A point that I have been trying to make that is difficult to balance is “what did the film makers intend the proposed solutions to be” vs. “how can one interpret the solutions to be.” The first question I think is quite difficult to answer, because the film is light on specifics. They have a lot of vague talk about consumption and corruption and population, so it is hard to argue that there is a clear proposed solution. My issue is that the film has been left open to interpretations that are dangerous. Imagine someone like a Richard Spencer going to impressionable youth and basically arguing: see! We need to put strict population controls on Africa and India!

On the second point about COVID and CO2: this is a bigger conversation and there is already some research on the subject. I am thinking about writing an entire article about. Long story short: yes CO2 emissions are falling which is good, but it is not enough to meet CO2 emission targets. CO2 emissions heavily driven by power generation, agriculture, and manufacturing, so decreases in air and vehicle travel do not seem to be enough to meet goals. Plus, there are diminishing returns on adjusting the individual behavior that was effected by COVID — it is good that I am driving less, but I can’t drive less than I am driving right now, so it will not be possible to hit IPCC goals.

I also think you are downplaying the savings in CO2 emissions in places like Europe. France’s per-capita CO2 emissions has dropped by about 50% since 1979, while the overall electricity usage is about 60% higher. How? They are using the exact forms of renewable energy like wind and solar. Some of the technical fixes actually work pretty well if you are looking at the most up-to-date research