Planet of the Humans

I'm not a tree hugger, but I do recognize the need to find renewable energy sources that are both efficient and scalable. "Planet of the Humans" outlines the planet's predicament and the environmental movement's response. But many of their efforts are ill coordinated and managed by industries that focus more on their bottom line than an overriding concern for planet earth. This is an important film, with lots of suggestions, revelations and some let's-take-a-closer-look-at-it ideas. If the environmental objective is planet preservation, then I hope we can all rally around this film's knowledge base. Not because it doesn't follow "an agenda" (because it certainly does), but because we're gonna need lots of diverse (even contrasting) perspectives - maybe even like some that are outlined here. Everyone needs to educate themselves (and be open-minded) with what works and what doesn't. And we all need to be on board this ecology train if we're gonna win this battle to save our planet (as inconvenient as that truth may be).

Critics of this film tend to be "green growth" junkies who think they're better than fossil fuel junkies. They're also eco-traitors for wanting to obliterate scenery and wildlife with millions of wind turbines. 3/4ths of the film could have dwelled on that topic. It also should have compared nuclear (SMR and other designs) to the footprint of wind. Too many Greens claim carbon is the only footprint that matters now.

But most points were strongly made. It was good to see candor on growth ideology from a well-known documentarian. Similar films from minor producers will never get the same coverage. Overpopulation was mentioned early on and repeated several times. Vain human nature was also discussed, and I think that's what offends techno-optimists the most.

In the limited time allotted for a film, it managed to cover most of the problems with "clean energy" and the "100% renewable" lie, though it didn't really mention carbon credit trickery. I only wish it had shown the vast scale of wind farms instead of a few cameos from Lowell Mountain construction, and quick shots of built projects.

There's been predictable resistance and it was temporarily pulled by the FFA site, with their own spin on why it's unfair to greentech people. Those who say it lacks "solutions" are assuming there MUST be solutions to overshoot of carrying-capacity. Says who? Look at the actual trends. They reject anything that's not endlessly hopeful, so I can see why Moore made it free online. Critics have a few points about dated material with some interviewees changing their stances, but the fundamental problems remain.

The big revelation for me was the volume of trees counted as "renewable" biomass energy, dwarfing the relatively feeble output of wind and solar. Taking away biomass makes clean energy look paltry. I still like solar when it's done right (keep it off open space).

Gibbs and Moore should do a followup in 5 or 10 years, especially if shale fracking has peaked and there's a major "We told you so!" crisis..

I can see greenies being very upset with this documentary - but by no means is it a fossil fuels lobby piece. It's an eye-opening look at Big Green and their hidden secret that renewables like solar, wind turbines, biomass fuel and mega battery storage is actually worse for the earth that Big Coal and Big Oil. Don't be blinded in thinking that today's big renewables are actually going to save us, because they clearly aren't. The bad thing is that this documentary does not offer any solutions beyond depopulating the earth.

We've been had. This film shows the lies and the fantastical thinking behind the notion that solar, wind, and especially, "biomass" are "clean" energy. It's a bitter pill for a lot of people to swallow.

This film gores, no pun intended, many sacred cows, including the most outspoken (and wealthy) environmental activists. Guess who their best friends are? Several well-known organizations are taken down.

I always knew that people back in the 70s were right: We have to use less...we have to live more in harmony with nature...we have to conserve. We have to have fewer children. We live on a planet with finite resources. We cannot continue boundless growth.

My one quibble with the film is that it does not discuss nuclear energy.

Finally a documentary that finally points out the REAL problem when it comes to climate change: the overpopulation of Earth. Even if every one of the 8 000 000 000 people on Earth would live more sustainably, it would still not be enough to completely save the planet. Have you ever seen the chart that compares the different actions that can be done? Spoiler alert: having one fewer child is 300 times more effective than recycling. I must say though that I still have two problems with the documentary.

First, the documentary says that the overpopulation of Earth is the problem but it doesn't say why nobody accepts the simple solution of making less babies. Is it because of religion? Babies are cute? Having more babies equals success in life? The freedom of having more kids is more important than our planet? Less babies is bad for the economy?

Second, reducing the population (if we ever do it) will take multiple decades. So, what are we going to do about climate change until then? Hydroelectricity was never mentioned nor nuclear. What about public transportation? What about eating less meat? What about taking the plane once every 3-4 years (and staying longer) rather than flying every year for vacation?