The 11th Hour?

Astroturf.....Is this the best criticism you could find?

Patrick Moore (the writer of the criticsm) runs a PR firm for forestry companies (and other big industries).
What do you think he's going to say?

"During the past 15 years, we have managed the environmental reputation of leading global industries by engaging government, academic, environmental and social agencies."
-From the wesite of Greenspirit Strategies LLC.

Some of what he says makes a lot of sense. Forestry IS an important and largely sustainable industry that does a lot of good things.
But we should NOT have a goal of increasing the use of wood and paper
products EXCEPT as a way to reduce use of more toxic materials. Reducing waste is a GOOD thing, even if it is waste of a sustainable industry. (think junk mail).

BTW, I haven't seen the 11th hour and don't plan to. It's more fear mongering, which I've had enough of. Not to say it won't have alot of good info, either, but none of it is news to me.

 

Considering tha majority of speakers in this film are in the tops of their fields and highly respected, I would like to see how creative the opposing industry mouth-pieces will debate their information.

I don't see this film as so much fear mongering as bringing awareness coupled with solutions.

Darwood, have you read any of the books by David W. Orr, Paul Hawkin, Kenny Ausubel etc? Or wathd any of the Bioneers progams?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 29 2007, 11:26 AM) [snapback]503866[/snapback]</div>

For the record, Moore was also a co-founder of Greenpeace so he is no enemy of the environmental movement - just an enemy of environmental extremism. Anyway, I agree it may be fear mongering, though I guess to F8Ls point maybe interesting - depending on the experts assembled and the level of balance provided to the topic (though I have a sneaking suspicion there will be little in the way of balance).

 

I take it this is not based on the book by Graeme Base?

 

"For the record, Moore was also a co-founder of Greenpeace so he is no enemy of the environmental movement - just an enemy of environmental extremism."

He's a hippy sell out. Like Ann Coulter. He gets paid to spin environmental issues and guide industry PR. I'm not saying he does no good either. I'm sure he tries his best to provide guidance on proper environmental practices for these industries, and he may even avoid industries that are hopelessly laisse-faire about the environment. (He mostly represents the timber industry). He may need to feed his family, but you still have to take into account which side his bread is buttered on if you are to take his editorial as legitimate criticism.

I have not read those books.
I'm sure the Leo movie is good info, but anyone who follows this stuff a lot, probably aren't going to find anything new. That's how I felt about An Inconveniant Truth. Good info, but nothing new to me, (except the hyperbole).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 30 2007, 06:40 AM) [snapback]504261[/snapback]</div>

From what I have read of and by Moore he strongly advocates sustainability and partnering with industry and government to address environmental issues within the framework of free markets and our existing political system. I see nothing wrong in "buttering ones bread" based on that agenda - all though to the no-holds barred extremists who would rather rant and rave than seek broadly acceptable solutions, I suppose he is a "traitor".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 29 2007, 09:17 PM) [snapback]504157[/snapback]</div>

There is quite a line up of big names.

Sustainable Design
Bruce Mau
Rick Fedrizzi
William McDonough

 

"rather rant and rave than seek broadly acceptable solutions"
That's not me. I don't have a problem with Moore's work, I really don't. I just think his comments were of the "Don't pick on my industry" type, which is fine. And Washington1788 seemed to think that this constituted a damning criticism of the movie, which it doesn't. That's why I brought up the clear bias in the editorial, and in the OP.

Good to see Matt Simmons and James Woolsey in there!
I'm curious, who guided the project and brought togethor all of the above people? Was it really Leo, or is he the cute face pulled in to be the narrator? He's a better choice for it than Al Gore! Gore is to easy for conservatives to bash, without fear of upsetting their constituents. Bashing Leo, could cost them MANY female voters.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 31 2007, 07:07 AM) [snapback]504849[/snapback]</div>

I wondered the same thing. My guess is there was a snowball effect. As you well know, Paul Hawken recently published a book called "Blessed Unrest" which details this movement of movements (Social Justice and Environmental) and as such he has a vast collection of data on the millions of organizations working on these issues. He is also part of the Bioneers so many of these people already know each other and most likely helped in gathering other influential speakers. I know of at least 15 of those names who have spoken at Bioneer events.

In the process of typing this I found a link to the Bioneers involvement with The 11th Hour and there are actually 31? Bioneers in this movie. Link and short bios HERE.

 

I viewed the film (http://wip.warnerbros.com/11thhour/mainsite/site.html) last weekend, and thought it was pretty good. The information being presented was very very densely packed. It was like drinking from a fire hose. I imagine I could watch the film three times, and pick up new things each time.

A few of things that I particularly liked that stuck with me were:
- The use of the terms "ancient sunlight" and "current sunlight" to describe fossil fuel and renewable sources of energy respectively. I thought that was a neat way to put the way in which we satisfy our demand for energy into perspective. It also emphasizes that ultimately all our energy comes from the sun. Again, important for getting proper perspective.
- Although there was a tremendous amount of "save the planet" language, there were also a few occassions where the speakers emphasized that the "planet" will actually be just fine - the real problem is that it will become inhospitable for humans and many other species. I think this is an important distinction. My perception has been that the environmentalist community has traditionally missed the mark by using "save the planet" type language, which suggests their actions are primarily altruistic. IMO, the case should be stated as being much more selfish in nature, rather than altruistic.
- In the film they make the statement that 99.9999% of all species ever present on the earth have gone extinct (which I assume to be true) - the vast vast vast majority by "natural" causes. If the human race is going to beat these odds, it will be necessary for us to manage our climate and natural resources (ie. "our" planet) selfishly AND wisely. Technology will play a key role in achieving this.

Patrick Moore took offense to the film in the above article, labeling it as "anti-forestry scare tactics". I must honestly admit that I don't remember the anti-forestry sentiment in the film. I'm sure it was probably there. But with so much information packed in, it was not something that I took away from it. That's the thing about this film - the information is so dense, that viewer's will come away remembering elements that resonate with them personally.

With that said, I must also say that I agree with every word in Patrick Moore's article. I'm not that familiar with the forestry industry, and how well it is actually run. But from a scientific and energy conscious perspective, well managed forestry fits right into the category of renewable/sustainable resources. The wood from forests is a product of "current sunlight" as opposed to the "ancient sunlight" we use when we burn fossil fuels.