'It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness' Proverb

Sunday 21 June 2020

Mini Film Review: Planet of the Humans


Planet of the Humans is an American environmental documentary written, directed, and produced by Jeff Gibbs, and supported and promoted by Michael Moore.  First released in 2019 in was then released onto YouTube by Moore in April 2020 as part of Earth Day's 50th Anniversary, before being promptly taken down again in May due to claims of copyright infringement.  Due to this removal, I wasn't sure if it would be worth making a review about this film, but as it could be made available again in the future (after editing) I thought I would still write about my thoughts on it.

Looking at the renewable energy industry, the documentary questions whether it can actually solve the issue of our ever-increasing resources consumption and in fact argues that green energy is not actually sustainable at all.  It is this and its attack on some of the most famous environmental campaigners, such as Al Gore, that has made this movie so controversial and sparked a backlash in the climate change community.

There are some glaring issues with the movie, mainly the number of out of date facts and footage used to make their point.  These include stating that solar panels only convert 8% of the energy they receive into electricity when, with modern panels, it's actually now 15 to 20%.  These newer panels are also a lot cheaper to produce and buy and are therefore much more available to people than before.  Then there's the claim that renewable energy still needs to be backed up by fossil fuels to ensure there is a constant supply of electricity.  This may be the case in some countries, but you only have to look at somewhere like Iceland to see what is actually possible when using a variety of renewable resources.  It also stated that the carbon footprint of renewables is either similar or in fact worse than fossil fuels, but there is a wealth of research that shows that this is just not the case especially with the most modern systems.  These are just a few of the inaccuracies found in the movie, but I didn't want to spend this whole post listing them.

However, it would be inaccurate to say that there weren't some truths in this documentary as well.  Firstly, we can't just rely on technology to get us out of this climate change hole without having to make any changes at all to our lifestyles.  We will need to change how we do things and reduce the amount of energy and resources we use on a daily basis.  You can not sustainably live an infinite lifestyle on a finite planet.  Secondly, solar and wind technologies do need to use rare minerals to produce them, pretty much everything technological does, and collecting these as virgin materials is very destructive to the ecosystems they are found in.  However, there are ways around this and this is definitely an area where we need to get better at recycling the precious resources we use.  Thirdly, that destroying woodlands to produce biomass energy is definitely not a good thing and not only takes away one of our best carbon dioxide absorbers but also damages the surrounding soil health and has a negative impact on water retention.  We definitely shouldn't be using that type of biomass, however, there are many other forms quick are much more sustainable and can be used effectively. 

Perhaps the biggest point they make, though it's more of a side statement which isn't given much air time, is that large elephant in the environmental room of population size.  I know people baulk at the idea of talking about it and even see it as a form of eugenics, but it is one of the most fundamental ways in which we can reduce the impact we are and will have on our planet.  Of course, it has to voluntary and the most effective way of doing it is actually empowering women - something not talked about in this documentary.

Filling your documentary with lots of out of date inaccuracies is probably not the best way of getting your point across and I can see why a lot of climate sceptics have felt that this film has given them something to cheers about, whilst climate activists have gone against it.  However, perhaps the good thing about this film is it opens up an important conversation we need to have about our consumption habits and lifestyle choices.  It's very unlikely that we can just carry on with the status quo and get away with it.  Oh, and of course, checking facts that are presented to you.

One other thing I just wanted to add was that it did make me wonder a little bit about supporting 350.org based on the interviews they had with Bill McKibben.  Obviously, there was editing involved, but he didn't come across particularly well in this.  I don't want to judge the organisation entirely on this film, but I do think I'm going to do a little bit more research on 350.org before I start donating to them.

I would say that, if you can find it, do watch the movie.  Just make sure you have a search engine open beside you so you can do some fact-checking when you do.

No comments:

Post a Comment