Can We Save Planet Earth? (2006 TV Movie) User Reviews

The Truth About Climate Change: Part II

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 9 November 2017]

David Attenborough may dislike the term national treasure but it is a term that he deserves. He is brilliant at what he does and his prolific body of work is of one of the most consistently high standards of anybody.

Both parts of the 2006 two part documentary 'The Truth About Climate Change' do not see Attenborough at his best, and perhaps lesser efforts. That the documentary is still well worth watching in its own way, and has a lot to say about an important and relevant subject/issue in global warming says a lot about Attenborough's calibre in his field. The second and concluding episode of 'The Truth About Climate Change', 'Can We Save Planet Earth?' is like the previous part 'Are We Changing Planet Earth?' in that it's not his most in-depth effort and doesn't break new ground. Also think it's the weaker part of the two.

For Attenborough, and it may be to do with that evidence on the subject was nowhere near as advanced in 2006 as now, the evidence and the computer climate models stuff is rather speculative and superficial (unusual for him) and that it's something that doesn't see him play to his strengths. However, when 'Can We Save Planet Earth?' is good, it's very good.

'Can We Save Planet Earth?' beautifully filmed, done in a completely fluid and natural, sometimes intimate way and there is nothing static about it at all. The editing is smooth and succinct. The music fits well and is memorable.

In terms of information, 'Can We Save Planet Earth?' is very interesting and is well written, even if it doesn't educate or illuminate as much as other Attenborough documentaries before and since. The climate change and global warming scenes are well done and see Attenborough more in his comfort zone.

Like all his work, Attenborough's presenting helps hugely and a large part of why, for all 'Can We Save Planet Earth's?' faults, it's still worth watching. He is very candid, clearly knowing his stuff and knowing what to say and how to say it. He delivers it with his usual richness, soft-spoken enthusiasm and sincerity, never talking down to the viewer and keeping them riveted and wanting to know more.

Overall, well done but considering Attenborough's calibre it's hard not to admit that one was expecting more. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Humans unbounded (exponential) proliferation causes nature and animals to disappear exponentially (into extinction)

[youAreCrazyDude · 10/10 · 6 March 2011]

The show presents potential solutions to global warming, followed by a panel discussion about the road ahead. Acknowledging the scientific consensus on the issue, the debate will steer clear of the pointless "skeptics vs. alarmist" angle and focus on what we can do as individuals, a nation and a species to avert the impacts of climate change. Attenborough's film lays out seven components of a sane response to global warming - strategies and targets from the household to big industries and government. But each one has implications, and many - like a growing reliance on nuclear power - are highly contentious. Our goal is to debate these strategies in a positive and constructive spirit: combating the paralysis of swirling fears with concrete ideas for informed action." But in retrospective, in 2006, Attenborough did not have enough scientific evidence to be more blunt. So, the author of this review simply summarizes the situation of year 2011 as following: Pollution, eating species into extinction and massacre of environment happens on global scale: sacred and very needed by life on Earth trees are being massacred by human predator. Gold mining, illegal tree cutting, illegal ranching in Amazon already destroyed a lot of sacred trees. Films: "AMAZON with Bruce Perry", "The End of the Line (2009)". Most vicious predator (human) must learn to stop destroying its own environment. Most vicious predator propagates with exponential rate (without bounds) while it eats and destroys the nature and animals with exponential rate (into extinction). Most vicious predator must stop unbounded (exponential) reproduction: it leaves no space for healthy environment for most vicious predator and leaves no space for animals. CONSUMPTION is not "cool" anymore. Hint: coexistence of human and environment (nature and animals). If you are religious: even Jesus repealed the commandment "be fruitful and multiply" in the New Testament, just like he repealed many other "truths" / commandments such as "eye for an eye", etc. Even Jesus showed to us that "truths" become obsolete and even criminal (hurtful).

follows "Are We Changing Planet Earth?"

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 16 September 2015]

This is the second part of the program following "Are We Changing Planet Earth?" David Attenborough examines the computer climate change models and predictions of the future. It uses a fictitious family called Carbons to lay out the emissions from an average family.

This is the more speculative of the two program especially trying to predict the future with computer programs. At least Attenborough asks how reliable are these models. The answer is not convincing enough.

The Carbons family is a silly conceit. There is no need to use fictional families to demonstrate energy use when the program could use real people to give real intensity to the discussion. The whole show feels like it's talking down to the audience which takes away from the impact of the real information.