Mini Film Review: Planet of the Humans

Planet of the Humans is an American environmental documentary written, directed, and produced by Jeff Gibbs, and supported and promoted by Michael Moore.  First released in 2019 in was then released onto YouTube by Moore in April 2020 as part of Earth Day's 50th Anniversary, before being promptly taken down again in May due to claims of copyright infringement.  Due to this removal, I wasn't sure if it would be worth making a review about this film, but as it could be made available again in the future (after editing) I thought I would still write about my thoughts on it.

Looking at the renewable energy industry, the documentary questions whether it can actually solve the issue of our ever-increasing resources consumption and in fact argues that green energy is not actually sustainable at all.  It is this and its attack on some of the most famous environmental campaigners, such as Al Gore, that has made this movie so controversial and sparked a backlash in the climate change community.

There are some glaring issues with the movie, mainly the number of out of date facts and footage used to make their point.  These include stating that solar panels only convert 8% of the energy they receive into electricity when, with modern panels, it's actually now 15 to 20%.  These newer panels are also a lot cheaper to produce and buy and are therefore much more available to people than before.  Then there's the claim that renewable energy still needs to be backed up by fossil fuels to ensure there is a constant supply of electricity.  This may be the case in some countries, but you only have to look at somewhere like Iceland to see what is actually possible when using a variety of renewable resources.  It also stated that the carbon footprint of renewables is either similar or in fact worse than fossil fuels, but there is a wealth of research that shows that this is just not the case especially with the most modern systems.  These are just a few of the inaccuracies found in the movie, but I didn't want to spend this whole post listing them.

However, it would be inaccurate to say that there weren't some truths in this documentary as well.  Firstly, we can't just rely on technology to get us out of this climate change hole without having to make any changes at all to our lifestyles.  We will need to change how we do things and reduce the amount of energy and resources we use on a daily basis.  You can not sustainably live an infinite lifestyle on a finite planet.  Secondly, solar and wind technologies do need to use rare minerals to produce them, pretty much everything technological does, and collecting these as virgin materials is very destructive to the ecosystems they are found in.  However, there are ways around this and this is definitely an area where we need to get better at recycling the precious resources we use.  Thirdly, that destroying woodlands to produce biomass energy is definitely not a good thing and not only takes away one of our best carbon dioxide absorbers but also damages the surrounding soil health and has a negative impact on water retention.  We definitely shouldn't be using that type of biomass, however, there are many other forms quick are much more sustainable and can be used effectively. 

Perhaps the biggest point they make, though it's more of a side statement which isn't given much air time, is that large elephant in the environmental room of population size.  I know people baulk at the idea of talking about it and even see it as a form of eugenics, but it is one of the most fundamental ways in which we can reduce the impact we are and will have on our planet.  Of course, it has to voluntary and the most effective way of doing it is actually empowering women - something not talked about in this documentary.

Filling your documentary with lots of out of date inaccuracies is probably not the best way of getting your point across and I can see why a lot of climate sceptics have felt that this film has given them something to cheers about, whilst climate activists have gone against it.  However, perhaps the good thing about this film is it opens up an important conversation we need to have about our consumption habits and lifestyle choices.  It's very unlikely that we can just carry on with the status quo and get away with it.  Oh, and of course, checking facts that are presented to you.

One other thing I just wanted to add was that it did make me wonder a little bit about supporting 350.org based on the interviews they had with Bill McKibben.  Obviously, there was editing involved, but he didn't come across particularly well in this.  I don't want to judge the organisation entirely on this film, but I do think I'm going to do a little bit more research on 350.org before I start donating to them.

I would say that, if you can find it, do watch the movie.  Just make sure you have a search engine open beside you so you can do some fact-checking when you do.

Fracking in the UK

I had meant to write this blog at the beginning of October when the Government's decision on fracking in Lancashire came through, but as I've been behind in my blogs I'm afraid this is coming now.  I still wanted to post it though, especially after the Scottish Government's report brought out yesterday, and the time has given me the opportunity to read even more information on this.

So, to begin - what it fracking?

There has been so much information about fracking recently it is very likely that you already know this, but just in case you don't.......  Fracking is the slang for hydraulic fracturing and is the method of extracting gas or oil trapped below impermeable, shale rock that cannot be collected through conventional drilling alone.

It involves drilling vertically for about 2km (this part we've been doing since the 1940's for conventional oil extraction) and then drilling at a 90 degree angle for around 3km (a relatively recent discovery).  The gap between the borehole and the rock is then sealed with concrete and around 10 million litres containing sand, lubricating fluids and other additives are pumped into the borehole under extremely high pressure.  This opens up the cracks found throughout the shale and these cracks are kept open by the sand particles allowing the gas to escape.  A well head is then installed on the surface to capture the released gas.  Once all the gas and/or oil has been removed from that area the well head is then removed and the shale rock returns back to its original position.

Problems associated with fracking.

Most of the information we have on the issues associated with fracking comes from America, where fracking has been used as a method for extracting fossil fuels for many years.  Despite the claims of clean and safe methods by the fuel companies there have been many reports of health issues and environmental contaminations in connection to the fracking industry.  Research by Duke University (later published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011) testing the drinking water at 60 sites across Pennsylvania and New York and found that the drinking water near fracking sites had levels of methane which were in the range designated dangers by the US Department of Interiors.  

While there is not a legal requirement in America for companies to make public information regarding the chemicals used in their fracking process, compounds like benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and n-hexane have been found to be released into the air in fracking areas.  Long term exposure to these chemicals are linked to birth defects, neurological issues, blood disorders and cancer.  

There has also been a connection between the industry and earthquakes with previous non-earthquake prone states, such as Ohio and Oklahoma, experiencing strong seismic activities.  The UK itself has experienced this when in April 2011 Cuadrilla Resources first well in Weeton, Lancashire, caused two small earthquakes and dozens of aftershocks.  Tremors were felt in Blackpool and the company had to halt works for an investigation to occur.  However, they did carry on drilling in other wells. 

Fracking in the UK.

While we do have a relative large fracking industry off shore in the UK, onshore fracking is still only at the exploration phase at the moment.  A report by the British Geological Survey, published in 2012, estimated that could be as much as 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas in the North of England alone, stretching from Lancashire to Yorkshire, which could supply Britain with electricity for decades. Other areas have been ear-marked throughout the UK.  However, it is still not certain how much oil or gas is actually commercially recoverable with more exploratory drilling needed to give us a clearer picture.  Companies such as Cuadrilla, Becconsall, Celtique Energies, and Coastal Oil and Gas have all requested licenses to drill exploratory wells onshore in the UK, with many of the sites receiving the go ahead from the UK Government.  These are still few in number, for now, but the United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group (UKOOG) is expecting the number of these exploratory well sites to increase to 100 over the next 10 years.  However, a license from the Government does not allow the company to start fracking straight away as they also have to receive planning permission from the local councils.  Unfortunately, it seems that a council's ability to determine if fracking occurs in their local area or not has now been taken away from them as the British Government last month overturned the Lancashire County Council's decision in June 2015 to prevent fracking at Little Plumpton (as yet there has been no decision on Roseacre Wood). 

To support fracking Downing Street has promised to fast track shale gas planning applications to 'crack down' on councils trying to delay any decisions on this and has offered tax breaks to fracking companies.  In December last year MPs voted to allow fracking to occur at 1,200m below our National Parks, Areas of Outstanding National Beauty and World Heritage Sites despite pledging on outright ban on National Park earlier in the year. 

It is expected that fracking will be different in the UK to the USA due to difference in the geology (which will theoretically lead to a smaller footprint), the stricter standards for well quality with regular inspections and the more stringent regulations, such as requiring the companies to monitor the water quality throughout the fracking process and disclose of which chemicals they are using.  Also the British Government already has restrictions on a number of the chemicals used in the US and will have higher standards for dealing with the very large amount of radioactive and toxic wastewater that is produced from fracking.  Rather than being burnt, as it does in USA, excess gas produced by this process will be captured on the surface and fed into the national gas supply.  However, despite these promises of higher standards Cuadrilla Resources has already been warned by ministers for failing to recognize the damage done to it's well by the 2011 earthquake and for failing to report this for 6 months. 

Tuesday's report from the Scottish Government has shown that, while there was sufficient evidence to suggest that there would be a number of air and waterborne environmental hazards in connection with the process which could put at risk those living near to fracking sites and those working on site (breathing in crystalline silica), there was inadequate data to determine if the developing of fracking would pose an overall risk to public health.  Some have argued, though, that this report hasn't taken into account that a number of the potential fracking sites are located in densely populated areas.

Why the Government says it's necessary and what might be wrong with this statement?

The UK Government has been pushing for onshore fracking stating that it would reduce our reliance on imported energy, generate economic benefits, especially for local councils, and create tens of thousands of jobs.  They have used the US as an example of how it reduces the cost of electricity and heating, and have argued that fracking will be in keeping with the UK's moves towards low carbon energy systems. With all these we have been told that it would be 'irresponsible' to not carry out tracking wherever we can.

However, fracking will only help the UK transition to low carbon energy systems if it is replacing a higher carbon energy sources, such as coal power.  At the moment the carbon benefits of shale gas is actually still unclear (shale oil even more so) and new evidence from the USA has shown that while fracking has reduced coal consumption, it has not significantly reduced the emission of greenhouse gases.  So, even if it is classified as a low carbon energy system it is unlikely to greatly reduce our carbon emissions over the coming years.  

The cost saving may also not be as high as the Government has been stating either as the UK isn't as sparsely populated as the US but also the higher regulatory standards found in the UK will, perhaps ironically, mean that companies will have to invest more into their infrastructure, significantly reducing the cost savings actually seen by us customers.  Economic and job improvements to local areas will also be temporary as fracking is not a permanent process and wells that run dry are then closed down and the infrastructure then moved.  As companies will likely want to move skilled staff with them rather than go through the cost of retraining, it's debatable whether the increase in employment potential is likely to be as high as originally promised.

The uncertainty around the safety aspects is still the main worry for many people and the Government's own Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) themselves have highlighting the uncertainties associated with the impacts of shale gas.  The impact of shale oil is even more uncertain and these are not adequately covered by the safety measures put in place for shale gas.  There are also other environmental factors specific to the UK that need to be taken into account, like the water shortages in the South East which would make fracking in that area unsustainable and the fact that we are a much more densely populated area so any breach in the safety standards could have quite severe consequences.  The recent issues with oil leaks in our oceans has made many question how prepared our oil companies are to deal with a major contamination event, such as waste entering our water supplies, and whether they even have adequately insurance.  

Perhaps the biggest issue with fracking is how it is taking us further away from the actions we need to take to prevent climate change.  Scientists have already calculated that, if we are to avoid two degrees of global warming, we must leave four-fifths of the already known fuels in the ground and yet our Government is now setting us on a path to find and extract more fossil fuels then we know of already.  Based on the evidence coming out of the US this is unlikely to help us meet our targets or help us set in motions the work needed to take us off fossil fuels and move us into more renewable energies.

One thing I think is important to note here is the differences between our Government's behaviour towards onshore fracking and onshore windfarms.  Both would generate an income for local councils and Britain as a whole.  Both would reduce our reliance on imported energy and, it could be argued, windfarms would reduce this reliance for longer.  Both would create tens of thousands of jobs, with jobs remain in local areas for longer at windfarm sites due to their maintenance needs, while fracking moves away once all the fuel has been removed.  And an increase in windfarms will also reduce our electricity and heating costs in the long run.  Yet, while the Government have stated, unequivocally, that they will push forward fracking even if local councils rule against it occurring in their county, local opposition to windfarms have been given the power to block applications.  While fracking companies will be getting tax breaks, they are planning to remove subsidies that windfarm companies receive.  The Government has also promised to provide cash handouts to local people in fracking areas and yet the same incentive is not offered to those living in areas of onshore windfarms.  This is despite onshore windfarms being proven to be a low-cost, low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels.  Of course, I couldn't possible comment on why they may have made this decision.

There are a number of sites you can go to to get more information.  Not surprisingly Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have information and Frack Off allows you to see all the locations in the UK connected to fracking.  But, to get the Government's point of view it's worth looking at their own publications, like their guidance to fracking and their FAQ page.