Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

1 2

Just saw Collapse (28 posts)

  1. Victronix
    Member

    We can't all expect to agree on everything, but I'm confused about why there is so much promotion of a movie in which a review describes his treatment of alternative energy as including --

    brisk dismissals of every form of alternative energy ("Ethanol is an absolute joke -- it takes more energy to make ethanol than you can make burning it") http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/20...

    Can one not see why this is problematic?

    The response that "well, alternatives can't solve the problems so ignore them" isn't helpful -- to bash alternatives as basically something some hobbyists are tinkering with sets them up for the same swamp that is happening with the hoax claims about global warming being man-made.

    What should have happened is both -- the realities of peak oil and the advocacy of alternative energy, regardless of the doomsday scenario and inevitable world oil wars.

    It's too bad that Roger Ebert repeats what the real role of alternatives can be and what we can expect without any type of consultation into other views. Not everyone agrees that we should dismiss them all and try to represent them all with a reference to ethanol.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  2. christs4sale
    Administrator

    I am excited about the movie because the issues in it are potentially getting some mainstream attention. Please do not think that I blindly support Ruppert because I have posted before about his deplorable behavior after the death of Gary Webb. I am fully aware that it was not the only instance of that type of behavior. I wish the film did not ignore 9/11 in context with Peak Oil and I wish that he explained the White House harassment that he described in the film instead of sounding irrational, as Mark has already said.

    That being said, the "brisk dismissals" are the LA Times writer's categorization rather than what I, or most likely anyone else on this forum, felt the criticism of alternative energies was. Although he is making that statement about ethanol, from what I have read, David Pimentel's work evaluating ethanol as a net energy loser gives substance to the statement. And he sites Pimentel in the film. Each section is a bit more elaborate than the Times is making it out to be, but they are brief. It is a standard length film, so there is only so much time to evaluate the alternatives that are covered. Also, a lot of Ruppert's arguments against alternatives concern infrastructure change to alternatives, the potential lack of raw materials to build the alternative infrastructure and the unlikeliness that the alternatives, especially the relatively sustainable ones, will be able to pick up the slack to continue economic growth in its current form.

    What should have happened is both -- the realities of peak oil and the advocacy of alternative energy, regardless of the doomsday scenario and inevitable world oil wars.

    I totally agree, but I think Ruppert basically does this in his book. He does not dismiss solar and wind, but rather says that they should be used as much as possible to soften the downward side of the curve.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  3. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yes, this was also one of my critiques of the movie. There aren't that many solutions discussed. I don't remember one mention of permaculture. Maybe the point is that most people have to face the horrible reality before they should be jumping into solutions...

    I assume it was probably the director of the movie more than Ruppert who decided not to include many solutions/alternatives

    From what I've seen, Ruppert has always tried to break through people's barriers to really communicate the urgency of the situation; to get it to sink in and be real. This is a noble task, and he did succeed in reaching me with "Truth and Lies of 9/11" about 6 years ago.

    The approach that we're going to take tonight is very straightforward...There is a procedure that you follow when you are presenting evidence. There is a way that you structure evidence to avoid speculation. And there is a way to fight this government.

    I'm going to be saying some things tonight that are kind of going to be backing you into a corner and that is my direct intent. So some of the things we are not going to talk about tonight are speculations about the attacks on September 11th. We are not going to talk about "were there explosives in the building," "were the planes piloted by remote control, because those are speculative questions that produce the same kind of results that we just saw on the tape (JFK assassination): you can play that all you want and it doesn't change anything.

    Now there is another way to take on the government. There is another way to take on the lunacy of the mass media. And that is by using their own statements and own evidence against them to prove that they are lying.

    Posted 14 years ago #
1 2

Reply

You must log in to post.