“Planet of the Humans”: deep or dumb?
Jeff Gibbs’ documentary Planet of the Humans, released on April 21 by Michael Moore, takes a pretty unilateral, unconventional perspective on the world of green technologies.
The whole movie consists of a fragmented, semi-historical attempt to highlight flaws, half-truths and plain lies behind the green-energy sector, showing how it is not always so green, after all.
Recurring themes are the environmental destruction and the “hidden” carbon emissions associated with several renewable solutions, mostly biomass, solar farms and wind turbines. An excerpt:
So, after all the mining, the fossil fuels, the toxins, the environmental destruction, […] these giant solar and wind technology installations may last
only a few decades, then tear it down and start all over again. If there is enough planet left. It was becoming clear that what we have been calling green, renewable energy and industrial civilization, are one and the same.
Desperate measures not to save the planet, but to save our way of life.
Desperate measures, rather than face the reality, humans are experiencing the planet’s limits all at once. — Jeff Gibbs, Planet of the Humans
These are bold statements and the reaction of the critic has been brutal. Useless, outdated, dangerous and other hard words have been hitting the headlines, especially those of green-tech newsletters.
I agree that the movie lacks a solid scientific foundation and doesn’t offer a fair, complete overview of its main subject. Many renewable solutions are not even mentioned, and no time is dedicated to explore the status of recycling alternatives and grid integration.
However, I guess this widespread disappointment mostly originates from a misunderstanding, or maybe failed expectations too. Planet of the Humans
- IS NOT meant to be a comprehensive, state-of-the-art report on green-tech. Dedicated journals exist for that.
- IS NOT supporting whatsoever the fossil fuels industry. On the contrary, the undeniable, disastrous impact of man-made carbon emissions is taken for granted and continuously remarked.
- IS NOT a movie about the ultimate solution to all Earth problems. If this were so simple to be compressed into 100 minutes, the planetary environmental crisis would have been already solved.
- IS a movie about awareness. A movie that doesn’t look for answers, rather tries to explore better questions.
Does this happen in an organized, polished way? No, the plot is confused, the facts are superficial. Nevertheless, what defines a good question is not its content, nor its accuracy. A good question induces a change of perspective about a problem. Planet of the Humans embraced the delicate task of suggesting a radically different perspective on green technologies. That’s why, despite a few old clips or a couple of technically inaccurate statements, I think this movie has some merit.
“Is it possible for machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilization?” — Jeff Gibbs, Planet of the Humans
However, there’s more than provocative opinions against green-tech.
Planet of the Humans is an invitation to reflect on the way we, as a species, are trying to save us and the planet from ourselves. Rather than a critic to renewable technology, I feel this movie should be interpreted as a reminder not to fall prey to shortsightedness. The very same shortsightedness that brought us to the overarching environmental crisis we face today.
Planet of the Humans also invites to think more holistically, beyond the mainstream concern about carbon emissions. Occasionally, important topics are brought to the table: overpopulation, raw materials extraction, waste management, habitat and land degradation, industrial agriculture.
All crucial aspects that mandkind needs to solve in order to establish a sustainable, circular presence on this planet. Nevertheless, the weak point of the movie is that none of these topics is properly discussed, but only quickly mentioned.
By being hard and cursory on declarations but at the same time shy on reflections, Planet of the Humans demands a lot from the public. There is a high risk of missing most of the introspective cues, and just perceiving the condemnatory side. Especially for spectators far from the energy sector.
Many reviews have pointed out that nuclear energy has been completely ignored. In reality, Gibbs’ opinion about nuclear doesn’t need further clarifications. Despite being carbon-free, nuclear power ultimately relies on finite resources and outputs hazardous waste. Thus, it is implicitly assumed that nuclear energy belongs to the same legacy as fossil fuels.
In summary, is Planet of the Humans worth watching?
- NO, if you are looking for a trustworthy overview of the energy sector.
- YES, if you are looking for unusual insights about the meaning of sustainability.
The movie can be freely watched on Moore’s YouTube channel until the end of May.
