I came to this film, not as a climate change sceptic, but as someone who has next to zero trust in world government or media. I love our dear Earth and believe in the idea of living in harmony with it. Yet sorting out fact from fiction and political agendas can be a minefield. That minefield is pessimistic and filled with doom and gloom. In contrast, I hoped to find something enlightening and uplifting about this film. (I give this film 7/10 for breaking the mold and painting a brighter picutre of our future.)
Unfortunately, it dragged. It was repetitive, fluffed out, and oversimplified, and I wanted it to end after about half an hour. I get this too easy style may appeal to some, but not to me, I wanted to some meat, though he suggests eating less of that. Still, I appreciated the positive attitude and the few interesting insights the presenter brought forward.
Each time a point or technology is explained, the film fast forwards from 2019 to 2040 on how that change will impacted us in a positive way. It's often the same thing repeated.
The film starts with a bit of primer of climate change. CO2, ice caps melting, ocean acidy, loss of biodiversity etc, and proceeds to offer solutions with technology available today.
In the 90-minute runtime we are essentially given 4 key ideas / solutions.
The first solution is basically solar panels in a network grid where people can buy and sell amongst themselves. This worked very well in a poorer area in Bangladesh. He suggests implementing it in the West. But the discussion failed to raise questions of solar panel manufacture, silicone supply, power supply on a Western industrial scale etc. No other energy solutions were mentioned.
The second solution was... self-driving cars leased on demand. The idea is that if everyone used this tech, we would have less emissions. Somehow, I guess he believes not owning a car means people needs cars less. His main point here is about how places like L. A. are two thirds roads and car parks, and that with less cars, we can reallocate that wasted space and dedicate it to agricultural land and reforestation.
The third and most interesting solution was Marine Permaculture. It's said that the oceans absorb something like 90% of CO2 emissions leading to warming oceans and increased ocean acidy. We need our oceans to be healthy to survive. Seaweed is the proposed answer. A certain type of brown seaweed can grow up to .5 meters per day and over 50 meters long. It can be used for fertiliser, food, fuel, mopping up massive amounts of CO2 (1000s of tons per square km of seaweed) and restoring ocean equilibrium. He suggests by 2040 we can be back on track. The seas will be happy, oil rigs will be a thing of the past and can be used for tourist diving etc. I don't mind that.
The fourth solution is education and awareness. He suggests that we monitor power usage, plug it into software and make it interactive and emotive for the kids. The film discusses a lack of education for millions of poor women across the globe. It draws the correlation between woman's education and birth rates, suggesting that poorer uneducated woman have an average of 5 children. Education is therefore a natural way to bring down the population and empower woman across the globe. He suggests billboards with environmental messages and the like too.
There is a fifth concept throughout the movie created by an "economist" called doughnut theory. Essentially as the world becomes more ecological and prosperous, people are taken from poverty (centre of doughnut) and brought into prosperity (outside of doughnut). It's a nice idea, but I think the economics need a bit of tweaking to say the least.
This film, backed by a victorious, wholesome, and perhaps a little too inspiring soundtrack, has a good heart. It was refreshing to see some positive attitudes about the future. Tedious as it was, it did leave me believing that there was hope, and that humanity can create a utopia right here on Earth. However, there is certainly room for further and more rigorous analysis than what is presented¬.
Each time a point or technology is explained, the film fast forwards from 2019 to 2040 on how that change will impacted us in a positive way. It's often the same thing repeated.
The film starts with a bit of primer of climate change. CO2, ice caps melting, ocean acidy, loss of biodiversity etc, and proceeds to offer solutions with technology available today.
In the 90-minute runtime we are essentially given 4 key ideas / solutions.
The first solution is basically solar panels in a network grid where people can buy and sell amongst themselves. This worked very well in a poorer area in Bangladesh. He suggests implementing it in the West. But the discussion failed to raise questions of solar panel manufacture, silicone supply, power supply on a Western industrial scale etc. No other energy solutions were mentioned.
The second solution was... self-driving cars leased on demand. The idea is that if everyone used this tech, we would have less emissions. Somehow, I guess he believes not owning a car means people needs cars less. His main point here is about how places like L. A. are two thirds roads and car parks, and that with less cars, we can reallocate that wasted space and dedicate it to agricultural land and reforestation.
The third and most interesting solution was Marine Permaculture. It's said that the oceans absorb something like 90% of CO2 emissions leading to warming oceans and increased ocean acidy. We need our oceans to be healthy to survive. Seaweed is the proposed answer. A certain type of brown seaweed can grow up to .5 meters per day and over 50 meters long. It can be used for fertiliser, food, fuel, mopping up massive amounts of CO2 (1000s of tons per square km of seaweed) and restoring ocean equilibrium. He suggests by 2040 we can be back on track. The seas will be happy, oil rigs will be a thing of the past and can be used for tourist diving etc. I don't mind that.
The fourth solution is education and awareness. He suggests that we monitor power usage, plug it into software and make it interactive and emotive for the kids. The film discusses a lack of education for millions of poor women across the globe. It draws the correlation between woman's education and birth rates, suggesting that poorer uneducated woman have an average of 5 children. Education is therefore a natural way to bring down the population and empower woman across the globe. He suggests billboards with environmental messages and the like too.
There is a fifth concept throughout the movie created by an "economist" called doughnut theory. Essentially as the world becomes more ecological and prosperous, people are taken from poverty (centre of doughnut) and brought into prosperity (outside of doughnut). It's a nice idea, but I think the economics need a bit of tweaking to say the least.
This film, backed by a victorious, wholesome, and perhaps a little too inspiring soundtrack, has a good heart. It was refreshing to see some positive attitudes about the future. Tedious as it was, it did leave me believing that there was hope, and that humanity can create a utopia right here on Earth. However, there is certainly room for further and more rigorous analysis than what is presented¬.