MacKay stuck a knife into him just one week before election day in the Fall.

The problem with both of those reasons is we would be seeing a rebellion by the Conservative Party and the Conservative caucus if he was doing this.  He is a lame duck and they know it.  If they thought this was a personal vendetta against them or a possible replacement they would shut it down pretty quick.

Which, I believe, brings us to a very probable reason.  If you look at his actions and words and those of other Conservative mouth pieces on the Hill and in the media they are directed squarely at their base.  The interesting thing about their base is they are true believers and they do not tolerate the Liberals, full stop.  Therefore, they would not tolerate the Party cooperating with the Liberal government.  So, it is a bit of a case of the tail wagging the dog.  Of course, as late as last September the Conservatives could have ignored the base for a short time and then worked to get them back when things began to return to normal but the Fall election demonstrated that the core of the Conservative base is in Alberta and Saskatchewan and after the last election Wexit parties popped up.  I believe at least one has been certified in Alberta and they reduce the Conservatives room to maneuver.  The Wexit parties will be targeting traditional Conservative voters and they will be looking for openings offered by the CPC to exploit in order to do it.  Any hint of the CPC working with the Liberal government could be that opening.  So what we could be seeing is the Conservative Party attempting to shore up its Western base, potentially sacrificing votes in other part of the country. 

Politics During a Global Emergency

The current emergency situation is not like anything anybody has ever seen.

For the most part national emergencies are really regional emergencies.  Excessive flooding in Winnipeg or Gatineau, wildfires in Red Deer, or some other natural disaster that impacts 100s of thousand people are what usually constitute "national emergencies".  None of these are to be sneezed at.  They are indeed serious situations where quick action by governments will save lives and livelihoods.  However, their impact outside of their region is non-existent.  Certainly, people not impacted are sympathetic but they continue to live their lives as normal saying a little prayer "But for the grace of God....

In these kinds of national emergencies politics pretty much goes on as normal.  Certainly at the beginning the government has the monopoly on media coverage as the initial shock sets in but very soon afterwards people settle into the new normal and politics follows suit.

This situation is different.  All Canadians are impacted by the COVID 19 virus emergency.  No one and no region has been spared.  Further the emergency is relentless.  Day after day and night after night we receive more bad news and we are being asked to make huge sacrifices that could last months.  There has been no let-up.  Further it is slammed home every day that Canada is not the only country impacted by this.  It is global.  It is unprecedented.  

All of that should be enough to convince our political and ruling class that the very nature of politics is changing with each bit of bad news.  Gone are the days when Canadians are going to care about little things.  All they care about is the virus and its impacts.  Are their family and friends safe?  How am I going to pay the rent?  Where can I get much needed groceries?  In short the concerns of Canadians and others around the world have become primal.

Unfortunately a significant number of our political and ruling class does not seem to grasp this fact.  They just don't get it.  Fortunately, they are outnumbered by those who do get it and thankfully they are the ones responsible for navigating the country through these time.

At some point in the future all of this is going to pass.  It might not seem that it will but it will.  When it does some semblance of normalcy will exist but the scar this is going to leave on the collective psyche will not fade quickly.  Neither will the memories of voters when it comes to who stepped up during the crisis and who did not.  

So my advice to those who are still playing politics like we are not living through a deadly global pandemic is to stop.  All of the "unwritten rules" for politics that existed a few short months ago are gone.  If you do not figure this out and adjust to it you will pay a price in the future and it could be a heavy one.  

Politics During a National Emergency

For many the notion that politics should be put aside during a national emergency is considered a truism.  However, there are actually very few who actually believe that.

For the most part that idea often depends on who is in power.  If the party you like is in power then any politics that challenges that party during the emergency is tantamount to treason.  

Of course, objectively politics is not off limits during a national emergency.  Indeed, if done right it can actually be beneficial to the nation going through the emergency as it can force the government in power to constantly improve its approach to mitigating or resolving the emergency.  I would point out that Federal elections were held in Canada during both World Wars and the governments of day, during those periods, both had to endure political crises.

Which brings me to the current situation in Canada during the COVID 19 pandemic.  One political reality during such emergencies is the government sucks up most of the political oxygen.  This is particularly true in the current situation with the Prime Minister and the Premiers having daily briefings.  They are front and centre each day, usually without the bother of the opposition parties or the usual trivial issues that opposition parties and the media like to focus on and blow out of proportion during normal times.

That leave the opposition parties in a bit of a pickle.  In that situation the opposition parties have a choice.  Try to be visible or try to be relevant.  Being visible is just that.  Try to bring some attention to your party even for a little bit so as to remind voters that you are still there.  It often has to take the form or partisanship, which can backfire badly during a national emergency.  Being relevant is actually contributing to resolving the national emergency.  Unfortunately, being relevant usually means that an opposition party has to work with and assist the governing party, which usually results in the governing party receiving all of the credit while the contribution of the opposition party is not as noticed.

Being visible is easy, particularly in the era of social media.  Being relevant is much harder because it usually involves behind the scenes actions and can be thankless in the end.

So with that in mind what have our federal Opposition Parties chosen?

Looking at the Conservatives and the NDP I would say that they have chosen to be visible instead of relevant.  At the beginning they really could not do anything.  However, as the situation has progressed they are attempting to be more visible by attacking the government.  Some of their attacks are targeting holes in the government response but they are doing it is such a way that what they are saying can be dismissed as partisanship.  As well, their desire to attack the government is getting in the way of logic.  Who would have thought that the Conservative Party of Canada would announce that they are going to vote against a wage subsidy for businesses unless the government drops the Carbon Tax?  A political party that is supposed to be pro-business is going to vote against a proposal to assist business, during a catastrophic national economic emergency, in order to attempt (and fail) to have a signature government policy reversed.  

Then there is the NDP.  It is trying to be visible by attacking the government for things it cannot change.  As with the Conservatives the NDP attacks do not pass the logic test.  The NDP demanding a rent holiday seems to make sense, on the surface if, like the NDP, you consider all landlords to be large faceless corporations,  However not all landlords are corporate entities so a rent holiday could actually hurt alot of small landlords.  In short, the issue the NDP brings up is a legitimate one but it is much more complex and nuanced that will require much more complex solutions than the one they are pushing.  

Then there is the media, a defacto opposition to the government.  Polling has indicated that Justin Trudeau's middling approval ratings coming out of the last election have skyrocketed into 2015 territory again with the commensurate rise of the Liberal Party in the polls.  Some polling companies have indicated that if an election were held today the Liberals would cruise to a comfortable majority government.  That just cannot be for our corporate media.  They have been working very hard since 2004 to bring the Liberals down and their steady hand during this emergency is putting a real damper on that effort.  So, they are starting to try to find ways to undermine the government's popularity and they are doing it the way they have always done it, by setting up straw men and then knocking them down.  A few weeks ago I wrote a post that praised the media during the beginning of the COVID 19 emergency.  I had a notion back then that they would revert to form and I was right.  If this does not convince the government to find a way to break up the virtual media monopoly in this country I do not know what will.  It is easy to do really.  Start taxing foreign owned media companies, like Postmedia, like they are actually foreign owned instead of like they are Canadian owned, as Stephen Harper decided to do years ago.  That should cause those owners to shed the otherwise money losing media companies which will be bought up by others in Canada, although not as a whole like now but in pieces, leading to a diversity of voices again in our media.

One cannot talk about the Opposition without looking at the Bloc Quebecois.  They have decided to be relevant instead of just visible.  By all accounts the economic relief package passed last week was passed because the Bloc worked with the government behind the scenes to improve the bill.  The same looks like it is going to happen the next time Parliament is recalled.  The Bloc is not nearly as visible as the other Opposition Parties but their contribution is actually helping to improve the government's response to the multi-faceted problems the current national emergency presents.  For now the Bloc is reaping some benefit from it if you believe the polls.  It would appear their stock is rising in Quebec, the only part of the country they care about and it could be because of their approach to dealing with the government.  

Of course, for both the Bloc and the Liberals their current rise in the polls could become a fall at any time.  The psyches of Canadians are very fragile right now so their opinion of any political party could change on a dime at any time.

Politics during a national emergency is normal.  However, the backdrop of a national emergency increases the political risk for all parties playing that game.  It will magnify both the positive and the negative actions of political parties.  As well, the sheer magnitude of this particular emergency could cause voters, with otherwise short memories, to remember both actions that help and harm years down the line when they go to the polls.  The very big challenge for opposition parties is to attempt make certain what little attention they do receive during the national emergency will be remembered as helpful. It is early yet but so far I would say that two out of three of them have not succeeded in meeting that objective.