 I think what's going to be interesting here is to talk about what, in a sense, they don't say in the movie, right, they don't actually explicitly come out and say. But before we get to that, there's a lot of interesting stuff in the movie. Actually is true, right, that is, that is actually educational for a lot of people. So what are some of the things that they bring out in the movie that is that's interesting and true? I mean, one way to frame this is there's this term green energy, you know, and the idea is we're going to get all of our energy from usually solar wind and batteries and then sometimes biofuels. So that's based on living plant matter like trees or corn crops or sugarcane. And I think there are two basic criticisms you can make of green energy. The one I'm focused on is it's not really energy. That is, it doesn't provide reliable energy at low cost in all the different forms on a scale of billions of people. That's for me the problem because energy is crucial for people's lives. But the other thing you can say in addition to the green energy isn't really energy. It isn't really green in the sense of having little impact on nature. No form of energy has little impact on nature in part because the whole purpose of energy is to impact nature. It's literally to do physical work to manipulate matter in nature. But then even to produce it is, you know, nature doesn't give us just electricity directly from the sun. So there's always an industrial process required to transform energy from its raw form into its usable form. And part of what's gone on with green energy is people just think, oh, the electricity just like the sun somehow beamed it to my house. And then it came out of the plug and it's clean and everything is dirty. So there was always this really big opportunity to take the halo off green energy, so to speak, by showing what is actually the process behind the scenes. And that's I think the most interesting relatively true part of this movie is that you see in visual form many of the industrial processes that go into producing so-called green energy. And then because of the philosophy of the movie, all the industrial processes are viewed as bad. So like you're melting metal, bad, taking up land, bad, mining, everything. But you then also do see certain things that one would regard as undesirable. As in like, you know, in particular, because green energy takes up a huge amount of space, they end up just bulldozing really, really scenic areas where for something like nuclear or natural gas, you wouldn't need to do that at all. So I think overall the one value of the movie, and it is a significant value, is to visualize the process by which green energy is produced and to view it as a process. And that's something the fossil fuel industry has really failed to do historically. One thing is they've had a reluctance to criticize green energy. And as part of that, they haven't been willing to say, well, our product is better than others and they're not willing to say, well, we're better at producing energy at a large scale. But they're also not willing to say, usually, hey, these are the processes that these guys are going through. Like, you know, if BP kills a handful of birds, you see birds in oil, like that gets national news, but then wind turbines by their nature chop up some of the most beautiful and rare form of birds and that doesn't get as much attention. So in a sense, part of the fossil fuel industry's job is being done for them by this movie. And that's why you're actually getting a lot of enthusiasm from them. But I think that enthusiasm is misplaced if we're really going to encourage people to watch this movie without severe qualifications. Yes. And so why is the energy industry so reluctant to bring up these points, which in this movie about kind of the cost of the so-called green energy and the even in their own terms, right, that this is so devastating. Why is the energy, this seems like a low-hanging food if you're going to criticize green energy. Why doesn't the industry do that at all? Well, the green, sometimes it goes by renewable, is viewed as a moral ideal. And the dominant narrative with energy is we need to transition from dirty, unsustainable fossil fuels to clean, sustainable green energy. And so the comfort zone for people not willing to challenge that narrative has been we are a necessary evil that is bridging us toward a future of green energy. So they have, I think a lot of reluctance to being seen as anti-green energy because they think that they have a coherent position of just saying, okay, leave us around for a couple of decades until green energy can take over and we're all four. And this is why you see on their brochures, you see wind turbines and solar panels and BP famously described themselves as beyond petroleum back before the oil spill. So I think that that's a big part of it is there's not a lot of moral clarity about what they do stand for positively because if I think if there was, they would talk about something like, you know, we want the best energy. We don't want the greenest energy. We want the best energy for human beings now and in the future. And we believe we produce that now and we're going to do our best to produce that in the indefinite future, but not we're getting off our evil energy. Just we need to do it slowly to be practical. And when you talk to energy executives out there, is anybody, are people receptive to the positive moral message? Yeah, I mean, certainly the easiest I think has been internally. So when talking to employees, I think there's probably a higher self-esteem in the fossil fuel industry. I mean, honestly, I think because of my work, then there was before that work. I mean, certainly anecdotally, have many people in surveys we've done, but just people saying, you know, I feel better about what I do. And for some of them, it's translated into the ability to articulate it. And I think that what's difficult, though, is on a on a corporate level or an association level to get that kind of buy in where people are willing to go out on a limb and say, hey, look, there are real problems with these alternatives. Like, yeah, it's not really energy and it's not really green. That takes a certain amount of that's a real commitment. And most of the communication in the fossil fuel industry is done by a very small the public communication is done by a very small, small handful of associations and companies. You're talking like the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, Mobile, Chevron, Shell, BP, and a lot of these are European. So they're even more enmeshed in the green. So, you know, some of them Exxon occasionally says in the good Chevrons, I think probably the best overall in terms of what they say. But it's been I think what what they'll do is they'll say pretty passively. But but but straightforwardly, hey, we're we are actually like we are going to be the lowest cost solution for decades to come. There is going to be demand for our product. But Exxon, for example, you see them with commercials glorifying algae based energy and other kinds of biofuels. Like that's they're more trying to say, yeah, we're innovators in this too. But I think what Michael Moore is not his movie, but Jeff Gibbs's movie that he is backing shows it's really powerful to demonize green energy. And I've been advocating for a little while that that you should demonize green energy in that all forms of energy should be viewed as competing processes. You can't have what some forms of energy are industrial processes. And then some are magic. Yeah, I mean, the first time I think it hit me, this idea of what green energy really is about is when you called and this is years and years ago, when you called the Tesla a coal car. And and that was just a brilliant integration. It kind of hit because it suddenly kind of hits you, right? Where does the electricity come from? And in the movie, they mentioned that they asked them. Well, and they do this over and over again. They keep asking, well, where does the electricity come from? Who is producing this electricity? So maybe let's do before we get into what the movie is really about. Let's do a you know, can you give us a few example of why green energy is not green that they present in the movie? Oh, yeah, they present a lot. And in my podcast, Power Hour, last week I show I have some clips from the movie, but, you know, one is just solar panels. So the insofar as people think solar panels are made of anything they think of it as just oh, it's just sand. So just like, oh, and people think, oh, there's a lot of sand, which is actually interesting because they're real sand shortages throughout the world, which is a whole fascinating industrial issue. And there's all there's a whole need for proper laws with sand because people are like dredging up beaches. It's like there's a I think it's called the world in a grain. They're using it for for beaches. So what's no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I mean, it's it's called I believe the there's a book called the world in a grain. It's I've read only part of it. It's it's fascinating. You can tell this is just a I mean, because they're just talking about the amount this is the most used resource in the world. It's used for building all these cities and where but they need it's like the sand that you have in the desert. If I'm remembering correctly, like that doesn't have the right structure to be the good basis of buildings. And so a lot of times they're like they're dredging up different beaches and there are sand pirates. Like this is a real issue that needs law. Crete for concrete for making. Yeah, I mean, it's just it's just a massive. If you look at how much sand China is using in these markets and it's going to be really interesting to see how it was. But that's why my beaches are being depleted from sand. I mean, that's it could be really not acceptable. That's right. It could be. But but but people's I think images while there's a desert and it's got a bunch of sand and then we just sort of run that sand and then it's solar panels and then OK, that's that's a little bit, but that's not so bad. And what Ozzie Zainer, who is the technical person in the movie, he wrote a book called Green. I think it's green illusions, not green illusions or green delusions, but it's green illusions. And he says, no, this is actually made from primarily quartz and coal. And if you think of quartz, you know, this beautiful rock and you see these quartz mines. So what they do is they're good at just showing you the visuals of OK, here's here's where this actually comes from. And then oh, it's also using coal. And then it's putting off these greenhouse gases. I think the most memorable sequence of the movie is there's about a two minute montage where it says how solar panels and wind turbines and batteries are made. And it's just it's got to be 150, like discrete clips. And it just shows like coal and melting metal. And you just get a and it's such a test of perspective because most of it is if you're pro industry, you think, oh, this is pretty cool doing it. But then they also will show, for example, in that montage, they'll show like children in the Congo picking up cobalt. And so that one would have real issues with particularly because it's not at all disclosed. And then they'll show with the, you know, so that's one kind of thing like the human rights issues of having child labor get cobalt so that green energy can be a little bit less expensive. Another thing is just the sheer size of the wind turbines. People have no clue of just how big those are. And so there's just these massive, massive structures like, you know, putting a 747, like, you know, whatever, the head of it up and the tail down. It's just these these massive things. And then they have a couple of examples of what happens when these things are no longer useful because there's an idea of renewable. But nothing has really renewable, but certainly not these structures that might have a 10, 20, maybe a max 30 year lifetime. And so then what happens these massive amounts of metal and concrete? And are they really decommissioned? And so they have a couple of they show examples where the wind turbines are just sitting there and rusting. And you get this idea, oh, wait, there's no real renewable magic energy. Everyone is playing the same game of trying to combine finite materials in a cost effective way to generate the different kinds of reliable energy that we need. And so in that sense, I think it's a it's a positive. But the whole slant on it is, no, we shouldn't be using this either. Yeah. I mean, I thought some of the funniest parts were where, you know, people claiming, oh, we've got solar energy or we got wind. Everything is renewable here. And then they go backstage. And what they find is, yeah, solar panels are basically providing electricity to this one lamppost, but everything. But there's not enough electricity to provide for the whole event or whatever. And it's even like a concert, right? It's not it's not like they're making steel is like they're powering. But they even went to this one array of solar panels in Michigan. And the guy said, well, really, if you really tested this, it could this couldn't even set massive array of maybe could do a house or 10 houses. I can't. Yeah. Now, this this is where though, this is where it's getting some legitimate criticism. So it's worth talking about how the green energy movement is criticizing it. Again, I discussed this in some depth in my podcast. But one thing you'll notice about some of the footage is a lot of it is about 10 years old. So it has it has the feel of this guy's been making this movie for a long time and trying to get it. And so you look at like that example from the examples from Michigan, they have the debut of the Chevy Volt, which is not exactly the newest battery power car. I think it's not even made anymore. It's at least about to go extinct. And so one of the criticisms of the movie is, oh, well, this is just criticizing green energy 10 years ago, but it's all improved. But the thing is 10 years ago, I remember you and I went to a green energy conference together when I was at I worked at the Andrian Institute. And like they were making all these claims back then of, oh, yeah, we can power the whole world by it. And it's not like they were saying, yeah, this doesn't work. And it's it messes up a lot of stuff, but we're working on it. It was no, this is the future now. We should mandate it now. We have the technology now. And so what you see is some of these things, although mostly not that the impact and danger issues I don't think have been addressed very often and in fact are much worse because the scale is bigger. But yeah, these like solar panels are more efficient than they were 10 years ago and wind turbines are more efficient and they're a little bit and batteries are certainly better. But the question, so for the green part of it, the green part, the green problem with green energy, in a sense, they're more efficient at generating energy. So there may be a little more green, but there's a lot of them. But for the energy part of it, yeah, they're a little better at energy. But the question is, are they actually self sufficient sources of energy that can substitute for fossil fuels? The answer is definitely no. So that's that part of it is still true and that the critics of it do not really engage with that. Or they keep saying the same schematic kind of propaganda they've been using for 10 or 15 or 20 years. And they never mentioned, I mean, the whole movie, they never mentioned. There's one mention of nuclear kind of throwaway, but there's no mention of nuclear power in alternative, nothing, zero. Yeah. And that's that's interesting. That goes, I think, to part of the philosophy of the movie because part of what's wrong with the movie is they're looking what I criticize people on how they evaluate fossil fuels because they're always exaggerating or more with the side effects. And they're always ignoring the benefits. And what this movie does is that just applies that methodology to everything. And then if there's an outlier case that doesn't really apply, it just ignores it. So, for example, on nuclear, like, if you're worried about wildlife, nuclear is definitely the best thing. It doesn't take up much space. You can do it anywhere and, you know, I mean, mainly it doesn't take up much space. And so you wouldn't need to cut down any for us. If that's, you know, to the extent that's a priority. So they don't mention it. But even I was just reviewing the beginning of the movie. They'll talk about the history and they begin with like people have been warning about they have one guy warning about catastrophic climate change in the late fifties or something. But then they then they also we can talk about that that kind of warning. But they show with pollution. They're like, oh, people used to be able to light the lake on fire and these other things, but they don't make the connection. Hey, wait a second, there's a lot less pollution now. And yet we have more energy and more industry. So isn't it possible to get more of the benefits of industry with fewer side effects? And that's the kind of thing with nuclear that that you could possibly have, or you can generate low cost energy more cleanly and, you know, with less disruption of anything you want to disrupt, it's going to take no space. And so they just ignore that. So the whole focus is everything they're trying to show in the movie is how human industry is invariably self-destructive and unsustainable. So what is what would you make the philosophical theme of the movie? What what's what's the point they're trying to make? Well, so, you know, I think the kind of plot theme, if we're going to use objective thermologies is something like green energy destroys the planet, too. Like a green energy or you can say like green energy can't save the planet. But I mean, the broader idea is that saving the planet requires dehumanizing the planet, that's what I call like planet of the humans. And that's a bad notice. That's a bad is not like, oh, it's really good that we've humanized the planet. So now it's a human friendly place. And it begins with like, what if the species took over a planet? Like, well, that sounds pretty good to me. Yeah. I mean, if you mean by takeover, like if you take over something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it means that you're in control of it and and you're not being hurt by it and you get to enjoy it. So I think like, yeah, is it good that we can take over Fiji? Yeah, that's good. I mean, in terms of we can enjoy that natural beauty and we can master it versus being at the mercy of nature. But that's so that's how I think of the overall theme. I thought the final few scenes were really reflected that. So so if I think about if I was going to project what what an environmental or any kind of a virus or whatever catastrophe would be to the world, you would show decayed cities, children starving, you know, things like that, things that affect your fate. But when they project what a catastrophe to the world is, they show monkeys dying. They show forests destroyed. This standard of value is completely centered around, you know, what they call the environment, nature out there. Monkeys are the superior, whatever they and of course, they elicit emotions because they're so human like, but they're not enough human enough to to to to to to be evil as the as the as the as these these filmmakers would suggest. So it's so it's anti human and, you know, nature as an ended itself, nature as an intrinsic value and all human beings can do. And this is true is, in a sense, destroy that nature, change it, manipulate it. And the profit motive, of course, is is the thing that drives that your self interest in a broader sense drives all that. Well, but I mean, destroy what it put in the same category as as master. I mean, from their perspective, it's definitely in the same. But their yes, for their perspective, and that's why they that's why they use the term master because for them, mastering is destroyed. Right. Yeah. So the final scene of the movie, and it's really well done scene is with this orangtang. Yes. And yes, a forest is being chopped down progressively and it's on a tree and it's like, you know, one limb gets chopped off and it has to go to another limb and the forest is shrinking. And then ultimately all the trees are down and then it's on the ground. And you're like, yeah, you don't want to see this. I mean, that's not an enjoyable thing. It's a it's a painful thing. And it looks a lot like a human. But the idea is like this is what industrial civilization is as inflicting misery upon this orangutan. Whereas in reality, the more primitive we are, the more we do have to be at war with that orangutan because we are so hard for us to produce food and we're so vulnerable to all the different parts of nature, including the orangutan in terms of just like taking our food that we do need to have an adversarial relationship. Whereas the more industrialized we are, the more we can master nature, the more we can decide, hey, it would be cool to have an orangutan preserve so we can see these animals. And I really like it. I really like seeing different animals. And I'm very enthusiastic about that kind of thing. And it's I think of it as like artworks and there are these evolutionary artworks and I would not like to see those works of mastery destroyed. But that that's what you wouldn't stop us, you know, Africa as it becomes richer, which hopefully it will one day building cities and in habitat, there was orangutan habitats. Yeah, it's a shrinking time of orangutans, ultimately. Yeah, or you could just put or it could also be that as you become wealthier than you just and you, you know, your a lot of your industry takes up a smaller space, then you can have larger amounts of space for that. And much, much better versions of what we have in terms of zoos. But I mean, it's definitely, yeah, but but part of what you're bringing up is that the idea and this is one of the evasions of the movie, the idea that billions of people have been raised from poverty and misery by industry. And there are billions more who are still in that state that has zero that is not acknowledged once in the movie except except it's acknowledged. And this is the most revealing part of the movie where this guy's do you remember what he said was the most disturbing statistic? Pretty much he had ever come across. No, I can't remember. It was it was a combination of the number of humans on the planet and then the amount of consumption of the humans on the planet. Is that graph the graph? Yeah, so it's 10 times more humans consuming 10 times each. They said, this means we're having 100 times more impact on the planet. So this is the most disturbing thing I've ever seen. And you just think about what that means concretely means that oh, yeah, humans are not dying during childbirth. They're not dying when they're 15. They're living a long time, so the death rate is lower. And they also are able to have something resembling a modern life. They're able to have ample food and protection from the elements and medical care and time to they can actually choose what they want to do with their life. That's what this impact amounts to. And yet he views this as bad. So there's just zero acknowledgement that nature does not give us the resources that we need to flourish and, in fact, it gives us many threats and that we have to radically transform nature to have a chance at flourishing. There's just no recognition of that, not even one time in the movie. It's basically just nature is perfect. We got greedy and now we're going to ruin it. And so we'll probably go extinct in 10 or 20 or 30 years. So what we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, women or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. Brought using the super chat. And I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity. Go to Iranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribe star.com Iranbrook show and and and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this to keep this going. I'm not showing the next.