The ESG Movement Shown in Michael Moore's Planet of the Humans

Climate Change and the Hijacking of the Green Movement

Introduction

The Michael Moore produced 2019 documentary Planet of the Humans, directed by Jeff Gibbs, raised important questions, concerns and points about one of the most pressing issues in the climate change topic, which is the extent to which renewable energy is safe for the environment. The documentary surprised many because Moore is known for leaning left in his politics, yet the documentary essentially accused many climate leaders and activists of misleading the public about renewable energy. Moore contends in the documentary that what began as a legitimate movement towards sustainability was co-opted by corporations and big business to ensure that they could profit from the emerging Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) industry. Moore argues that their motive is profit—not to reduce the risk of climate change—which is why so many renewable energy endeavors today are actually bad for the environment. Moore’s film does not dismiss climate change; it simply points out the flawed approach to addressing climate change that many in the ESG community are now taking. For that reason, Planet of the Humans adds to the discussion on climate change and brings up some important ideas that have been viewed both negatively and positively but that ultimately are meant to help people understood the truth about the ESG movement and how big business is shaping the trajectory of renewable energy as a viable solution to climate change.

The Conversation Moore Wants to Have

Michael Moore has always been a controversial filmmaker. His first documentary Roger & Mike took on the Flint, Michigan, labor crisis and included an attempt to get Nike’s CEO on camera about why Nike offshored jobs to Asia while Americans were out of work. Later, Moore took on the subject of school shootings in Bowling for Columbine. He also looked at the politics of 9/11 and how that event changed America. Moore has a history of taking on taboo subjects and tackling sacred cows. That is exactly what he does in his documentary Planet of the Humans. In the politics of the left it has become taboo to question the integrity of ESG—yet Moore has some real problems with the renewable energy pursuits currently underway in the world. He sees them and presents them as more harmful than good for the environment. The documentary shows why this is an important conversation to have; and judging from the reactions in the press and public, it has certainly achieved its goal of sparking conversation.

This is what some of those reactions have been like: “Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ documentary peddles dangerous climate denial” (Nuccitelli). Another reviewer noted some the film’s strengths and weaknesses by stating, “Jeff Gibbs’ film, produced by Michael Moore, takes a pop at green, liberal A-listers such as Al Gore – but doesn’t dare criticise Greta Thunberg” (Bradshaw). Scheck argued that the documentary did a good job of pointing out “the many damaging structural flaws and corporate ties of the environmental movement.” Gearino, on the other hand, argued that “the documentary’s ‘facts’ are deceptive and misleading, not to mention way out of date.” Variety states that the film ultimately focuses on how “a greenwashing surface too often hides old-school environmental destruction, polluting and profiteering from the usual billionaires.” One of the points of the documentary is that renewable energy, like wind and solar energy, has benefits that “are often wildly exaggerated, particularly in proportion to the resources required for their construction and operation” (Variety). Yet Gearino’s main objection to the film is that it oversimplifies things, like the distinction between clean energy and green energy. One such example is biomass. Gearino admits that biomass is green energy but not necessarily clean energy; his problem with the documentary is that it lumps biomass in with wind and solar power as though all were guilty of the same sings. Gearino argues, moreover, that the film does not adequately display the benefits of wind and solar power but only focuses on their negatives—such as the effect on the environment that the production of these renewable energy resources has.

What the Documentary Shows

The documentary shows that there are some glaring contradictions in the green energy movement to fight climate change. Moore and Gibbs argue that it is important to look at these contradictions, while Gearino and others see these contradictions as hurdles to overcome rather than as inherent problems in the movement. Moore and Gibbs for instance point out that EVs (electric vehicles) like the Chevy Volt are not powered by renewable energy but rather by the fossil fuel grid. Gearino would object that this does not take away from the green energy movement at all but only shows where the next steps should be taken: getting the US off the fossil fuel grid.

To do that, however, more renewable energy sources are needed, and this is where the major controversy of the documentary comes into play. One of the major questions Gibbs asks as he sees a mountain being destroyed to make room for wind turbines is this: “Can machines made by industrial civilization save us from industrialization?” His point is that the renewable energy resources that people are turning to in the ESG movement are destroying the environment in their own ways. Underlying this argument is the notion that there are no good technological fixes to the problem of climate change. The best solution is to get away from technology and to return to a more natural way of life that is more in harmony with nature. Trying to come up with energy solutions to modern man’s way of life will only mean that one continues to harm the environment. Because it is labeled ESG, however, the destruction will be hidden and no one will pay it any attention—just like in the early days of fossil fuel.

Gibbs also shows that biomass is the largest contributor to renewable energy in the world but that it is very bad for the environment. Biomass plants burn all manner of objects that are not actually associated with biomass—such as PCP, rubber tires, and railroad ties. The pollution from these plants turns the snow black at a neighboring school. This is the kind of evidence that Gibbs uses to make his case.

To explain how the ESG movement was hijacked, Gibbs looks at the partnerships that have been forged in the industry of green and renewable energy sources. Those partnerships include investors from Wall Street, prominent billionaires, the Sierra Club, Exxon, BlackRock, Al Gore and numerous others. Gibbs explains that before releasing his environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore started an ESG investment fund that was meant to capitalize on the ESG rush that he knew would result from his film. Meanwhile, Gibbs points out, Al Gore has also stumped for the ethanol sugarcane industry in Brazil that has displaced indigenous people from the land so that the industry tycoons can have it for sugarcane fields.

In short, the documentary shows that there is a lot of money being made in the ESG field, without the industry actually contributing in a positive, non-destructive way to the preservation of the environment. The environment is being polluted just as badly by renewable energy resources as fossil fuels. To make matters worse, it is all a front: the green energy movement is outright lying about being environmentally friendly. For instance, while attending an Earth Day event in Washington, DC, (sponsored by Toyota and Caterpillar and CitiBank), Gibbs is told that the event is completely being powered by solar energy. Gibbs goes backstage and finds that it is actually being powered by biodiesel.

What More Can be Done?

Obviously, there are some important considerations to be made when it comes to climate change and protecting the environment. The question is: can modern society actually preserve the environment and eliminate the risk of climate change by trying to live as a modern society? For a society that depends so heavily upon electricity, what can it really do to stop the destruction of the environment? There will always be a need to mine, to burn, to destroy, and to exploit, so long as the current structures and systems are in place—and they are not going to go away anytime soon because the world is governed by people and businesses that want to profit no matter what the industry or movement is actually supposed to be about.

Is this documentary positive or negative? That is another good question: the positive side of it is that it pulls back the curtain on the ESG movement and shows how misleading and exploitative it actually is. The negative side of it is that it does not offer any hope or any alternatives—other than for society to move away from technological advancement and from industrialization. As that is unlikely to happen, the destruction of the environment is only likely to continue. That is why the documentary concludes with a scene of two orangutans clinging to one another as their home—the wilderness—is destroyed all around them by the logging industry. The destruction is not going to stop so long as modern society is obsessed with consumption. That is the real problem at the heart of the matter: people consume, perhaps more than they need. They are materialistic and not willing to live life in simplicity. They want more than they need: things have to be bigger, better, brighter all the time. All that consumption requires massive amounts of energy and destruction—but people would rather pay the price of environmental destruction than give up their possessions or ways of life. That is the argument the filmmaker makes. Nothing is going to change because people have never changed—not for the entire history of humankind.