With considerable dismay, I watched this troubling (though cleverly titled) film a few nights ago. My bottom line: I have no way of judging whether any given claim is accurate. Critical thinking is not the film\u2019s strong suit, though the filmmakers are certainly \u201ccritical.\u201d Pronouncements are often ex cathedra<\/em> so that we are expected to take the word of someone (often that of the narrator or producer) without further validation. This shortcoming makes all the difference, especially for those among the deniers[1]<\/a> and 3+ million viewers in general (so far) prone to take it at face value and make it a basis for future approaches to the climate crisis.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n CAVEATS\/FULL(?) DISCLOSURE<\/p>\n The film was initially released in 2019, and on Earth Day this year[3]<\/a> Moore arranged for YouTube to screen it for free through May 21.[4]<\/a> It is directed by Jeff Gibbs and produced by Ozzie Zehner, both of whom have a lot of their own ideas (\u201cbeliefs\u201d?) to stake out (Gibbs is the narrator), with Michael Moore as Executive Producer (in the film\u2019s ad, his name is as prominent as Gibbs\u2019s).[5]<\/a> Moore\u2019s name, of course, gives the film an imprimatur[6]<\/a> that, in this case, prompted me to watch, which I probably wouldn’t have done had it been characterized as a \u201cJeff Gibbs [or Ozzie Zehner] film.\u201d (I assume that like me, many other people never previously heard of Gibbs or Zehner.)<\/p>\n In general, I\u2019ve enjoyed Moore\u2019s own directed films and his puckish approach to revealing social\/political\/economic improprieties, [7]<\/a> many of which I have assumed are real. I don\u2019t feel that way about this film. I have no idea how much control he exercised over it\u2014or, to put it another way, how intimately versed or knowledgeable he was on every detail.<\/p>\n For Gibbs and Zehner, this film is in great part a mea culpa<\/em> atonement. Long-time environmental supporters of green energy, they have had epiphanies about how wrong they were\u2014not about climate change, but about a green solution. They are both soft-spoken, which lends a tone of credibility to what are often highly questionable pronouncements.<\/p>\n Climate scientists I trust, like Michael Mann (who is never mentioned in the film), have charged the movie as \u201cdangerous, misleading and destructive\u201d and called for it to be \u201ctaken down,\u201d though despite its seeming echo of trumpism argumentative (to put it nicely) strategies, my ACLU background makes me oppose that. Indeed, one distributor took it down for half a day but finally \u201cdecided to put it back up because we believe media literacy, critique and debate is the best solution to misinformation.\u201d[8]<\/a> There is no question in my mind, however, that the film\u2019s presence will make our job much harder in garnering support for \u201cgood\u201d renewable energy (like the solar and wind the filmmakers repudiate, as opposed to biomass, which they justly criticize), and, by extension, educating people on the subtleties of the climate crisis.<\/p>\n The film\u2019s strongest moments are when it presents published material in support of its claims, but even that raises questions. Its weakest moments are when we\u2019re expected to take as gospel each on-screen interpretation or local problems that, if real, may not be widely representative.[9]<\/a> I kept finding myself wondering how many interviews had NOT been used, especially if they did not serve the goal of the film makers. No major climate scientist, like Michael Mann[10]<\/a> or Katherine Hayhoe,[11]<\/a> is included (though of course I don\u2019t know if any were interviewed). The filmmakers do interview academics who reinforce their goals, though so far as I remember, none are explicitly climate scientists.<\/p>\n What is the film\u2019s goal? Here\u2019s a reasonable, if angry, take:<\/p>\n The main argument of this movie is that renewable energy not only isn\u2019t better than fossil fuels, but is harmful because it\u2019s the result of some kind of grand conspiracy between financial interests and big environmental groups to distract us from the real solution.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n I think the \u201cbecause\u201d is unwarranted: even if collusion exists between \u201cfinancial interests and big environmental groups,\u201d it could be a marriage of convenience rather than a ruthless conspiracy, and if you accept that renewable energy is harmful (which I am disinclined to do), other reasons are possible besides the alleged conspiracy (which in turn might or might not leverage the opportunity for nefarious behavior).<\/p>\n On the surface, the film certainly sets out to expose drastic shortcomings in the climate crisis movement, including hypocrisy of some of its key public figures (like Al Gore and Bill McKibben), and organizations (like the Sierra Club and 350.org) and their selling out to (big) business interests. But below the surface I sense a suspect agenda, characterized by one review as \u201cecofacism,\u201d[13]<\/a> So far as I recall, the film neither considers nor bashes a single one of the 97%+ of knowledgeable climate scientists who warn of the coming disaster and often recommend technology that the filmmakers denounce.<\/p>\n Gibbs and Zehner offer no recommendations for solutions to the problems they raise[14]<\/a>\u2014though much as I would have welcomed that, I will acknowledge that this is not a fatal flaw; just publicizing the depressing information can be reasonable for the moment\u2026IF that information is trustworthy.<\/p>\n One criticism (April 24, 2020) contends that the film is not only sloppy but sometimes just wrong, and that it is rehashing old ideas.[15]<\/a> If so (and I have no reason to doubt it), that should be the end of the story. But I\u2019m on a roll and won\u2019t stop\u2026<\/p>\n Often, I felt the film was making irrational leaps based on imperfect achievements of ongoing research and technological development. At least some\u2014maybe many\u2014claims may well be true in principle but come across as making the compromised subject worthless when in fact the shortcomings are hardly surprising (though the film makes those shortcomings sound more severe than many of us may have come to think). For example: two separate and often cited moments show behind-the-scenes shots of a seemingly large number of solar panels intended to power the event. Accompanying clips of stagehand \u201crevelations\u201d trivialize the woefully disappointing actual solar generation for the amount of advertised solar use (with an underlying tone that the event organizers made deliberately misleading claims). The film also offers the shocking! shocking! observation that in the event of rain (or just shortage of general solar-generated electricity), the festival must rely on natural gas (a fossil fuel, of course). How dare we settle for such imperfect technology??<\/p>\n At least one parallel scene in a large field of solar panels (built in 2008[16]<\/a>) in Lansing, Michigan, has a spokesperson dismissing the practicality of solar energy as too limited (this huge field of panels, he assures us, will power only about 10 homes) and too costly.<\/p>\n Okay. But even if accurate, these denunciations of solar energy feel all-or-nothing: a disappointing result (especially if deliberately distorted by concert organizers) somehow invalidates the entire solar concept. I would have thought that we all know that current technology (an important subject further addressed below) needs work; indeed, all technology of any kind is usually a process of incremental improvement. For green energy, key concerns include whether such limited successes are better than nothing, whether they’ve been implemented too early, how they compare with alternatives, and how they may evolve. This is one of many points at which I\u2019d have liked information from a trustworthy scientist well versed in the subject. Instead, we get interviews with seemingly sincere stagehands (perhaps flattered by the chance to be in a film, though quite possibly truthful within the framework of whatever they know) and the director\u2019s (and presumably producer\u2019s) inferences that we are to take them as objective.[17]<\/a><\/p>\n This kind of uncertainty permeates the film. Exactly whom can we trust? What personal agendas do the interviewees have? Have they been coached at all by the filmmakers? Probably not, but again and again I found myself wanting to know just how independently accurate the narrator\u2019s and interviewees\u2019 statements are.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s one possible counter to the film\u2019s dismissal of all renewable energy:<\/p>\n \u2026the technology used for wind and solar energy has improved markedly in recent years, while the costs have plummeted. Meanwhile, while electric cars often require fossil fuel-generated energy to produce them and provide the electricity to fuel them, research [on electric car batteries][18]<\/a> has shown they still emit less greenhouse gas and air pollutants over their lifetime than a standard petrol [i.e., gasoline] or diesel car.<\/p>\n A book-length study by a collection of various specialists in environmental academia argues that ultimately, renewable energy is, in fact, feasible.[19]<\/a><\/p>\n After the Lansing clip, the film proceeds to a parallel dissing of wind power. At the end of that scene, Gibbs asks, \u201cIs it possible for machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilization?\u201d Just in case we had any doubt about the answer, he uses the rest of the film to answer the question with profuse evidence to the contrary.<\/p>\n One of his sources for support is from University of Oregon Professor of Sociology and Environmental Studies, Richard York. In a 2012 article in a peer-reviewed publication, York wrote:<\/p>\n I show that the average pattern across most nations of the world over the past fifty years is one where each unit of total national energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-quarter of a unit of fossil-fuel energy use and, focusing specifically on electricity, each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity. These results challenge conventional thinking in that they indicate that suppressing the use of fossil fuel will require changes other than simply technical ones such as expanding non-fossil-fuel energy production.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know York\u2019s science background for environmental studies (at least nominally, his PhD was in sociology), or what new data or replies have appeared in the last 8 years, but his troubling conclusion could point to abandonment of such technological efforts\u2026or to advances in those efforts. Interviewed in the film (presumably in the last year or so), York seems to extend his point from a relatively small gain over fossils fuels to a contention that countries are actually making things worse with their green energy efforts.<\/p>\n This kind of presentation leads to the huge problem, often debated and to which I\u2019m sympathetic, of \u201ctechnological fixes.\u201d[21]<\/a> Briefly, as I understand the principle, the question is whether a technological \u201cadvance\u201d inevitably produces backlashes that make its use worse than its benefits.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n Given that it\u2019s unrealistic to expect that we will undo the \u201cprogress\u201d of \u201ccivilization\u201d (war[t]s and all) and especially its material culture, how do we approach technology in relation to stopping (and reversing) the human-caused climate crisis before it\u2019s too late (assuming it isn\u2019t already)? The filmmakers raise an issue that has concerned me for many years:[23]<\/a> what is the trade-off between possible technological solutions and their drain on human and environmental resources? As the film observes, manufacturing solar panels involves energy use for mining many resources (which in at least some cases are medically dangerous to the miners), manufacturing and assembling the panels, sending out salespeople, transporting the panels, and installing them. And then their efficacy will gradually diminish, and at some point totally need replacing, with a repetition of that cycle, unless during that 20-30 year period, the technology is significantly improved, or replaced. (Barbara invites us to compare how we take for granted replacement needs for fossil-fuel driven technology on which we depend, like furnaces.) These are not trivial matters, but I don\u2019t see why we\u2019d be ready to renounce all such efforts. More importantly\u2014and more difficult\u2014is trying to gauge which<\/em> efforts have promise worth pursuing and which should be sidelined. That\u2019s a guessing game that even the most qualified may find hard to judge,[24]<\/a> though the filmmakers seem to have no trouble with it.<\/p>\n The same kind of concern applies, say, to electric vehicles (EVs). My privileged financial station in life allows me to own a Prius, but I\u2019ve never been sure of its full value, and I would certainly like to see massive amounts of convenient mass transit replace private vehicles (I assume the long-term resources-and-energy trade-off would be dramatic). I have been especially concerned about the toxic rare earths required for EV batteries; the mining is typically done by workers with little alternative to sustain themselves and anyone they support.<\/p>\n Biomass is another important concern in the film. Understandably, the focus is not on the general meaning (for example, \u201cthe amount of living matter in a given habitat, expressed either as the weight of organisms per unit area or as the volume of organisms per unit volume of habitat\u201d[25]<\/a>), but a more restrictive energy-generating context: \u201corganic matter, especially plant matter, that can be converted to fuel and is therefore regarded as a potential energy source.\u201d[26]<\/a> Barbara has pointed out to me that the topic is complicated well beyond simplistic definition that I\u2019m settling for here.[27]<\/a> According to the film\u2019s quotations, just as politicians and businesspeople often tout natural gas as a suitable fossil fuel replacement for coal or oil (\u201conly half the CO2 <\/sub>emission!\u201d), they frequently also praise biomass as a renewable, carbon-neutral substitute. The film depicts a number of disturbing uses of \u201cbiomass,\u201d and Scientific American <\/em>(for example) in 2018 previously echoed such concerns.[28]<\/a> There is a serious question of just how much carbon dioxide biomass actually generates (a lot, apparently) and \u201crenewable\u201d is a dodgy term for life forms that are being destroyed en masse <\/em>and can take decades or even longer to be replaced. So the criticism of biomass use seems important,[29]<\/a> though former environmentalist supporters appear to have seen the error of their ways.<\/p>\n Then there\u2019s this question: if Gibbs and Zehner only recently repented their own support for biomass, and if some environmentalists out there still support it, why should the filmmakers be so outraged? Wouldn’t you think they\u2019d have sympathy for those who haven\u2019t (yet) seen the light but maybe will thanks to the film?<\/p>\n The movie does take up an issue that I suspect is central to the climate crisis: overpopulation. A compelling pair of graphs, probably accurate, shows that in the 200 years or so of the Industrial Revolution, and thanks to its fossil fuel dependency (\u201ca resource developed over tens of millions of years\u201d), world population has multiplied 10 times and human general consumption has multiplied another 10 times, so that (according to this calculation) human impact is 100 times what it was 200 years ago. I have a perhaps unworthy suspicion that the filmmakers are hinting at a Malthusian dynamic but know it would hurt their cause if they said that aloud. The narration goes on to voice an understandable terror that I share about the accumulation <\/em>of human activities, of which climate change is only one, so that our chances of surviving as a species (or without apocalyptic wars) are small.<\/p>\n I find, though, that this (melo?)dramatic conclusion is a wedge for discounting any value in concern or response for the climate change we are undergoing, as if the cause is just too hopeless. Maybe it is, but what else can we do than try to undo this logic?<\/p>\n Population control is a highly sensitive topic (I don\u2019t think the film mentions that) because, among other things,[30]<\/a> its advocacy has come to be taken as a racist attack to diminish or eliminate non-white populations. To some extent, this charge must be true\u2014racists will glom onto anything that seems to further their agenda. But we all need to acknowledge the need to provide convincing explanations of the over-population problem with answers that DON\u2019T focus on anything resembling genocide\u2014indeed, with sympathy for the travails of the most out-of-control populations.[31]<\/a> Some of us are too intimidated to do this, and some of our accusers will not hear any challenge to their charges.<\/p>\n Barbara and I raise this issue in our presentations, which are almost always to white people; it\u2019s our failing that we haven\u2019t figured out how to engage diverse populations.<\/p>\n The most troubling part of the film for me is charges against major spokespeople in our movement as actually colluding with capitalism (if that term bothers you, substitute \u201cbig energy-related business\u201d). I have done some searching for replies from people the film attacks, but I only found this one from Bill McKibben (in which he acknowledges his own mea culpa <\/em>of once having supported biomass) that sounds reasonable: https:\/\/350.org\/response-planet-of-the-humans-documentary\/<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n Responses from Al Gore may be out there, but I haven\u2019t found any. (Please share any such information you may have.) Because of my experience in his training program, I especially feel he needs to confront this charge, which is buttressed by footage of compromising statements he has made and shots of his name associated with businesses significantly contributing carbon emission. There may be a lot more to this story that outright refutes (though I think that\u2019s unlikely) or at least mitigates his role and any attitude changes he has undergone.[32]<\/a> We thousands of Climate Reality acolytes could use a good deal of help in figuring out how and whether, in an honest but not unnecessary way, to integrate useful snippets from this film into our presentations. My own inclination, though not definitive, is to acknowledge its existence, point out the controversy about it, and otherwise leave it alone unless audience members voice specific concerns about it.<\/p>\n A few final observations:<\/p>\n What the movie showed to back up [a] claim was a pie chart showing, not German electricity<\/em> sources, but German energy<\/em> sources. This includes natural gas used for heating buildings, petroleum products used for transportation, and other industrial uses of energy. Wind may only account for a small percentage of Germany\u2019s overall energy needs, but it produces nearly 30% ;of its ele3ctricity, and that is important.[33]<\/a><\/p>\n And indeed, many other population centers report significant achievements in (good) green energy electricity generation. Would the filmmakers offer calculations to cast doubt on their claims, too?<\/p>\n We don\u2019t know how common this is, how \u201cnecessary\u201d it is, or how endangered this particular kind of growth is. Humans may need to find a way of balancing their needs with their exploitation of natural resources, but if we avoided any <\/em>destruction of natural resources, how would we continue to exist? Are we all really ready to return to hunting-gathering?<\/p>\n \u2026the film makes the weird observation that Sierra Club\u2019s Beyond Coal campaign coincided with the fracking boom in the United States, and concludes that the two are somehow connected.[35]<\/a><\/p>\n The film\u2019s ploy of ending with a few ironic comments can provide a similar effect, as when it acknowledges that McKibben has recanted his support for biomass but stresses that his college still uses it. Are we to think he has enough campus clout to change that condition but is refusing to use it? Or are we to expect him to leave the college altogether?<\/p>\n I could keep going. But I won\u2019t.<\/p>\n NOTES<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> For one example of a commentary that takes the film\u2019s claims at face value, see https:\/\/www.spectator.com.au\/2020\/04\/the-planet-of-the-humans-moore-vs-gore-and-the-renewables-recidivists\/<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Here\u2019s a buddy of the filmmakers extolling their production: https:\/\/www.counterpunch.org\/2019\/08\/09\/consuming-the-planet-of-the-humans-the-most-important-documentary-of-the-century\/<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Sabotage\u2026or an ill-advised effort to correct untruths?<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> The film is at https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE<\/u><\/a>. <\/u>The film\u2019s home web page is\u00a0 https:\/\/planetofthehumans.com\/<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> The web site highlights Moore saying (in caps): \u201cTHIS IS PERHAPS THE MOST URGENT FILM WE\u2019VE SHOWN IN THE 15 YEAR HISTORY OF OUR FILM FESTIVAL\u201d Moore co-founded this festival in 2005.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> I could understand why Moore might say we should take the arguments of this film seriously, but I am genuinely bewildered by why, with all its problems, he has given seemingly total, unquestioning support to it. Perhaps I should have listened more to critics of his earlier films, which I mostly found compelling, as insufficiently grounded? I hope not.<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Only one scene that I remember had the irreverent Moore touch\u2014when Gibbs and Zehner (and an unseen photographer) are threatened for having trespassed on property of a company they are trying to expose. They express mock innocence but gradually make their way off the property.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> https:\/\/www.filmsforaction.org\/watch\/michael-moore-presents-planet-of-the-humans\/<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> An especially disquieting example is a sequence that quotes Vandana Shiva, who, while lending rare diversity to the film\u2019s interviewees, has come under considerable criticism for her own ambiguous (to put it nicely) behavior. See for example the 2014 New Yorker <\/em>article https:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/magazine\/2014\/08\/25\/seeds-of-doubt<\/u>. I don\u2019t know if any follow-up accounts have indicated that she effectively addressed the criticisms in the five years between the article and the film\u2019s release.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Above, I cited his reaction to the film. Here\u2019s a 5-month old article about his more general concern about shifting strategies of client denial proselytizers: https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/science\/2019\/nov\/09\/doomism-new-tactic-fossil-fuel-lobby<\/u><\/a>.<\/u><\/p>\n [11]<\/a> Web site: http:\/\/www.katharinehayhoe.com\/wp2016\/<\/u>.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> https:\/\/www.thesolarnerd.com\/blog\/planet-of-the-humans-debunked\/<\/u><\/a>.A slightly different summary is: \u201cA delusion-shattering documentary on how the environmental and green energy movements have been taken over by capitalists.\u201d https:\/\/www.rottentomatoes.com\/m\/planet_of_the_humans<\/u><\/a>, April 22, 2020. While I liked this summary, since the site bills itself as spiritual, I didn\u2019t bother looking at how the evaluation plays out.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> https:\/\/earther.gizmodo.com\/planet-of-the-humans-comes-this-close-to-actually-getti-1843024329<\/u><\/a>. This commentary includes the damning claim that \u201cThere\u2019s a reason that Breitbart and other conservative voices aligned with climate denial and fossil fuel companies have taken a shine to the film. It\u2019s because it ignores the solution of holding power to account and sounds like a racist dog whistle.\u201d For more on ecofascism: https:\/\/newrepublic.com\/article\/154971\/rise-ecofascism-history-white-nationalism-environmental-preservation-immigration<\/u><\/a>.<\/u><\/p>\n [14]<\/a> Elsewhere, Gibbs is said to have \u201csuggested that unrestrained economic and population growth should be the target of environmentalists\u2019 efforts rather than technological fixes.\u201d [https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2020\/apr\/28\/climate-dangerous-documentary-planet-of-the-humans-michael-moore-taken-down<\/u><\/a>] I do agree that these should be included in our approach, but certainly not exclusively. I wonder why this perspective wasn\u2019t articulated in the film (or did I miss it?).<\/p>\n [15]<\/a> https:\/\/ketanjoshi.co\/2020\/04\/24\/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths\/<\/u><\/a><\/p>\n [16]<\/a> Ibid<\/em>.<\/p>\n [17]<\/a> This is the kind of moment when I wonder just how much Moore was involved with the film\u2014and if he was, why he gave passes to so many moments like this.<\/p>\n [18]<\/a> https:\/\/theicct.org\/sites\/default\/files\/publications\/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf<\/u><\/a>. If I\u2019m reading this correctly, however, it\u2019s only about the benefit of the batteries vs. fossil fuel and is not taking into account the lifetime cost of manufacturing and maintaining each kind of car. I\u2019d guess that the full financial and human cost of producing a Prius is greater than for a gasoline car.<\/p>\n [19]<\/a> https:\/\/web.stanford.edu\/group\/efmh\/jacobson\/Articles\/I\/CountriesWWS.pdf<\/u><\/p>\n [20]<\/a> The quotation is from the article abstract at https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/258686353_Do_Alternative_Energy_Sources_Displace_Fossil_Fuels<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n [21]<\/a> The film includes comments on this subject from a Penn State anthropologist, Nina Jablonski.<\/p>\n [22]<\/a> I know just enough about this topic to take it seriously without knowing how to decide whether (or when) it is apt. The topic is central to challenges of how to define the mostly useless idea of \u201cprogress.\u201d The problem of the technical fix can become a field day for modern Luddites, and it is (or should be) a major concern within the climate crisis movement. Obvious examples of questionable technology include nuclear energy and weapons, fossil fuel provision of energy, and the internet with its ability to deceive and attack people. We might also cite the whole industrial revolution and its variety of additions to human woes. Add your own examples. They’re seemingly endless.<\/p>\n Against such claims are those \u201cfixes\u201d that seem to prolong and ease lives, like developments in medicine (though a backlash here is the expanding and aging human population competing for limited resources), overall longevity (though regulated, so to speak, by class and wealth), leisure (though before \u201ccivilization,\u201d hunters-gatherers, short-lived though they might have been, reportedly had much less work to do and within their environmental realities, much more freedom), and access to resources (like reading and books) that stimulate gratifications for the brain.<\/p>\n How much of technological history is an escalating dialectic between development of \u201ctools\u201d with anti-social uses (like weaponry) and counters to them, which then breed new counters, and\u2026 (Hominin\u2014as opposed to the 300,000 or so years of homo sapiens<\/em>\u2014 tool-making goes back at least 2.2 million years.)<\/p>\n What about (the very complex issue of) population growth vs. family planning?<\/p>\n [23]<\/a> I used to fantasize that a book would be written showing long-term trade-offs of resources for various commodities\u2014e.g., an electric razor (including energy use and replacement life) vs. manual razors (including blades, shaving cream, after-shave).<\/p>\n [24]<\/a> A useful critique that seems to know what it\u2019s talking about asserts:<\/p>\n Planet of the Humans<\/em> is factually correct in pointing out that everything we might have thought of as \u201cgreen\u201d actually turns out to be tainted to some extent or other by association with fossil fuels. But that is hardly surprising, since literally everything<\/em> we build, buy, or trade has had some kind of fossil fuel input involved in it, from the food we eat, to the clothes we wear, to the chairs we sit on, to the houses we live in, to the books we read, to the phones we talk on. [https:\/\/www.filmsforaction.org\/articles\/skepticism-is-healthy-but-planet-of-the-humans-is-toxic\/<\/u><\/a>]<\/u><\/p>\n [25]<\/a> https:\/\/www.dictionary.com\/browse\/biomass<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.richardyanowitz.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/Doc6-MAYBE-CROPPED-300x171.jpg\")
\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 ![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.richardyanowitz.com\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/DOC7-MAYBE-CROPPED-300x260.jpg\")