The Film that Caused the Earth to Stand Still
My personal take on Planet of the Humans, which caused a bit of a stir when it came out.
On the 21 April 2020, the film Planet of the Humans was released for free viewing, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. It was presented by Jeff Gibbs, with Michael Moore acting as executive producer and Ozzie Zehner, who also appears in the film, producing and directing it. It wasn't long before criticism of the film started to role out. So what's all the fuss about?
Its main focus was that the 'Green' movement in the US had been subsumed into the neoliberal vortex that is so prevalent within the US establishment. It focused mainly on two organisations, The Sierra Club and 350.org. Although some of the issues raised were pertinent, there was a lack of context throughout the film. Some of the scenes were a bit weird, such as Bill McKibben's endorsement of biomass. McKibben is the founder of 350.org. So why the inconsistencies? It transpires that the film is at least 10 years out of date. An article in Science News takes a closer look at the claims made in the film.
Firstly there's the question about the impacts of solar panel manufacture. Silicon is extracted from quartz, which is a high energy process. Polluting by-products such as silicon tetrachloride is created, which if not treated properly can react with water forming hydrochloric acid. These are issues that need to be addressed if solar is to have a sustainable future. New technologies seek to avoid such issues by incorporating other materials in the manufacture, with thinner PV cells being developed that uses less silicon.
Secondly, according to the film, solar panels are very inefficient at only 8%. This is yesterday's news. Modern panels have an efficiency rating of around 20%. Then there's the life span, with the film claiming that solar panels last only 10 years. Modern panels can run for up to 25 years, with wind turbines able to run for 30 years.
Thirdly, wind and solar are intermittent. Everyone is aware of this, that's why renewables need to be part of a wider mix and energy strategy. Storage is a possible solution, but according to the film, currently available lithium-ion batteries lack large scale capacity. There will likely be technical improvements in battery capacity and other storage technologies.
The article also notes the transition over to natural gas from coal, which, on paper, has reduced overall emissions in the US. But given that much of this transition has been down to gas produced by the fracking process, once fugitive emissions and other impacts from the process are taken into account, there isn't any gain.
Gibbs and Moore wanted to 'start a conversation about the renewable energy industry.' But having arrived at the party 10 years too late, one may well wonder what they have to talk about.
On an interview with the Hill, the trio made an effort. But there was no mention of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the film. Moore made some reasonable points about the culture at Wall St and a system that engages in relentless consumption and pursuit of profit and the impacts that that is having on the planet. He made the interesting comment that ''enough' is the dirtiest word in capitalism'. He also comments that 'we are not [environmentalists] winning this battle'.
He mentioned the Covid-19 pandemic and how that has brought people together and forced them to re-evaluate their lives. He also makes a final point that certain elements within the environmental movement have collaborated with the corporate establishment in order to push green issues, but emphasises that it's people in general that need to push the issue. The other two participants didn't really say anything of note.
What about the Groups themselves that had come under scrutiny in the film? Bill McKibben made a response on 350.org. He debunks the films claims. With reference to biomass energy, he admits - along with many other environmentalists at the time - to endorsing it. But it quickly became apparent to him and everyone else in the movement, as the film actually points out, that biomass simply doesn't cut it.
The Sierra Club US's response is curiously barely a response. It simply refers to the film as an 'Inaccurate and Misleading YouTube Video', with one paragraph of comment on the film - that's assuming visitors to the site actually know what particular film is being referred to. The Club's terse reaction may have something to do with some of its controversial associations in the past.
In 2011, the Club's chair at the time, Carl Pope, resigned after criticism over the endorsement of Clorox, a company who's products had been labelled dangerous by the Public Interest Research Group.
In 2012, Time found out that:
between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking—to help fund the Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.
This was under Pope's tenure. Since 2010, the Sierra Club has campaigned against fracking.
There's little doubt that the Sierra Club has had skeletons in its cupboard. As this Counterpunch article notes, the organisation has had ties with a few unsavoury companies.
It should be noted here that the Sierra Club Canada and BC entities are separate organisations. They broke away from their US parent presumably due to the concerns mentioned above.
The Sierra Club BC offers a more nuanced critique of the film. It acknowledges the inaccuracies and misinformation in the film, but also notes that, 'The video raises important questions that need to be addressed'.
The article points out that 'technology is not a silver bullet fix to the climate crisis' and that 'we also need to be reducing our energy demand and increasing energy efficiency.' That includes Electric vehicles, with the recognition that 'there are environmental and justice barriers to simply switching all our transportation over to electric.' The article points to a campaign by Amnesty International which has:
documented serious human rights violations linked to the extraction of the minerals used in lithium-ion batteries.
We can also learn ecological stewardship from indigenous peoples:
we need to learn from Indigenous peoples about how to shift our awareness to an understanding that humans are an interdependent part of broader ecosystems.
The article sums up that:
There is no magical technological solution that comes without any impacts to workers or the natural world. And yet renewable energy IS a core, crucial part of the transition away from burning fossil fuels and towards a livable climate.
Ironically then it would appear that the film has sparked a debate. But the question remains as to why many of the claims in the film were outdated and misleading. Why would someone with Moore's track record suddenly fall by the wayside in such a manner. It turns out that Moore has gone off in a tangent before.
In 2017, Moore branded Donald Trump a 'Russian Traitor', based on unsubstantiated claims that Trump was in league with the Russians. A few months later he blasted Julian Assange and Wikileaks for releasing a series of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee. The Russians were allegedly involved in this. But the whole affair was surrounded by hearsay and zero evidence and was punctuated by political posturing.
Jeff Gibbs seems to be an unknown quantity, apart from the fact that he and Moore go back a long way having collaborated on several of Moore's earlier films. He has also contributed to the Huffington Post.
Ozzie Zehner's bio states that, 'He regularly guest lectures at universities and serves as a reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).' He writes for several publications and media outlets, including 'The Sunday Times, WIRED, The Washington Post, USA Today, PBS, BBC, CNN, and MSNBC.' He has an academic background having 'attended Kettering University (BS -Engineering) and The University of Amsterdam (MS/Drs – Science and Technology Studies). His research was awarded with honors at both institutions.' He also wrote a book called Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism.
The book has apparently attracted some controversy as well, so it seems that, just like in the film, Zehner has a point to make, but doesn't quite get it across in a convincing manner. No doubt the debate over the film will continue for some time within the environmental movement and beyond. But even before this film came out, there was always scope for the movement to contemplate its strategy and approach to an impending environmental crisis that - unlike the Covid-19 crisis - will be terminal when it unfolds.