“Planet of the Humans” review, and some solutions
Just watched Jeff Gibb’s film “Planet of the Humans” and here are my thoughts about it from a whole systems designer perspective.
#1. The people who might benefit most from watching this film are not those who are up to date on renewable energy and environmental issues, but those who think that green jobs are all we need to save us. This is a dark film. Many find it depressing. Yet, it has created some spirited conversations about the issues that could end up being a net positive, because people are looking, and questioning, and hopefully, learning. One of the chief criticisms leveled at the film is that it offers no solutions. A major reason I wrote this review is to offer some solutions, toward the end of the review. .
#2. Documentaries are too often not objective investigations that look at all sides of an issue and inform the public. They come in with an agenda and a viewpoint, they focus on the things that support that agenda even if that means stretching the truth or altering it, in order to make their point in the most dramatic way possible. This one, it appears, goes the extra mile to skew realities. This has engendered numerous reviews that debunk the main falsehoods in the film. There is no excuse for being as sloppy with facts as this film was and it is disappointing, since the filmmaker made some important points that may be dismissed because of the blatant inaccuracies. Come on filmmakers! Can you really not come up with a hard hitting statement without lying? Really? Especially on this subject, which has plenty of material that is horrifying enough without any exaggeration or skewing of facts. :-( :-( :-(
No, solar does not use more energy than it makes. That may have been true many years ago — not true today. One thing about renewables that more people should understand though — they aren’t an easy fix. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy while maintaining or increasing our current level of economic growth worldwide is not going to work, no matter how brilliantly designed our solutions are. There are too many problems with our current consumption trends that go far beyond energy use. If everybody lived like we do in the US, we would need several planets worth of resources. We have no solution for this, yet we continue to barrel down that path as if it’s our only option in any universe. It’s not. That idea is much more destructive flim-flammery than anything in Gibbs’ film. There are far better, much more life affirming options, and it is too bad most people are unaware of them.
Nonetheless, there are some exciting solutions to both energy generation and storage on the horizon that this film didn’t even hint existed. Much of the film was filmed years ago and it shows. Not unlike filming an expose about the problems with computer tech and focusing on tech from 2012. Can you imagine? There are also no real energy experts interviewed, a significant omission.
No, billionaires supporting the green movement are not 100% evil nor do they all only care about money. That is a simplistic look at those individuals. We aren’t living in a black and white cartoon, and if we act like it, we will pay the price for our shallowness. We need to work with everybody and anybody who gets it, to turn the ship.
But yes, biomass energy (burning fuel other than coal) is a problem. It is not green, it’s not a solution. There are huge issues with it — the film covered only some of them. This may be news to a lot of people but many in the environmental movement already get it, which Gibbs doesn’t acknowledge.
The biomass fiasco: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/05/01/the-biomass-fiasco/? fbclid=IwAR1OezJNP_JQFMpmPP3ZSWnlhwHohsHJK9k1ZJ_WblvujjkiMZ62_-Kchko
Some nuance on biomass, how can it work? https://www.ipcc.ch/report/renewable-energy-sources-and-climate-change-mitigation/bioenergy/?fbclid=IwAR3VrkyBN1vsZSi0UkpUEZSBBiiiYhR3_w6u0hN16VhzT8vNfr-mNo4v36U
Here are two key reviews that address some of the major inaccuracies — and also what the reviewers felt Gibbs got right:
An overall look at what the film got wrong and right, with links to other top reviews. If you read nothing else, read this full article (which continues below the reviews it lists).
https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/films-for-actions-statement-on-planet-of-the-humans/?fbclid=IwAR1QUVuDPhf87aWEo3LFXLTYoYxu8R-OxhzRxRJKmRCqvm--k3I-30K-qGI
Addresses inaccuracies regarding fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions of solar, wind, and electric cars vs coal, gas, oil. We need to have real information regarding renewables.
https://climatefeedback.org/planet-of-the-humans-documentary-misleads-viewers-about-renewable-energy/?fbclid=IwAR2geKwNpqTTZjVFj_kwrbeK4ts4Q9R4iIXxTYfbGwxdJpx_vnvQE31zTOs
#3. The film’s basic point is painfully legitimate. And it makes its point well. We can not climb our way out of the ecological mess we’ve made of this planet with capitalism and consumption. The numbers just don’t add up from any angle. We got ourselves into a completely unsustainable way of living, with no realistic plans on how to maintain it. Not unlike someone who overspends their bank account and then steals from their children to maintain their lifestyles. It’s not just unlike that, it’s exactly like that. That is what we are doing by how we use planetary resources.
We need to start valuing other things in life more than shiny new toys. We will destroy this planet if we don’t change our consumption patterns. We can’t “jobs” and buy and politic our way out of this one.
#4. There are solutions. They aren’t the ones many of us prefer to hear. And that is why it may be ok that this film is as hard hitting as it is, and that it stayed focused on the problems. We need to thoroughly understand the problems before we can come up with solutions that are actual solutions and not just another problem. So see the film, but maybe read the reviews first.
One thing the film got right (though without nuance or accuracy about the players): Our worldwide economic model in its current iteration is very actively destroying the planet. The film is focused on capitalism and there are specific ways it is practiced currently which are extremely destructive to all of life. But I’d like to broaden it a bit because similar damage has been done in the name of socialism and other isms as well. So let’s not make it about your ism vs mine. Let’s take a more specific look at the most destructive common denominators amongst all of them and what choices we have to address those. I’m talking about agreements about production and trade that we have, no matter which political-economic model a specific country favors. Regardless of what “ism” is practiced, we all do this.
There are no grey areas here. This model in all its iterations WILL destroy this planet and our ability to live on it if it continues to be practiced the way it is being practiced right now. Before you get defensive about whatever version of the model you support most (if you’re so inclined), I am likely to agree with your views on whatever positives you see in your favorite aspects of the model. So bear with me, because you may find that this film along with some real, actual solutions, could open doors to better preserving the things you most value.
The concept of “green” economy needs a lot of tweaking in the current system. It isn’t going to happen fast enough or soon enough to prevent us from poisoning and killing off the whole bloody planet. We must change the way the model is being practiced and there are specific and finite leverage points that we must change.
There are exact reasons why our economic agreements are currently practiced, will inevitably lead to massive destruction:
— As long as it is more profitable to pollute than to not pollute, people will pollute.
— As long as it is more profitable to cut down forests than to leave them alone, people will cut them down.
— As long as the rewards for being the most clever trinket or convenience seller at any cost to the environment and our future are almost infinite (think Jeff Bezos), people will do this.
— As long as people gain power politically and/or economically by pillaging and polluting the planet, people will do this.
— As long as there are far more rewards than penalties for operating in this way, some of us — often the most energetic and most clever of us, will do this.
— As long as our society values the production of trinkets or accumulation of power through exploitation of the planet more than we value the health of the planet, the health of the planet will suffer.
People are not going to magically stop pursuing self-interest in order to save the planet. Some of us will, but others of us will not. If we depend on that alone, we are doomed. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to take a good look at historical patterns of behavior which are unmistakable when observed over thousands of years and dozens of cultures and circumstances. Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” is a good place to start that journey.
The only cultures who have not destroyed their ecosystems’ capacity to support life sooner or later — including their own lives — the only cultures who have managed to do that have
- Understood the capacity of their ecosystems to at least some degree
- Had rules in place to protect the health of the ecosystem
- Had penalties in place for violating those rules or
- Continued to expand their rape and pillage approach to survival by destroying other people’s lives, cultures and ecosystems so that they could maintain their lifestyles.
Look for yourself if you do not believe that. Please, do some historical research for yourself on that point. If you find evidence that I’m wrong, please share it with me (about this or any other aspect of the article).
If you’re thinking, well, #4 sounds like what a lot of people seem to be doing, well yes. “Pillage or be pillaged; kill or be killed” has been an operating basis for human beings for a long time. And that sort of works, for the pillagers, until they run out of stuff to pillage. And then they starve (an historical pattern).
If you would like to see mankind operating at a higher level than thuggery, if you feel it is a worthwhile game to try to achieve higher states no matter how improbable or what difficulties might ensue, then let’s take a look at what leverage points we may have for real change.
If the major ecological failures of our economic systems happen because of lack of 1–3 above, what are the most direct and effective ways we can implement 1–3?
Some bright ideas:
1. Fund regular reports and analysis of ecosystem health. Ensure this is a core part of our economic model. Remember, cultures that survived for centuries or longer all routinely inspected and understood the health of their ecosystem and took action to keep it healthy. In some of these cultures, everybody was brought up with this knowledge. How many people in your country have knowledge of the health of their watershed, their local forests, their soils and other ecological capacity to support life in their region? This should be a part of every child’s education, and a subject that is regularly reported on to the broad public. Instead, it is something you have to know enough about to even know where to look for this information. It is not readily available. There have been some attempts by governments, both national and local, to make this data available, but not all in one place. An ecological report should be broadly distributed, in the common languages of the region, and with plenty of visuals to help people to understand the information, every single year. It should include statistics of key indicators that show how we are progressing or regressing as the case may be. This is a report of the state of the resources you need in order for you and your family to continue to survive. If you think jobs is the only indicator of importance, think of how long you could work at your job with no food, clean water, and had nothing to breathe but toxic air. Or with disasters hitting your region every year.
Such a report would ideally include what factors are stressing your local ecological services the most. Transportation? Industry? Industrial agriculture? It will be somewhat different for each region. Every city should create such a report, every bioregion (much more important than counties doing it — it will force them to work together which they often are in regard to watersheds in particular), and every state and country.
2. Make polluting more costly than not polluting. Right now, the opposite is true in most instances. While many people have come up with bright ideas of how to accomplish this task, the best one I am aware of is to implement true cost accounting. The sole and only reason polluting is more profitable than not polluting is that we have all agreed that it is ok for polluters to pass on the true costs of their damages to others, like you and me, and like our children and our grandchildren. We are currently paying those costs with higher health insurance, more health problems, reduced productivity and quality of life, reduced enjoyment of wild areas, and increased economic, social and physical risks from climate driven disasters.
Organizations working on this issue include:
https://www.c2ccertified.org/
https://givingcompass.org/article/10-organizations-highlighting-the-true-cost-of-food/
https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/key-issues/true-cost-accounting/
https://trueprice.org/
Note that one problem here is that there are a dearth of organizations working on this issue.
3. Make pollution of key ecosystems, like water sources and soil, and the destruction of key ecosystem resources like jungles criminal acts that can put people in jail. They should be prosecuted as criminals, because their actions too often lead to harm of others, including actual murder through poison.
One organization working on this issue is stopecocide.org. This organization is working to get laws passed in various countries that would put people in jail for damaging key ecosystems. It is a crime against humanity, in fact.
Capitalism will be far less destructive if we don’t let criminals run the shop. It’s that simple.
Of course, ecocide is not the only problem with capitalism or the only way it is criminal. We have grossly unfair trading practices and even slavery still extant in the world. That is the subject for a different article.
These things will raise prices of most goods, which leads to the fourth, essential step.
4. Consume less, much less. This is the one we all can do, starting now. Many of us resist this, so one solution to that is to make it way more attractive than continuing our obsession with stuff. We have a major problem that we’re trying to solve with technology but it is really more of a spiritual problem. We are locked into a game of hamster wheel production that is killing the planet, and will kill us too. We have options but most people don’t see that or believe that.
As many of us sit at home during the coronavirus, we have the option of asking ourselves “how essential is what we do, really, if it is destroying the planet? What other options do we have to survive?” And we have the option of asking each other, “How can we help each other find another way?” The trick to this one is to keep asking the question, until the answer becomes clear. And this one, and every step we need to take, are easier when we take them together.
Some of us have taken up gardening. If many more of us did that, we would reduce the pollution on this planet substantially by that act alone. Our health would improve; we would be more in touch with nature; our kids might understand where their food comes from; we would be much more resilient as a society, and would have more choices of what that society looks like. And it’s fun!
In Bali, and places in Africa, and in other cultures, people work part time, and instead of acquiring more trinkets which they then have to maintain, clean, and pay for, they sing, and dance, and spend time enjoying one another. They are considered “lazy” by some of us, but is that true? Is it lazy to live in such a way as to leave a place to live for future generations, and to savor life?
Do we really need to continue to fuel a trinket making machine turned all the way to full volume that is killing the planet, in order to live? Could we sing, and dance, and enjoy one another, instead?
The answers to this aren’t always simple for those with a mortgage, children, responsibilities, and major investments of time and resources into the trinket making model. We’ve been there, we do understand. We don’t expect you to figure it out alone. We want to help you. We would like to make the transition as joyful and fulfilling as imagination will allow. We will continue to share resources, successes, networks, strategies, and more here, and on our Youtube channel and website.
5. And finally, use ecological design methods like permaculture and systems thinking. These are methods that have solved many of the challenges above. Permaculture provides pathways to live abundant, joyful and fulfilled lives, without pillaging our children’s resources.
Resources:
These are just a tiny flavor of the robust resources that exist on this topic, that allow us to live within our ecological means with a very high quality of life. We will continue to share good news about these and the deep and positive changes being made, in this blog.
Whole systems design and permaculture:
Https://Growpermaculture.com
https://permacultureprinciples.com
Regenerative agriculture
https://regenerationinternational.org/why-regenerative-agriculture/
https://www.4p1000.org/
Appropriate technology
https://www.appropedia.org/Appropriate_technology
Financial permaculture
https://natcapsolutions.org/regenerative-economics-101/
http://www.appleseedpermaculture.com/8-forms-of-capital/
Intentional communities
https://www.ic.org/
