Share post with someone:

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on whatsapp
Share on linkedin
Share on xing
Share on email

4 responses to “ Strong criticism of bioenergy "

  1. Good day!

    While looking for a factual film review of “Planet of the Humans” I came across your text. Thanks a lot for this. The film criticizes everything that I would criticize about the Green movement, but it is really dark (the NZZ article begins with “Don't watch this film with your children” - probably true, such a warning would have I also wish for “Bottled Life”, “Peak Oil” and especially “An Inconvienent Truth”; but that's another story).

    Why I am writing to you: In the last section you mention the ban on DDT as an environmental measure, along with CFCs. I don't want to leave that unchallenged. Due to chemical reactions in the atmosphere, CFCs attacked the ozone layer in such a way that protection against UV-C radiation was no longer guaranteed. The rise in skin cancer cases in Australia, especially among younger people, was clear enough that the ban on CFCs - despite all the whining from the industry - was simply necessary. Everyone with an IQ above 85 understood that.

    Behind the DDT ban, however, there is a completely different story: The book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson represents the beginning of the environmental movement for many historians (mMn especially the beginning of the manipulation of the environmental movement for the purpose of professional maximization). DDT was the most effective way of controlling the spread of the Anopheles mosquito, the main carrier of the malaria virus. The ban on DDT, triggered by “Silent Spring”, has caused malaria to flare up again in Africa and has cost the lives of around 25 million people since then. Quasi a mass murder in the name of saving life.

    Yours sincerely.

  2. Thank you for your feedback! Your interesting and justified criticism of my criticism of the documentation Planet of the Humans absolutely makes sense to me.

    Silent Spring by Rachel Carson really must have been a phenomenon of a book. The author herself deserves a lot more attention these days and we owe a lot to her foresight. At such a moment I always think of the quote from Bernhard von Chartres: "We are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants". Unfortunately, I didn't know this giantess yet and thank you very much for this tip on the origins of the environmental movement.

    The subject of mosquitoes and the diseases (parasites) they transmit is a topic that is far too little discussed in public. In the meantime, the also very controversial genetic engineering method CRISPR is used to contain the dramatic consequences of the Anopheles mosquito. In dealing with the ethical dilemmas that result from this, I don't want to learn my way out of the window. The number of annual deaths is falling, but more than 400.000 people (!) Still die of malaria - every year - and more than 200 million become infected (most common infectious disease in the world). Perhaps a drug like DDT is even justifiable under certain conditions.

    Thank you again for your constructive criticism of the article on Planet of the Humans and nice greetings from Berlin.

  3. Dr. Jörn Döring

    The crucial problem was addressed in the film: too many people consume too many resources in too short a time.

    It is therefore necessary to work through the following task blocks:
    1. Reduction of the world population
    2. Creation of a circular economy (e.g. Cradle2Cradle approach)

    To 1 .: Here education and clarification is necessary in the regions with rapidly growing populations. Children are no longer allowed to be pension insurance. Good education, good job prospects, good business settlement, better standard of living, fewer children. DE can also down to 50 million inhabitants (comparison with France in terms of size and area)

    Regarding 2: We will never get there with a policy of prohibition. The social market economy in particular can give a boost towards the circular economy if above all - if not only - consumption is taxed. And a product that is made more sustainably than another has a lower consumption tax. Then it becomes interesting for the consumer and it is worthwhile for the entrepreneur to invest in sustainable forms of production.

    And as far as the energy requirement is concerned, only a combination of base load supply through nuclear energy (fusion power plants and 4th generation nuclear power plants) and regenerative energy in conjunction with various storage technologies (Power2X to algae, aquaponic, etc.) is an affordable energy (electricity, heat, Mobility, ...) for humanity. What you just know at the present time.

  4. Thank you for the stimulating and courageous comment. Courageous because I fear that the topics a. Regulation of population growth (fewer children !?) and b. the resumption of the debate on nuclear energy (fusion energy + nextgen nuclear power plant) will be very emotional debates that generate some criticism.

    I agree that in a rapidly developing world that is so different today than it was 100 years ago, we should discuss or simply acknowledge some paradigm shifts. At the same time, I agree that a ban policy is not very sexy and will not get votes. We are becoming more and more about this Planet of the Humans, giving us a Planet with Humans maybe should be enough. It is about our species finding their role on this planet. This is a huge construction site peppered with enough work for everyone. It sounds nine times smart, but our global real-time connected civilization has to grow up, otherwise we'll soon be flying off the planet at the current speed (and I don't mean in a warp-propelled spaceship).

    Thanks again for your suggestions on my little criticism of Planet of the Humans. All the best!

Post a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.

This website uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn more about how your comment data is processed.

Deutsch English
X