This latest offering from Charles Ferguson, also director of Inside Job and other documentaries is a high quality, informative and beautiful film that strives to explore both the problems and the solutions surrounding Climate Change. It offers panoramic vistas and elliptical music in the vein of "Koyaanisqatsi", a basic scientific recap along the lines of "An Inconvenient Truth" and the immediacy and adventure of "Years of Living Dangerously" while presenting a coherent, succinct and well-organized account. The film is broken into three segments: Power generation, transportation and food production, showing how each one is responsible for one-third of the anthropogenic forcing. In each segment, it starts with a broad view and quickly descends to ground level and the human impact. Its view is happily not limited to any one country and much time is spent on China. The dangers of coal are contrasted with the promise of solar. A look at electric car development includes a Tesla beating a Ferrari. The agricultural segment includes heartbreaking helicopter footage of acres of cattle cordoned in bleak, muddy pens. My only disappointment is that there were 5 people in the audience. Everyone was watching X-men I can only assume. The film ends with the challenge contained in its title and formulated throughout: we have the technology to fix the problem. We just need to choose to use it.
8 Reviews
Not sure Mr Powell even WATCHED the film ...
bayesianlogic-4637814 October 2016
I'm not sure Mr Powell even WATCHED the film, but no matter. The so- called "review" he gave was ignorant. The reasons why films like TTC and DiCaprio's "Before the Flood" are so important is that the general public does not know how to cut through the distracting noise which Mr Powell's review so exemplifies, and does not care to understand the simple science which makes climate disruption due to human emissions of greenhouse gases a logical necessity.
The claim that this is a "leftist idea" is ridiculous, since the inevitability of climate disruption due to fossil fuel emissions was nailed down at the end of the 19th century, and details worked out by 1938 by Guy Stewart Callendar, with proof.
The argument is easy: (1) Energy is always conserved. (First law of thermodynamics.) (2) Earth receives energy from Sun at high frequencies and radiates it out as heat, keeping energy on Earth in balance. (Black body radiation.) (3) Carbon dioxide has a big an powerful absorption line at the peak of the Earth's heat emissions. Carbon dioxide is a well-mixed trace gas. Effects of such gases do not depend upon their being dominant. Nitrogen, for example, has no such effect, and it's more than 70% of atmosphere. Consequently, carbon dioxide retains some of the energy which would otherwise be emitted in the process described in "(2)". The more carbon dioxide, the greater this effect. (4) The retention heats the atmosphere, and, transitively, the oceans, which, at the higher temperature restores black body balance needed for the equilibrium of "(1)" and "(2)". (5) Human emissions of carbon dioxide are many many times greater than ANY natural source. (6) Effects of variations in Sun, volcanoes, magnetic fields, and the rest are inconsequential and uncorrelated with long run temperatures. (7) Physical calculations and evidence from deep Earth history substantiate the effect.
Finally we KNOW this works the way it does because we rely upon the effect to ENGINEER things, and we do that successfully. For example, if this were not correct, then we could not build semiconductors which operate the circuits in computers, cell phones, and other devices successfully. Moreover, if this were not correct, we could not keep spacecraft in the proper range of temperatures for them to work. So it's not just speculation. We know it works. It has to. And it has zero, zilch, nil to do with politics.
The claim that this is a "leftist idea" is ridiculous, since the inevitability of climate disruption due to fossil fuel emissions was nailed down at the end of the 19th century, and details worked out by 1938 by Guy Stewart Callendar, with proof.
The argument is easy: (1) Energy is always conserved. (First law of thermodynamics.) (2) Earth receives energy from Sun at high frequencies and radiates it out as heat, keeping energy on Earth in balance. (Black body radiation.) (3) Carbon dioxide has a big an powerful absorption line at the peak of the Earth's heat emissions. Carbon dioxide is a well-mixed trace gas. Effects of such gases do not depend upon their being dominant. Nitrogen, for example, has no such effect, and it's more than 70% of atmosphere. Consequently, carbon dioxide retains some of the energy which would otherwise be emitted in the process described in "(2)". The more carbon dioxide, the greater this effect. (4) The retention heats the atmosphere, and, transitively, the oceans, which, at the higher temperature restores black body balance needed for the equilibrium of "(1)" and "(2)". (5) Human emissions of carbon dioxide are many many times greater than ANY natural source. (6) Effects of variations in Sun, volcanoes, magnetic fields, and the rest are inconsequential and uncorrelated with long run temperatures. (7) Physical calculations and evidence from deep Earth history substantiate the effect.
Finally we KNOW this works the way it does because we rely upon the effect to ENGINEER things, and we do that successfully. For example, if this were not correct, then we could not build semiconductors which operate the circuits in computers, cell phones, and other devices successfully. Moreover, if this were not correct, we could not keep spacecraft in the proper range of temperatures for them to work. So it's not just speculation. We know it works. It has to. And it has zero, zilch, nil to do with politics.
Spot-on
cflory-3290116 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
As a Climate Reality Leader with a certificate and concentration in Sustainability, I can say this documentary is SPOT-ON. This movie does an excellent job of explaining the science, interactions, and complicated relationships between our actions and the reactions of the planet. The most frightening, worst-case-scenario of setting in motion a feedback loop resulting in a runaway greenhouse effect draws closer each day... and there are signs we are close to, if not past the tipping point. We may be in a "Wile E. Coyote moment" of already having run off the cliff without yet having realized it. Since warming will continue for several decades even if we do manage to reach net zero emissions - and last for many centuries if not thousands of years - there is no way for us to know just how bad it will get. We should err on the side of caution and take drastic measures NOW!
Well balanced and educational movie about the disaster of global warming and how to combat it successfully.
imseeg30 December 2020
This is one of the best well balanced and educational documentaries about global warming I have seen to date.
This documentary warns (in understandable words) about the disastrous dangers that global warming causes to the human existence on this planet. BUT, it also offers lots of positive possibilities of how to combat and revert global warming right NOW.
Highly recommended watch for anyone wanting to understand all the broader implications of global warming and how to make a POSITIVE CHANGE.
This documentary warns (in understandable words) about the disastrous dangers that global warming causes to the human existence on this planet. BUT, it also offers lots of positive possibilities of how to combat and revert global warming right NOW.
Highly recommended watch for anyone wanting to understand all the broader implications of global warming and how to make a POSITIVE CHANGE.
No reason to even watch this
gjr-851652 August 2018
Watch 'what/why in the world are they spraying?' instead. the fact is that prominent figures in science such as david keith of harvard university have already admitted to being able to 'geoengineer' the weather. what that means is using sprayed particulates of things such as aluminium, barium, lithium, and many other dangerous free-form oxide metals. This information is outlined in USAF training manuals as well as the above mentioned documentary. the fact is that global warming, climate change, or by any other name is now and most likely has always been the agenda to control the weather known as 'chemtrails' to some and weather modification to the rest because that is what it really is.
Please, please, please Spare Me
gregg-a-powell4 June 2016
More leftist drivel.... Take out your Brain - Wash it - reinsert into Cranium. Oscar Isaac did a fine job narrating the film, but it is completely one sided - it does not present evidence (or lack thereof) that in fact - the climate always changes, has always changed, and will continue to do so... last time the Earth spontaneously warmed up from the last Ice Age, I'm pretty sure the Industrial Evolution had not yet occurred, and predated Humans' ability to potentially affect the environment. Suspect Al Gore helped fund this Movie. Would like to have seen an evenly balanced presentation of the facts - to include a discussion of scientifically proved phenomena that affects global climate change over many millenniums to include cyclical variations in Earth's axial tilt, orbital eccentricity, Precession of solstices and equinoxes, and External/Celestial forces.
One-sided promotion of the "green" industry
cwalker-341888 May 2021
Time to choose - between two sides of the same coin. One industry we all know is harming the planet, and another that had done a good job with marketing spin.
This is a false choice. Both are terrible. We have other options. Where's the conversation about degrowth?
This is a false choice. Both are terrible. We have other options. Where's the conversation about degrowth?
Poorly written, just as poorly narrated.
HwajangshilAgashi8 June 2021
You know that expression, "preaching to the choir"?
I am the choir. It should have been easy to get me fully on their side, and get a high star rating from me.
Instead, I was continually distracted by the poor writing. It felt as though every other sentence started with "But...". I'm not even one of these people who believe that you should never start a sentence with a conjunction. However, it is definitely a pet peeve of mine when a documentary is written in such a way where it seemingly only makes a statement in order to then juxtapose it with the next statement, which invariably starts with "But...".
Not only that, it also made matter-of-fact statements, without backing them up in any way, simply because it suited their narrative. For example, when they stated that the KPK chairman and deputy chairman were arrested on fabricated charges. I am not saying that this is not true, but why not state instead what these charges are, and that the accused denied them as fabricated, or something along these lines?
This film would have come across as more balanced (it really is incredibly lopsided) if they had addressed, rather than ignored, challenges with renewable energies. All these "green" technologies are far from "green" in their production. Producing an electric car, for example, is more emission intensive than producing a regular car, due to the batteries. If you only focus on how much greener they are to run, and ignore the higher energy required to produce them, you are not providing a balanced picture, and people who know this will use it as a reason to dismiss the film as all lies.
There are other things, but I'll leave it at that.
As for the narration, I honestly do not know what they were going for, but the bland, slightly depressed tone and slow speech felt somehow patronizing, making the poor script all the worse.
What a disappointment.
I am the choir. It should have been easy to get me fully on their side, and get a high star rating from me.
Instead, I was continually distracted by the poor writing. It felt as though every other sentence started with "But...". I'm not even one of these people who believe that you should never start a sentence with a conjunction. However, it is definitely a pet peeve of mine when a documentary is written in such a way where it seemingly only makes a statement in order to then juxtapose it with the next statement, which invariably starts with "But...".
Not only that, it also made matter-of-fact statements, without backing them up in any way, simply because it suited their narrative. For example, when they stated that the KPK chairman and deputy chairman were arrested on fabricated charges. I am not saying that this is not true, but why not state instead what these charges are, and that the accused denied them as fabricated, or something along these lines?
This film would have come across as more balanced (it really is incredibly lopsided) if they had addressed, rather than ignored, challenges with renewable energies. All these "green" technologies are far from "green" in their production. Producing an electric car, for example, is more emission intensive than producing a regular car, due to the batteries. If you only focus on how much greener they are to run, and ignore the higher energy required to produce them, you are not providing a balanced picture, and people who know this will use it as a reason to dismiss the film as all lies.
There are other things, but I'll leave it at that.
As for the narration, I honestly do not know what they were going for, but the bland, slightly depressed tone and slow speech felt somehow patronizing, making the poor script all the worse.
What a disappointment.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
