It's always good to have people question the present sacrements and enviromental solutions for our overconsumption of the natural resources. But it isn't that well done. I would presume that his budget wasn't so big as the billionaires to state his ideas in this documentary. The criticism that he gives no solutions is not fair, because these are not easily found when overpopulation and the lifestyle of a majority of the inhabitants of the first world countries with a gigantic carbon footprint are the source of the problem. Who is willing to really alter their way of life? And that's a really inconvenient truth.

This is one of those movies that attempts to confront us with some uncomfortable truths, ones that we really don't want to consider with all of the problems we are currently facing. Mind you, despite there being an existential threat in regards to man-made climate change, the reality is that we, as humans, simply want other people to solve the problem. The thing is because we are outsourcing the problem solving to other people, and aren't holding these people accountable, the reality is that we are basically having the wool pulled over our eyes.

This film basically focuses on green energy, but there are other things that probably needed to be explored, such as the con that happens to be carbon credits. However, this film basically has one focus, and that is probably necessary when we are dealing with such complex problems. The thing is that we are looking for a solution so that we don't have to give up our current lifestyle. In fact, this is what I think the problem is - we simply do not want to give up our lifestyle.

Anyway, the film looks at a number of clean energy sources, but the thing isn't so much 'clean energy' but rather fossil fuels. Fossil fuels is basically a dirty word, so if you can present an energy source that doesn't use fossil fuels, then it can be billed as being a green energy source. Like, one of the sources that they focus on happens to be biofuels. That sounds green, however it isn't - it pretty much involve cutting down trees and burning them, but because trees can be regrown then technically it is a renewable source of energy. The reality is that we are going to run out of trees before we run out of coal. Also, I'm not at all convinced that it is all that clean either.

Of course, one of my concerns with this film is that it didn't really offer much in the way of a solution, but the thing is that it does - consume less. The thing is that we want a solution but we don't want to make any sacrifices. Neither side does. The other problem with this film is that this isn't a conversation one side wants to have, and it is a argument that the other side wants to use to discredit alternative energy sources. However, it is a conversation that we need to have, just like nuclear energy is a conversation that we need to have, but the thing is that whenever anybody suggests it, they are automatically shut down (my issue has more to do with the startup cost, and also the fact that we always try to cut corners).

Disclaimer, I'm 65 and (for the most part), I was already aware of issues presented in this film. e.g.

• electric cars charged from coal power plants, inefficiencies
• limitations of wind/solar due to their intermittent natures
• wind/solar with high cost of manufacturing and short lifespans
• capitalism is... well capitalism
• the list just goes on