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..
