Planet of the Humans (2019) User Reviews

The Green Energy Scam

[The-Sarkologist · 7/10 · 15 December 2023]

This is one of those movies that attempts to confront us with some uncomfortable truths, ones that we really don't want to consider with all of the problems we are currently facing. Mind you, despite there being an existential threat in regards to man-made climate change, the reality is that we, as humans, simply want other people to solve the problem. The thing is because we are outsourcing the problem solving to other people, and aren't holding these people accountable, the reality is that we are basically having the wool pulled over our eyes.

This film basically focuses on green energy, but there are other things that probably needed to be explored, such as the con that happens to be carbon credits. However, this film basically has one focus, and that is probably necessary when we are dealing with such complex problems. The thing is that we are looking for a solution so that we don't have to give up our current lifestyle. In fact, this is what I think the problem is - we simply do not want to give up our lifestyle.

Anyway, the film looks at a number of clean energy sources, but the thing isn't so much 'clean energy' but rather fossil fuels. Fossil fuels is basically a dirty word, so if you can present an energy source that doesn't use fossil fuels, then it can be billed as being a green energy source. Like, one of the sources that they focus on happens to be biofuels. That sounds green, however it isn't - it pretty much involve cutting down trees and burning them, but because trees can be regrown then technically it is a renewable source of energy. The reality is that we are going to run out of trees before we run out of coal. Also, I'm not at all convinced that it is all that clean either.

Of course, one of my concerns with this film is that it didn't really offer much in the way of a solution, but the thing is that it does - consume less. The thing is that we want a solution but we don't want to make any sacrifices. Neither side does. The other problem with this film is that this isn't a conversation one side wants to have, and it is a argument that the other side wants to use to discredit alternative energy sources. However, it is a conversation that we need to have, just like nuclear energy is a conversation that we need to have, but the thing is that whenever anybody suggests it, they are automatically shut down (my issue has more to do with the startup cost, and also the fact that we always try to cut corners).

A wake up call

[soundoflight · 8/10 · 30 April 2020]

There are lots of nitpicker negative reviewers on here that are "missing the forest for the trees." While it's not perfect, the documentary is essentially conveying a very simple truth: that an infinite expansion of human population, human industry, resource consumption, GDP, and ever rising stock markets is a mathematical impossibility, and will lead to environmental and societal collapse.

While the production values of the documentary leave a little to be desired - it's essentially a copy of Michael Moore's "common man seeking answers" motif, with dead pan narration interspersed with interview segments - what kept me watching was that as you go along, you can see the incredible hypocrisy that Jeff Gibbs begins to uncover, and it's fascinating to watch the real-time cognitive-dissonance on display in some of the interview candidates.

Many have bought into a lie that by throwing away our current crop of mass produced factory goods (that are still good) and manufacturing a whole new fleet of "green" goods, that the earth will be saved. This is a comforting lie because it tells that you don't need to sacrifice a thing. It tells you that you can consume what you like, buy a new car every couple years, have 10 kids if you feel like it, mow down that forest because you'd rather have something built there, divert that river because it's in your way - a trail of selfish, self centred thinking. What's killing the earth is not a lack of a Tesla on every driveway, it's the mining and manufacturing and polluting that go into making everything that we consume and dispose of on a regular basis, including vehicles. If humanity is going to survive, a complete paradigm shift is required to conserve resources, limit growth, and end our culture of disposable consumption.

8 for throwing the stick

[stefan-huybrechts · 8/10 · 5 May 2020]

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.

Timely and Hard-Hitting Documentary

[TigerHeron · 9/10 · 26 April 2020]

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.

#1 problem finally adressed but...

[nicolas_gallant · 7/10 · 26 April 2020]

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?

Why No Discussion Of Nuclear Power

[schaffers13 · 9/10 · 25 April 2020]

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.

Meandering, boring, with no point or direction.

[FrankMTOrlando · 29 April 2020]

This is terrible. If you want to watch stock footage narrated by a old man on quaaludes, this is your film.This is NOT a Michael Moore film. Just terrible Did I mention it is terrible?

Lots to be rightly criticized -- but solutions are never revealed.

[CCharlesIC · 6/10 · 23 April 2020]

While the film rightly shreds renewable energy sources (especially biomass), it's sadness at a lack of solutions is misplaced. Yes environmental groups are in bed with big corporate interest groups - we've known that for years.

What's not in the film is that Obama's Clean Power Plan was written in part by NG lobbyists (affiliated with NRDC!). At best it would have dropped CO² emissions to ~240 ppm - which would mostly eliminate coal but not NG.

Planet of the Humans does not address a way forward towards a clean energy utopia, but that's because the director & producers refuse to take a deep look at clean energy solutions themselves. For that it would be good to look at the 2013 film Pandora's Promise by one of Mr. Moore's mentors, Robert Stone.

This film is more of a hit piece - some might call sloppy - on corporate behind-the-scenes advocacy on behalf of renewables. For the record, I've been aware of much of this situation for nearly a decade. One can look at Germany, California, & South Australia to see lots of cheap renewable energy which raises retail prices (because of intense grid modification & NG peaker plant usage) while grid stability must be balanced by neighboring utilities - generally with high fossil-fuel usage.

There is a way forward towards a clean energy utopia: abundant energy for the planet.... perhaps check out EcoModernism as an enviro-philosophy instead of Moore & Co's dismal and dreary outlook.

Not your typical Michael Moore documentary

[stu_hasic · 9/10 · 23 April 2020]

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.

Our Current Way of Life is not Sustainable. By Any Means.

[ixtlan · 7/10 · 26 April 2020]

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.

Misleading, counterproductive and sensationalist

[michael_k92 · 2/10 · 24 April 2020]

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.

This documentary set out to prove that renewable energy works

[randishme · 10/10 · 27 December 2021]

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.

Anyone with half a brain already knew this stuff

[nnebbia · 6/10 · 24 July 2022]

Nothing like seeing liberal lunatics affirm what many of us have been saying about this electric solar push: that they've been wrong about the green energy movement. We will need fossil fuels to survive for the foreseeable future. Global warming is a myth. Disagree with me? Take a geology 101 course. Al gore, david blood and bill mckibben are all crooks who have fooled many of you.

Misrepresentations and untruths

[wjm2222 · 1/10 · 26 April 2020]

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.

Truth is hard to swallow, but is a must

[cdbanaktsang · 9/10 · 30 April 2020]

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!

Informative but still incomplete

[CinemaSlant · 6/10 · 27 April 2020]

As someone who doesn't know a lot of the inner workings of green technology...I did find some points interesting but I felt the doc was a bit aimless. Heavy on pointing out corruption in the energy sector...the film is quick to point out who is the bad guy...but they never offer any kind of solution forward other than....less people? The title of the film is Planet of the Humans but they never dive into what or how a reduced population would benefit. How many less people? Is the goal to go back to the 1700s when people farmed their own land and only powered by candlelight?

Its a bit of a doomsday doc that doesn't accomplish much other than pointing fingers at environmental groups for "trying" to do something different. Sure money is behind most any industry...but they fail to even mention the cost of continuing with non-renewables or how do we move forward.

Must Watch Documentary

[aeromano · 9/10 · 24 April 2020]

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.

Heavy and real. But no solutions !

[soundman-172-986426 · 7/10 · 24 April 2020]

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 .

Investigative look and exposé of many on the green energy band wagon

[SimonJack · 9/10 · 16 May 2020]

"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.

a nice test of Varki's MORT theory

[PostCarbon · 24 April 2020]

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.

Doomsday prediction

[alstaggs · 6/10 · 24 April 2020]

After watching this film I feel like there's no hope for planet earth. Very depressing and it doesn't present any possible solutions. I now feel like the solar and wind solutions not only won't work but also make the problem worse.

Inaccurate, lurid,and absolutely misleading

[florowski · 2/10 · 27 April 2020]

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 MUST WATCH FILM

[mikeklement · 10/10 · 26 April 2020]

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!

They didn't even try

[charleswarner24 · 6/10 · 5 July 2020]

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.

A lot of misinformation

[basvantilt · 2/10 · 27 April 2020]

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.