This would be an okay documentary about the global warming with the apporpariate pie in the dream impossible stuff like "Renewables as the only source of energy", but the very first two minutes of the documentary sets you up for disagreement.
Almost every single thing David says about Pripyat is incorrect, some flat out lies he knows better.
I'm guessing he suggests we dont use nuclear?
The way i see it thats as green as we're going to get : abandon all non renewables except using the virtually unlimited supply of nuclear .sparingly.
He started of the movie by showing Pripyat and stating false information about it such as that noone lives there (false, there are villages that stayed and didnt evacuate and still live to this day) as well as many other false information to the chernobyl exclusionary zone. However he did mention that the wildlife is thriving as human interference is small.
Nuclear fission, possibly nuclear fusion if we make it work, is the necessary baseline power source if we want to stop using fossil fuels. When the plant is working properly it emits no pollution, 98,7% of the "waste" is actually just fuel that needs a proper reactor to be used in (like the gen 3 molten salt reactors we already engineered since the 90s but didnt built) and is actually better at handling load changes that fossils do.
Renewables are to intermittent and often come at the wrong time (no solar at night when most people increase heating and charge their electric cars for example). You need a baseline that does not depend on the weather, and nuclear is the best option we got for it.
Also: i was just venting, didnt expect anyone to actually read it. Thanks.