This is a common topic: Humans are exploiting oil and coal resources and beef consumption, resulting in massive production of CO2 and CH4, rising global temperatures, massive deaths of coral reefs, melting of Arctic glaciers, and floods to come. Humanity is doomed. The whole film revolves around this theme. First, the use of fossil energy vaguely reflects the problem of unbalanced economic development. As the Indian lady in the film criticized, Americans live a life of luxury and waste, but they want developing countries like India and China to promote solar and wind energy, which has to be said to be confusing. 30% of Indians still cook with cow dung because they cannot afford the electricity provided by the state. Instead of criticizing them for using new energy to alleviate the global warming crisis, it is better to think more about how Americans consume energy. Each American consumes energy that can be used by an average of 22 Indians. Let Americans change their own The way of life is right. In the final analysis, it is the problem of unbalanced economic development, the dilemma of whether to use fossil energy in developing countries such as China and India, and the contradiction between the pursuit of a better life and limited resources. Obviously, this choice is very realistic. Between destroying the environment and ensuring survival, most people will choose the latter. As a digression, I remembered what Liang Qichao said in the article "Do we really want to be patriotic", but those intellectuals who advocated vigilance against patriotism in advanced countries were worried about the idea of patriotism being used by others and becoming an opponent of the republic. arms; For a weak China, if they advocate against patriotism like they do, it is tantamount to idiots raving, seeking death, and even a republic has not been established. In this film, patriotism is like the consumption of fossil energy. Officials who have developed can naturally advocate the elimination of fossil energy, but weak developing countries will undoubtedly insist on the use of fossil energy. Second, relying on morality to call on people to be environmentally friendly is not true after all. The interview with Mankiw in the film is very interesting. He said that a carbon tax is actually a better approach than admonishing people to live a low-carbon life through a moral appeal. People certainly know the importance of environmental protection, but when turning the key to turn on the car engine, few people will think of the concept of low-carbon life. The short-sighted nature of human beings is still impossible to change. Only when the damage is embodied in every detail of life can people continue to stimulate people and remind people that they have a grand mission to save the environment. And when this idea really takes hold, the decisions of the majority will further influence the attitudes of politicians. Although the problem still exists, when the carbon tax is levied, other taxes will inevitably be reduced, so this is just a tax transfer. By the way, Comrade Ao Guanhai's views on gay marriage are really a slap in the face. It is a pity that it is never theoretical correctness that influences decision-making, but more practical considerations. When asked why no tax is now levied, he said that politicians don't do what professors want them to do. on the issue of greenhouse gases. It's still a prisoner's dilemma. When most people are taking the high-energy-consuming route, for those who choose to live a low-carbon life, they are at a disadvantage. When most people choose low energy consumption and some people live with high energy consumption, their sacrifice of self-interest becomes the welfare of others. The final equilibrium state has become, in order not to suffer losses, all parties have chosen a lifestyle of high energy consumption. A despicable idea is that although Americans live a life of high energy consumption, from invisible truth to before the flood, they still need to keep tinkering with environmental protection movies, admonishing all human beings that we need to limit the use of fossil energy and use the world as much as possible. The warming problem is resolved at a stage that has not yet caused serious consequences. In this way, when others sacrifice, they can get more benefits. Just like a popular joke before, the current state is that a group of people eat together, the first to sit down eats the big fish, and the last one just eats a few bites, and the first to say we are running out of money, everyone Moderate. It is clear that the country that takes the seat after being bullied is a country that develops after being bullied. But the problem is that if we continue to use fossil energy in large quantities regardless of the global climate problem, then the deterioration of the environment will inevitably endanger all human beings. Perhaps this is an unsolvable problem, but after all, it is a problem that all human beings need to face together. You can of course say that you don't care about the future of the earth at all, even if there is a flood after I die. I can't seem to find even a single path to accuse this kind of thinking. But as Comrade Ou Guanhai said, from the President's point of view, he can certainly adopt the Pentagon's statement that the consequences of global warming, if coastal residents start to migrate, are not just environmental issues, but national security issues; But perhaps it can also be thought of in this way: This earth is inherited from our ancestors, and we will hand it over to our next generation in the future. I hope that the descendants of mankind can get a world that at least has not changed, they have the right to enjoy the beauty of the human world, and they have the right to all this. In this sense, if the film can really affect some people and make people realize it, then it makes sense. Before and after the flood, the most poignant thing was the submerged island countries in the Pacific Ocean. They caused the least damage to the environment, but received the most damage. The unlimited carbon emissions of human beings are like murder weapons! The most angry is the palm oil in Indonesia. Companies burn forests to plant palm trees. Such a greedy company has no sense of responsibility for the earth and human beings! The one I admire the most is Elon Musk, who said that if there were a hundred super solar factories, they could provide all the energy in the world. From his eyes, I can always see what the future looks like. The most gratifying thing is that human beings are in action, and Sweden and Denmark will become countries that do not use fossil energy. And I also believe that with the development of science, more and more countries will reduce or even stop carbon emissions. Whether acknowledged or not, environmental and climatic changes are taking place, interacting and intensifying. We should really act, because this is our common responsibility! Don't say it is for our children and grandchildren, this is for ourselves. Before the flood, the whole film is an American blockbuster in environmental protection films, and you can see many stars and big names. This also establishes the meaning of this film. The whole film gives the impression that Xiao Lizi believes in a point of view, and then finds a lot of phenomena and people to prove this point of view. This is obviously not enough, just like proving that X<100, 1-99 will not work. For example, the persecution of scientists is more like a one-sided statement, and the amount of energy companies bribed to members of Congress, and there is no more evidence to prove it. The environmental damage that Xiao Lizi brought us to see must be caused by global warming? As a documentary, there is enough freedom to provide convincing arguments, but he hesitates, the evidence is not enough to support the conclusion, so it cannot be Be convincing. From some perspectives, in the documentary, what Xiao Lizi saw or wanted to present was what some people wanted Xiao Lizi to see. I'm afraid to think about it! Of course, I trust science, and I admire Xiao Lizi's sense of responsibility and courage. It's really amazing to be able to jump out of the glitz of Hollywood to do such a potentially thankless job. Just a rational analysis, this documentary is not a good documentary, conveys the point of view, but lacks deeper arguments. It's also beneficial to watch a documentary like this, to give us a celebrity perspective on how some people around the world view the issue of global warming, and what other people who can affect the world are doing, not As for focusing on what you eat today and what you buy tomorrow. This documentary allowed me to see the charisma of Elon Musk. I only said a few words, there is truth and falsehood, there is reason and evidence, it is convincing, it is really remarkable. Of course, I believe in science, and I admire Xiao Lizi's sense of responsibility and courage. It's really amazing to be able to jump out of the glitz of Hollywood to do such a potentially thankless job. Just a rational analysis, this documentary is not a good documentary, conveys the point of view, but lacks deeper arguments. It's also beneficial to watch a documentary like this, to give us a celebrity perspective on how some people around the world view the issue of global warming, and what other people who can affect the world are doing, not As for focusing on what you eat today and what you buy tomorrow. This documentary allowed me to see the charisma of Elon Musk. I only said a few words, there is truth and falsehood, there is reason and evidence, it is convincing, it is really remarkable.
View more about Before the Flood reviews
