Skip to content

Michael Moore on Biomass

May 5, 2020

By Paul Homewood



Michael Moore’s new film has been widely discussed, and I have not pushed it before as it is an hour and a half long.

However, with Drax in mind, I would suggest you watch the segment on biomass, beginning at 52 minutes in. It runs for about 20 minutes, but it is also worth carrying on to the 1.26 mark, as there is also a lot of relevant stuff on how environmentalists, such as the Sierra Club and Bill McKibben have got into bed with billionaires and bankers. The Sierra Club’s green fund’s biggest holding, for instance, is in Viva, the world’s largest consumer of forests, to be incinerated in green energy biomass plants.


Some of the things shown in the film might note relate to Drax specifically, but they are symptomatic of the industry worldwide.



I’ll leave you with this graph, showing how renewable energy is actually dominated by biomass.




BTW – if you want a good laugh, FF to 1.27, for the Earth Day concert!

  1. Mad Mike permalink
    May 5, 2020 12:14 pm

    I don’t know if you can get to this article, as it might be behind a paywall, but is by Rupert Darwell who bravely slams the politicians for agreeing with Net Zero and trying to get the UK there by 2050. Unusual article for MSM but I have seen other articles in the DT that veer away from the mantra of CC and Net Zero.

    • Ian Magness permalink
      May 5, 2020 12:50 pm

      Sadly Mike, this is paywalled but it might be worth Paul H copying.
      Robert Darwall is always very good – in speech and in writing. Plenty more of his informed musings can be found via the GWPF.
      The single saddest part of this article is the description of our supposed deputy leader Raab who has totally aligned himself with the climatariat’s desire to turn the Coronavirus disaster into forced net zero. It is simply quite incredible that senior Conservatives like Raab cannot see the economic disaster that net zero would be, that we simply cannot begin to afford such a luxury now and that, if they bothered to check the actual science and statistics, it is in any event a ridiculous policy that will achieve nothing – net zero in fact.
      Why is it so hard for people like Raab to check the facts and begin to think for themselves?

      • Mad Mike permalink
        May 5, 2020 2:19 pm

        Ian, Raab and the rest of them are fed news and information by Humphries, senior civil servants if you haven’t seen Yes Minister, so they will only be getting what the Civil Service wants to give them. Its called briefing or hiding the truth to you and me.Guess what their agenda is.

      • Mad Mike permalink
        May 5, 2020 2:45 pm

        Here’s the article. It’ll be up to Paul if he wants to print it.

        “When economies emerge from the pandemic, aggressive climate policies should be the priority, according to Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary and Boris Johnson’s deputy. Sounding like a modern day King Canute, he has urged governments to turn the tide on climate change. “There’s no choice between cutting our emissions and growing our economy,” Mr. Raab claims. “That’s a myth the UK has helped to shatter over the past decade.”

        In fact, the last decade saw Britain rack up its worst productivity performance since the Industrial Revolution. Ministers don’t tell us how we cut them by exporting our industrial base – emissions relating to imports from China are 276pc higher compared to 1997. The Government can forget about re-shoring vulnerable supply chains as it would push up our emissions.

        France’s Emmanuel Macron, by contrast, is a good deal more honest, having described the choice on climate as profound and brutal. Decarbonising inflicts costs on the poorest in society and it shrinks blue-collar job opportunities, worsening the North South regional divide.

        Britain legislated its commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero after a mere ninety-minute debate in the House of Commons last June. Unlike the original 2008 Climate Change Act, the Government did not provide an economic impact assessment of net net and its analysis of the costs, of what it would to do the economy and an estimate of the potential climate benefits to Britain.

        Lack of scientific and economic rigour and objectivity is par for the course development of net zero and adoption of the 1.5°C target. In the run up to the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, the president of the Maldives held the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting to dramatise the threat to low-lying islands from rising sea levels and lobby for the 1.5°C limit and incorporated in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Yet there was no satisfactory scientific basis for the sinking island fable. As Charles Darwin explained in the 1830s, coral atolls are formed by gentle subsidence of the seabed and, surprise, surprise, islands such as the Maldives have seen their land area expand.

        After the politicians had decided on the policy, scientists, in the shape of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), were invited to provide a special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.

        The IPCC had a problem. Its existing 1.5°C carbon budget – the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted to keep global warming from rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – was all but used up.

        Obviously there was no point in agreeing a limit only to have it busted almost immediately. Helped by computer climate models running too hot and over-predicting warming since 2000, an IPCC lead author admitted, the IPCC found a way of more than doubling the 1.5°C budget and keeping the climate show on the road. Although the IPCC only had medium confidence in its revised 1.5°C budget, it claimed high confidence that emissions had to reach net zero by 2050.

        Perhaps that’s because the IPCC sees net zero as providing, it says, the opportunity for “intentional societal transformation” and makes little secret of its ideological hostility to capitalism and economic growth. Like the government, the IPCC doesn’t put a price tag on net zero, but the few numbers it produces are eye-popping, with costs ranging up to sixty times the hypothetical climate benefits estimated by the Obama administration.

        Indeed, the IPCC concedes that net zero will hit the world’s poor hard with higher food prices and delay the transition to clean cooking, one of the biggest causes of avoidable deaths in poorer countries. There is no ethical, economic or social justification for such policy overkill and its immense destruction of human welfare.

        Fortunately net zero isn’t going to happen whatever politicians here might think. The West’s pre-pandemic emissions account for around one quarter of global emissions. Buying into net zero will turn Europe into a continent of zombie economies, but the rest of the world isn’t going to follow.

        The Prime Minister has only one chance to ensure rapid and sustained economic recovery from the lockdown – and that is to scrap every obstacle that stands in the way of economic growth, the biggest of all being the net zero climate noose. If he fails, he and his government will be toast, his political career be ruined and the Conservatives will be remembered for this policy-made economic disaster. Keeping Boris’s commitment to net zero won’t be pretty.

        Rupert Darwall is a Senior Fellow of the RealClear Foundation and author of The Climate Noose published by the GWPF”

    • ianprsy permalink
      May 5, 2020 4:20 pm

      What’s equally frustrating is that it gives local authorities licence to make suicidal pledges, in our own case setting even sillier targets than HMG. They haven’t a clue what they’re committing taxpayers to, but don’t care.

  2. May 5, 2020 12:41 pm

    Does he point out that biomass produces far more CO2 than coal due to its lower calorific value? As regards emissions over the next 30 years, it makes no difference whether one is releasing CO2 sequestered 100s of millions of years ago, or CO2 that was sequestered in the past some 60 to 80 years ago. Especially when you bear in mind how much more CO2 is emitted when burning biomass say to the very much more efficient Gas.

    Biomass is false accounting just like the Enron scandal.

  3. May 5, 2020 12:45 pm

    Rush Limbaugh pointed out recently that in an interview, Michael Moore admitted that he had been unaware of where the electricity to run his car originated–coal baby, coal.

    How many years has Moore been running his mouth without the slightest idea about the origins of power to produce and run his possessions?

    • May 5, 2020 7:45 pm

      Symptomatic of lack of awareness of many so-called environmentalists. At least Moore and his colleague woke up.

  4. Mad Mike permalink
    May 5, 2020 12:48 pm

    Here’s a reaction to Michael Moore’s original movie The Planet of the Humans.

    Michael Shellenberger is the speaker.

    • Mad Mike permalink
      May 5, 2020 12:53 pm

      Wrong link but interesting. The one I meant to link is below.

  5. Mad Mike permalink
    May 5, 2020 12:52 pm

    A reply to the original movie Planet of the Humans by Michael Shellenberger

  6. Jason permalink
    May 5, 2020 1:15 pm

    The good stuff is very good of course, but the film carries another lethal payload….the overpopulation myth, the root deception underpinning all the others.

    • Broadlands permalink
      May 5, 2020 2:00 pm

      Jason… You might want to read, if you can find it, a very short paper published over 30 years ago with the title: Carbon Dioxide and People… by Newell and Marcus. The correlation between population (the activities of people) and Mauna Loa CO2 remains almost perfect today.

    • Chaswarnertoo permalink
      May 6, 2020 7:57 am

      The world has room. Great Britain, especially England, is overpopulated.

      • Mike Jackson permalink
        May 6, 2020 11:04 am

        Glad I’m not the only one who has noticed! It always seems that the ones complaining loudest about over-population are the ones who live in South-East England and complain even louder when anyone suggests moving their job to the Midlands or — shudder!! — “The North”!!

        (I speak as a Northerner, you understand).

  7. MrGrimNasty permalink
    May 5, 2020 1:24 pm

    Emissions from burning waste should be incredibly clean (unless you worry about CO2) with modern computer controlled high temperature incinerators etc.

    And yet they were chipping tyres and creosote and PCP soaked timbers in the open air so the dust could blow all over the local school/town!

    Yet more crazy stupidity.

  8. Broadlands permalink
    May 5, 2020 1:40 pm

    The problem with biomass, bioenergy, is the fact that it takes no CO2 from the atmosphere, even adding to it. CCS technology is supposed to do that. The biofuel concept requires the annual replanting of ethanol-generating plants (that are replacing human agriculture) and never stopping? And, of course, biofuels are 90% fossil fuel and are instantly burned in ICE vehicles. Talk about stupidity… recycling it to “save” the planet.

  9. Coeur de Lion permalink
    May 5, 2020 2:06 pm

    Houghton gets eulogistic obit in today’s Times. Full of misapprehension

  10. Broadlands permalink
    May 5, 2020 3:09 pm

    Paul… What is the source (a reference) for your graph on global renewable energy?

  11. MrGrimNasty permalink
    May 5, 2020 3:41 pm

    Funny how 350’s McKibbles had such a painful senior moment with his own funding when his ilk put so much effort into investigating the opposition for their ‘big oil’ conspiracy.

  12. May 5, 2020 4:04 pm

    “Have you ever wondered what would happen if a single species took over an entire planet?”

    No sir, but I often wonder how the human race accumulated so many eco wacko goofballs like you.

  13. Mad Mike permalink
    May 5, 2020 4:26 pm

    Off topic.

    i think people are trying to outbid each other in showing how hot its going to be. This guy is going for 7C on land. Anybody for 8?

  14. Andrew Dickens permalink
    May 5, 2020 8:42 pm

    This article appeared in the Telegraph, but no other UK newspaper would carry such an article. Nor would any broadcaster. What the UK needs is a Telegraph-like broadcaster to provide some balance.

    • May 5, 2020 9:02 pm

      Sky Australia is successful down-under, their clips on youtube are a joy to watch.

  15. May 5, 2020 10:21 pm

    The biomass shown in the diagram would include ‘wood, forestry residue, animal dung, human excrement, and agricultural residues in the form of crop waste like stalks’ etc, that are the primary source of energy for heating and cooking in the Third World: ‘65% in Haiti, 72% in Kenya, 78% in Democratic Republic of Congo, 81.5% in Nigeria, 85% in Tanzania, to 89% in Kenya and Niger”.

  16. May 6, 2020 8:12 am

    And don’t forget all the wood burning heaters that have been increasing in the western world that have added to the total, as a measure to counter the ever increasing costs of electricity resulting from national green agendas. And of course they are now under fire for other, adverse, emissions by the same greenists, predominantly.

  17. Coeur de Lion permalink
    May 6, 2020 8:16 am

    Off thread – you’ve seen the Ferguson scandal? What a delicious lass – if younger I’d wear a face mask for her!

    • Gerry,England permalink
      May 6, 2020 9:30 am

      She is a commie and has worked for

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      May 6, 2020 9:46 am

      Bit of a gift for the government when the blame game starts for the catastrophe of ‘following the science’.

      Today the BBC is noticeably starting to transition coverage to the next stage of the propaganda strategy – blanket coverage pushing the climate/green transition recovery.

  18. charles oston permalink
    May 9, 2020 9:43 am

    having just watched the planet of the humans, i take my hat off to the producers. It should be compulsory viewing for our wretched uk members of parliament and the lefty educational establishment and the rest of the green blob.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: