Planet of the Humans (7/10)
This has got to be one of the most depressing films that I've ever seen. The only recourse is that there's a lot of counter-claims being put forward.
The film's thesis is basically that "green" energy (solar, wind, biomass) isn't that green, that you're effectively replacing one limited resource (coal, oil) with other limited resources (lithium, cobalt, quartz, etc.) That the mining is still damaging, and that at the end of the day, you might as well stick with fossil fuels because the net output of GHGs is the same. That at the end, population and consumption has to be lowered because "green" technologies are just as damaging as fossil fuels (it doesn't spend any time on nuclear). And in case you think this is a climate denial piece, it's actually executive produced by Michael Moore, who, well, I shouldn't have to explain that. An extension of this thesis is that environmentalism sold out to big business/capitalism. In essence, the attempt to introduce renewable energy has been a waste of time, and the only way ahead is reduction of population and consumption.
Now, some of that I agree with. Greenwashing is a thing. I've long been skeptical of biomass, though I did have a phase where I thought it could be a viable substitute for oil (i.e. ethanol). That said, there's a lot of things the film claims that seem off. For instance, among them is the claim that electric cars are just as bad as petrol cars because if you're charging from a coal-fired power station, then what's the point? However, everything I've read up to this point indicates that even if this is the case, less CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere overall. I mean, the best solution is to not use a car at all, or use it only when you have to, but it reminds me of the saying "don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good." Another example, if you look at how much energy Germany gets from solar power, it's 9.1% according to Wikipedia, but the film claims that in reality, it's something like 0.3%. Now, Germany's certainly bungled some things in regards to energy IMO (e.g. closing still operating nuclear plants), but something is off here. Either the film is incorrect, or there's been some heavy lies up to this point, because that's too wide a discrepency to just write off. And look, lies aren't new, but a lot of the claims made are ones that I find hard to believe. Like, of course minerals for solar panels and wind farms have to come from somewhere, but everything I've read has indicated that in the long run, these energies do less damage overall than coal/gas, and that stuff like lithium is far more abundant in the Earth's crust than coal. The film claims that in the end, there's no difference whatsoever, and that there's been a giant conspiracy to greenwash an industry that's just as deadly to the planet and life as coal.
It's kind of weird, how 1-2 years ago I watched 2040, and commented that it was too optimistic, whereas this has put me off for its pesimism. I know, I know, "facts don't care about your feelings," but I still hope a lot of the film is wrong. Because if it isn't, then, well, I don't want to imagine that right now. Still, I'm giving it a "good" rating. It's well made overall, though Gibbs is no Michael Moore. Moore, love him or hate him, knows how to present things. Gibbs talks in a constant dull monotone, and the cinematography is very basic.
