The environment, the digital alternative and Mohamed El-Assyouti In a first-of-its-kind event, a digital film projection took place simultaneously in hundreds of movie theatres around the world on Wednesday 21 March 2006. At the Galaxy movie theatre, Misr International screened The Planet to an audience that chose to pay LE50 a ticket to spend the evening of Mother's Day finding out about Mother Earth: The Planet, an 82-minute documentary about the current state of the environment directed by Michael Stenberg, Johan Söderberg and Linus Torell, co- produced by Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark under the rubric Swedish Svensk Filmindustry; its budget -- eight million euros. "Climate change is one of the greatest threats we face today," declares an anonymous voice at the opening of the documentary. "Global warming is too serious for the world to ignore..." In due course, no less than 29 scientists and specialists are interviewed on the dangers facing the planet, often in the context of one simple fact: that the earth's resources are consumed at a far higher rate than the ability of nature to regenerate them. The Australian National University's environmental scientist Will Steffen, for example, would rather make "a wake- up call" than send "a depressing message", while ecologist George Monbiot points out how programmes on wild life show an artificial wilderness where animals are living away from people, which is misleading for the audience; when people visit these places they are disappointed to realise that such spaces are in fact man-made national parks. In reality there are very few ecosystems not profoundly affected by human beings; 50 per cent of the earth's land surface has been substantially transformed by humankind. This introduction sets the film apart from the tourist approach so prevalent in TV documentaries: concern with animal life, with forests and glaciers -- far from a benevolent pretence, is necessary for the survival of the species. Kenyan conservation activist Karl Ammann, who has adopted a monkey, makes the point forcefully in reference to gorillas: "The number of gorillas in the wild has decreased from 100,000 in 1985 to 20,000 today. If we can't protect them, and they are the closest to us down the evolution scale, what can we protect?" Elsewhere ecologist Norman Myers, conservationist Stuart Pimm and biologist Gretchen Daily highlight a range of abuses from the fact that, in 20 years' time, 20 percent of the world's existing animals and forests will have gone, to the fact the total mass of vertebrates has halved while that of humans has quadrupled; threatened with extinction are, among other statistics, 12 per cent of the bird species, 20 per cent of the reptile species, 23 per cent of mammals, 31 per cent of amphibians, 40 per cent of fish. More crucially for some, humans are committing suicide in ways that are becoming faster and more effective by the minute; where migration was possible following the ruin of the land in the past this is no longer the case: the limits of the earth's endurance are more evident than ever now; human survival depends on the earth remaining inhabitable. Geography professor Jared Diamond cites the decline of civilization on Easter Island, in the Pacific Ocean, as metaphor for the possible decline of human civilization at large. A few centuries ago, the inhabitants of the island had consumed all their natural resources; unable to move, they warred amongst themselves, turned to cannibalism and eventually perished. According to the subtitles, "Each year the planet loses woodland areas the size of Portugal." Mathis Wackernagel provides precise statistics regarding humanity's position in general: with the Earth population nearing 6.3 billion, there is a 1.8 hectare of ecological production space available per living human being, but the global average is 2.2 hectares. "More than what we have. Like spending more than you earn. We use 20 per cent more than what nature regenerates; an average Swiss uses about five global hectares and an average American about 9.5 global hectares. If the developed world become the model and everybody lived this way, it would take five planets to produce what is required." Lester R Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, adds that, while there are six billion of us, we are already over-consuming; what about 2050, when the earth's population will have risen to nine billion. Should the blame be shifted to the largest two populations on earth, those of China and India? In this context John Schellnhuber stresses that both economies are now growing by seven to 10 per cent a year. At this point two proponents of the Asian expanding economy are interviewed. Neha Sareen is an Indian television presenter whose programme, Fantasy Land, promotes a polished lifestyle, exploiting longings for better standards of living. It shows rich Indians wearing Armani and Versaci and owning four TV sets at home; and the message is, "If they can have it than so can you," i.e. the average Indian. And the way to get it is to develop "the killer instinct". Ten years before, Chinese entrepreneur Xu Jin, the second interview, had never dreamt of being rich; thanks to the capital economy, he now eats at expensive restaurants and travels all around the world; they are privileges he is not willing to give up. But if the growth rate of eight per cent persist, by 2031 the Chinese per capita income will be equal to the American -- which means, among other things, that there will be 1.1 billion cars in China alone, compared to the current world figure of 800,000. As much land will have to be paved as that planted with rice. "Since 1990," the subtitles read, "China's CO2 emissions have increased by 67 per cent. The figure for India is 88 per cent. One European consumes 50 tonnes of our planet's resources each year." Economics professor Herman Daly provides a gloss on this: "uneconomic growth", when production entails more ill than good, and accumulating waste gives way to "depletion and pollution". The focus then shifts again from direct damage to the planet to the consequences of waste mismanagement. "Each month," the subtitles announce, "2,500 tonnes of toxic e-waste are shipped from the Western world to Nigeria." Notwithstanding the argument, put forward by recycling technician Malachi Azubuke, that such pollution does not generate imbalance in Nigeria's environment, the issue is touched on again with images of Greenland and the North Pole. "Inuits have one of the highest concentrations of toxics from e- waste in their blood," say the subtitles. "The level of CO2 in the atmosphere today is the highest in more than 750,000 years." Enter environmental scientist Robert E Peary to reiterate the fact that an ecosystem can only endure the damage up to a point, and that moving is no longer viable. The subtitles go on: "The 22 warmest years ever recorded have occurred since 1980." Images of world leaders -- Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Helmut Kohl, Kofi Annan and Al Gore -- are shown calling for action to reduce climate change. Shown at the beginning of the last century and then again at the beginning of this one, images of glaciers -- in Grindelwold, Rhone, Gepatsch Ferner and the Himalayas -- prove striking; "96 per cent of all surveyed glaciers around the world are currently diminishing size," say the subtitles. Tim Barnett warns that with the melting of the Himalayan glaciers all the major rivers in Asia will be severely affected, resulting in a net food deficit and a global humanitarian catastrophe. Already, the documentary indicates, over one billion people are suffering from a shortage of clean water. By 2010, says David Chesaro, some 50 million people will be trying to escape the effects of environmental deterioration. For his part writer Robert Gelbspan is rather concerned about the effect of such disasters on the humanity of individuals -- as resources become more and more scarce, fierce competition for survival both between and within small groups will begin. Janos J Bogardi makes a similar point, stressing that "an environmental refugee has to leave"; the developed world will not be spared and one can find a refugee at his door step any minute. Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton insists that each and every one of us should start acting responsibly towards the planet and other human beings now: "Nothing we can do in the world is entirely free of it." The domino effect ensures that everyone will bear the brunt; in fact no living organism will be spared. On the other hand, psychologist-psychotherapist Marta Cullberg-Weston believes one should heed the trap of panic since survival mechanisms make people ignore their anxiety and fear: "Scare tactics generally don't work. People usually push their fears back and rationalise them." And indeed, while the majority of scientists are of the opinion that a crisis is imminent, an individual can look for comforting news from other scientists to ignore the problem. It takes a crisis for people to start acting: acid rain, or a hole in the ozone are more visible than other dangers, so people have taken measures against them. The subtitles again: "Natural disasters have increased by more than four times over the last 40 years. Five times more wind storms. Six times more flooding. Ten times more wild fires." Carl Folke says "the luxury phase for humanity is over", while Sandra Lavorel insists "now is the time to act". We can no longer presume that it will be our children's problem since we are only left with a window of 50 years; we need to seriously do something to change the way we live. George Monbiot points out that there is never an incentive on the part of politicians to ask citizens to drive fewer cars or fly fewer planes. Only if populations put pressure on the politicians will something be done. He adds that it is useless to blame the developing world for what they are going to commit in the future, because the problem is currently being caused for the most part by the developed world. With the local box office failure of films like Woody Allen's Match Point, Clint Eastwood's Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, let alone the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, directed by Davis Guggenheim and focusing on Al Gore's efforts to bring the phenomenon of global warming to the world's attention, one can hardly wonder why films like The Planet are not on show at commercial movie theatres. Such a fact is unfortunate, however, because The Planet takes viewers over its 82 minutes in a very informative and entertaining journey all across the globe, and helps them detect the signs of chronic malady in the body of Mother Earth.
