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There are some glaring issues with the movie, mainly the number of out of date facts and footage used to make their point.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.

Mini Film Review: Sustainable

Based in America, Sustainable looks at the economic and environmental instability of agriculture in the US.  It looks at issues such as soil loss, pesticide use, fertiliser run off, and climate change.  The narrative of the documentary mainly looks at a seventh generation Illinois farmer called Marty Travis who, after seeing the affects of big agribusiness on his land and local community, transformed his former wasteland into a profitable business and started the sustainable food movement in Chicago.  They also interview other farmers and individuals from the food movement (including chefs and bakers) to find out how they are trying to make the food sector in America more sustainable and to keep, or sometimes build, the community that used to be a common part of farming.

There were a few things that I found particularly interesting in this documentary.  The first was the fact that the farmers do not have to pay for the cost of the fall out from their activities, such as clearing up the nitrate problems that occur in the water ways from fertiliser run off.  This completely separates this sector from the true cost of the type of farming and also means that there is no real incentive to make any changes.  It is left to the individual to make that decision purely on personal conviction.  

The second is that the system is not geared towards providing food and future food security to the nation, but towards making money for a few organisations.  This can be seen by the fact that seeds are sold which are all genetically identical (genetically diverse crop are not economic for seed sellers) and sterile, and that any problem that a farmer comes across is promoted as only being fixable by using a bottle of chemicals.  But research shown in this documentary showed that genetically diverse crops are much more resilient as a whole and much less susceptible to disease.  It also showed that high biodiversity on a farm also fixes many of the issues, such as soil loss and lack of nitrogen in the soil, faced by farmers today in a much cheaper, long lasting way.

Perhaps the most interesting person on this documentary to me wasn't actually Marty but an Amish farmer called John Kempf, who you don't actually get to see as his religion will not allow it.  The founder of Advancing Eco Agriculture he has been promoting an alternative way of farming called Regenerative Agriculture.  This is a holistic land management practise born from the experience of farming in his Amish community, which looks at ways of improving soil health and nutrient density in a much more natural way, making the plants healthier and allowing their own immune system to look after the crops instead of the chemicals usually used.  Crops looked after in this way become more resilient and the soil is not only healthier but more able to store carbon.

Whilst farming in Britain isn't as large as that in America, it is just as intense in many cases and there are the same issues of genetic monocultures, soil loss, and the perceived need to use large quantities of chemical fertilisers and pesticides.  The affects on our surrounding ecosystems and the possible threat to our food security are very much the same, and this makes this a very interesting documentary to watch about the possible alternatives we could bring here and to other countries.  With changes that will definitely be coming to our shores due to climate change, even if we are able to curb the temperature rise to 1.5°C, building resilience in our crops and farming practises as a whole is something we do need to be looking into. Definitely worth a watch.