User reviews

It's always good to have people question the present sacrements and enviromental solutions for our overconsumption of the natural resources. But it isn't that well done. I would presume that his budget wasn't so big as the billionaires to state his ideas in this documentary. The criticism that he gives no solutions is not fair, because these are not easily found when overpopulation and the lifestyle of a majority of the inhabitants of the first world countries with a gigantic carbon footprint are the source of the problem. Who is willing to really alter their way of life? And that's a really inconvenient truth.

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?

The biggest flaw in this film was excluding a discussion of the obvious solution to the problem...Nuclear power. The gen 3 reactors currently in operation are far safer than their earlier predecessors, and future gen 4 reactors should be capable of operating without generating radioactive waste and with zero melt down risk. Gen 4 reactors are projected to be commercial viable as early as 2030. Conversely, the film did an excellent job of demonstrating the folly and impracticality of "green technologies" such as solar and wind.

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.

This film has all the usual hallmarks of a Michael Moore documentary, quotes taken out of context, emotionally manipulative scenes that shock and overwhelm. Most people will come out of the movie looking for someone to blame. Al Gore? Bill McGibbon? Elon Musk? As my neighbour said tonight about the coronavirus, "I have to find someone to blame." At first I said there is no one to blame. But she doubled down. I repeated it again. But she shook her head smiling. I wanted to believe that she wasn't doubling down but just joking with me. Maybe she was. My partner says she wasn't.

I think it's important to note that the message the movie is : Our current way of life is not sustainable by any means. Now if you want to know what the movie is trying to show, it illustrates how environmentalists are in bed with the traditional fossil fuel business. Whether they are, knowingly or not, might be up for debate. It is possible that Al Gore and Bill McKibbon are stupid or naïve and want to believe that the fossil fuel businesses care. Maybe they think these businesses really want to find a sustainable alternative. Maybe they do. Maybe they are at war with their inner greed, hate, and ignorance. If we don't have someone blame, then we have to look inward, perhaps acknowledge how much we need to change, collectively. No one wants to do that. Everyone wants an easy answer that we can add to our personal narratives and belief systems.

It's not about blaming someone. It's way beyond that. Is Dennis McKenna on to something when he says that Gaia, through the SARS-COV-2, is trying to teach us something? Virologists would say, "Nonsense." We've had epidemics and pandemics before. Humankind just picks itself up, dusts itself off, and continues to gorge on the fruits of the earth with abandonment. This film is trying to warn that it is the same when it comes to the climate crisis.

Gibbs relies upon anecdotal evidence and virtually zero empirical data to create a documentary full of misinformation and false equivalencies, handing a victory to the fossil fuel industry and the opponents of environmentalism on Earth Day, no less. First, the film criticizes solar, wind, and electric cars, with no mention of their dramatically lower total lifecycle emissions than the fossil fuel technologies they displace, per IPCC, UCS, NREL and other bodies of accredited scientists (which Gibbs is not). The film mentions a solar panel lasting ten years, rather than the industry standard 80% capacity after 25 years; windmills that use rare earths, when over 95% of US wind turbines contain zero rare earths; and electric cars that use cobalt, which is approximately 2% of a modern EV battery. It argues that because renewable energy feeds into a grid that is shared with nonrenewable sources, it somehow makes no difference, and that because oil companies have diversified their capital by investing in environmental causes, the environmental movement is as dirty and ethically compromised as the oil companies themselves. These arguments fall flat upon scrutiny, but the film jumps so quickly from assertion to unsupported assertion that the viewer is easily duped. Gibbs does make some fair criticisms of biomass energy (still without including any empirical lifecycle analysis vs. The fossil fuels they replaced). As a final coup de grace, Gibbs cynically presents footage of a dying ape to hammer in its crippling pathos of doom, and concludes that overpopulation is the core problem that environmentalists have to solve (no mention of supporting women's education or reproductive rights in that regard, however). It is one of the saddest moments in the history of the environmental movement when purported environmentalists release a documentary on the 40th Earth Day that is so thoroughly misleading and debilitating to that movement.

Every single human needs to watch this movie! The movie is full of information. Thank you for making a movie that gives us eyes to see parts we miss otherwise. Thank you for making us think deeper. Humans, especially in the more developed countries need to cut down on over consumption of everything, EVERYTHING! Water, gas, electricity, paper etc. May the wisdom spread!

I wonder if any of the "facts" presented in this film were seriously researched. I found many errors. Following are some facts that the film misrepresents.

Wind turbines are highly successful. The wind does not die at night--it's well documented that they produce more electricity at night than they do in the day. Ivanpah uses only 4% fossil fuel energy, and 96% of its energy comes from sunlight. Sustainable energy does not lead to wasted energy at backup power plants. With a 100% fossil-fuel grid, the combined plant runs at 80% plus one whole plant running standby for backup. It's not that different with sustainable energy in the mix. Electric cars (EV), are still as clean as some of the best fossil-fuel cars when powered with coal-fired electricity (both CO2 and other pollutants), but coal use is in the minority and dropping, so the advantage of EVs gets better year after year.

The film portrays anything less than perfection as useless. It portrays many of the people who have done our best environmental work as villains or fools. The bar for taint is very low. It takes comments by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. out of context and puts a negative spin on them. It portrays Bill McKibben as a dupe and a fool. The most ridiculous spin in the film is the condemnation of Caterpillar because their bulldozers are used in building the Dakota Access Pipeline.

I understand the need to flatten, and possibly reduce, world population--infinite growth in a finite system leads to disaster. But the film has this as its only option, which may be a bridge too far. US birth rates are already too low to sustain our population, but we heavily over consume. Were the whole world to live as Americans do, we would need five earths to support us. Doing nothing about that while waiting generations for population to decline will destroy us.

Having watched this documentary, i'll be honest it has shaken me to my core. I'm someone who is very conscious to the issues our planet is going through and the increasingly serious issue of population growth. I sometimes feel helpless in trying to figure out how I can contribute further in helping this planet survive. However, I take a bit of comfort in knowing that this film will punch some common sense and put people into action. And to open our eyes to what the real issues are. Everyone must watch this documentary to properly understand what is clearly not working so that we could determine what will work to get us out of the mess we are in. And please let your children watch because after all it is there future too.

Hard hitting and revealing however I hope that this is only one side of the issue. Where are the solutions ?

please don't tell me that there aren't any. There are thousands but not thousands of Giant corporate ones.

Local farmers markets, the move to vegetable diets, local organic produce, local markets & currencies a la Demain film.

We are in a pandemic. We need hope. To close the coffin while well beaten & isolated will not easily promote others to find similar solutions .

People need to understand that Michael Moore produced this film. They wanted to show how renewable energy works and that these forms of energy will replace fossil fuels. What they found is that wind and solar both depend on fossil fuels and that they cannot work without them. It also showed that when these renewable forms of energy fail, they need fossil fuels as a backup. Those are just plain facts and if we start there then we may come up with a better form of energy someday to replace fossil fuels. Since we aren't going to start by acknowledging the truth about wind and solar then we will fail in our endeavors to eliminate fossil fuels. Now I'm wondering if big oil and gas aren't the people selling wind and solar since they know these two renewables rely upon fossil fuels. Sadly the larger a mob gets, the dumber they are because they must appeal to even the dumbest among them.

Given Moore's stature with the environmental movement you might expect this documentary to shift their focus to population and consumption reduction, which are the only policies that might help our overshoot predicament.

On the other hand, Ajit Varki's Mind Over Reality Transition (MORT) theory predicts that beliefs will not change because humans evolved to deny unpleasant realities.

Let's watch what happens over the next few months. I predict MORT will prevail and beliefs will not change.

"Planet of the Humans" is an eye-opening documentary film about the alternative energy "industry." As public interest has grown for environmental protection, a major area of concern has been about global warming caused by greenhouse gases. One way to curb these emissions is to reduce consumption and reliance on fossil fuels. So, we need to find alternative energy sources.

Electric cars cut the emissions from fossil fuel burning. Wind and solar power can replace coal, oil and gas plants to produce electricity. Biomass gets a nod in some quarters because it doesn't emit the same gasses. The public's interest and clamoring for environmental protection has been taken up in many sectors, government and private. But how much of the private attention is genuine interest in the environment and our public welfare? How much is the corporate sector willing to invest to preserve our environment, regardless of economic costs or benefits? And how much is the apparent "greening" of industry really helping the environment?

Those and other questions are what Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore set out to answer in this film. Gibbs had a reason to start looking, which he explains in the film opening. And this turns out to be an exposé of a green energy band wagon that doesn't deliver what it promises, and may even be more costly to the environment in the long run. Instead of helping the environment, many big businesses and the wealthy people that run or own them are creating a smokescreen. Some businesses and politicians profess to be going green, so the media and environmental groups tout them as good guys. But, most are just fronts that capture the eye but don't replace or reduce fossil energy use. And many of the enviro groups close to our hearts champion the very sources which just happen to also grease their coffers.

Perhaps most revealing of all is the real cost of the alternative energy sources - in money, yes, but more so in their impact on the environment. Biomass is one alternative that I could never understand. Burning of trees to generate electricity works, but is horribly inefficient and destroys whole forests that are crucial to our environment. Each tree at 10 years of growth absorbs 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year and produces enough oxygen in the atmosphere to support two human beings. So, why would we burn trees for energy when they are necessary for the planet's health and it takes many years to replace them? And biomass produces its own emissions, including soot and odors. The film looks at this issue head on.

Electric vehicles are good and obviously reduce fossil fuel use. But the film points out that most of the energy used to recharge those vehicles is produced by fossil fuel plants. So, the emissions are transferred from the cars to the big plants. The real benefit will come when the power source that feeds electric cars no longer comes from fossil fuels.

At the end 2006, I retired from a large public utility. Our main energy source was hydroelectric power. Like any conscientious public utility, we looked to support other alternative energy sources as well. So, we bought the output of a private wind farm project in the 1990s. I climbed a 212-foot tower and looked at the inside of a wind turbine. We had to build a separate substation to take the power from those turbines to integrate them into our transmission system.

Wind energy sounds like it would make sense. But it only operates at about 40% efficiency. Then there's the environmental foot print that these turbines make. Each wind turbine unit weighs 180 tons and requires a 15-20-foot-deep concrete foundation. That's 60 truckloads of 750 cubic yards each. And, all the steel and plastic that goes into making the housing, tower and blades uses large amounts of energy. The wind turbines last just 20 to 25 years and when they are done, they are dynamited. The steel can be recycled but the fiberglass blades and other debris winds up in landfills.

Solar energy likewise has its drawbacks. The panels wear out. They take a lot of space to generate small increments of energy. And they use a lot of energy in their manufacture in the first place. This film shows abandoned solar and wind power sites. They resemble desert or industrial wastelands. That's an apparent byproduct of the then defunct alternative energy source, and who will clean up and restore those sites?

Moore and Gibbs did a good job with this documentary, and a real service, I think. This film does a good task of investigative reporting along the lines of the long-time CBS program, "60 Minutes." I can't understand why anyone (well, except for the billionaires and politicians that the film exposes) would be down on this film. People who care about our planet and our well-being should appreciate it. Those who belong to environmental action groups should be wary of the green-baiting by big corporations and politicians. And, we should all beware of green energy projects that only placate public concerns but turn out to be smokescreens that don't help the environment in the end.

I think there's great potential yet for renewable energy sources. We should continue to look for new ways to harness them. Ways that don't leave a big environmental footprint.

While every industry and sector can be rightfully examined and their inefficiencies can be criticised, you need to base it on accurate facts and have a balanced approach. This movie has none of that. Their statements are based on outdated or misrepresented assumptions that - if you know a little bit about the technical requirements of renewable energies - do not hold up.

And it is really painful to watch how manipulative the storytelling is, and how people who don't know anything about this technologies take if at face value. The clean energy transition has a lot of moving blocks and gaps that need to be filled which are worth making a documentary about, but this movie doesn't come close to the journalistic integrity that the making of a documentary requires, which is best embedded in Gibbs statement: the right has religion, we have renewable energy as our saviour... or let's just blame overpopulation - a topic by the way that is irrelevant for understanding renewable energy technologies.

A shocking look at so-called green and clean energy and the billionaires behind the scenes destroying the earth in the guise of environmental protection. This is essential viewing that I'm sure people will try to dismiss a propaganda, the truth hurts. It's free on youtube at the moment, check it out!

A documentary, just like the nightly news, is very easy to tell the slant and opinion from the get-go. This documentary interviewed people working at a booth at a conference like they represent the industry? They had no interest in really showing good examples of clean energy. Everything was dated. In fact, it wasn't even really well put together. Renewable energy is where all the investment is going for the future.

This 'documentary' misses a lot of facts and figures that are well known around the industry to make some sensationalist claims that really don't hold much ground. I expected more from this. A lot of people will be misinformed by this piece, like you already see in the comments here.