Attenborough makes a number of highly misleading statements in the first few minutes of "A life", and implants a trope that humans and their technology is at fault.

It's irksome & deceptively leading viewers to false conclusions from the very first scene.

Let's unpack a few:

Chernobyl's reactor failure isn't the worst catastrophe by a million miles. Ever heard of Bhopal? Or the dam in China that burst killing near 200,000?

Some radiation was 'measurable' spreading all over Europe but it harmed so few we cannot find them to count them.

That Attenborough didn't segue to the *massive* increase in biodiversity in the Chernobyl exclusion zone is simply inexcusable.

It's simply a wonderful thing, all from removing humans, nature returns in full force. He hid that from the viewers.

Shameful.

The other thing he implied was that the entire region is 'uninhabitable'.

Tell that to the babushkas who never left and are outliving the hordes that were evacuated.

Once again, misleading and deceptive.

Why?

Underlying all is his anti-nuclear bias, a refusal to show the colossal benefits of nuclear power, so he goes full frontal with this shallow low grade TV scare journalism. Horror pics of an abandoned city?

Spare me.

His passion his real, his integrity is highly questionable.

To excuse one of the world's great naturalists omitting to show the simply fantastic diversity of wildlife in the Chernobyl exclusion zone is something I cannot do. "Unlivable" is a lie.

He's done a huge disservice to his audience, and frankly, the planet he says he cares about.

Attenborough goes on to say we've beaten off predators and learned to produce food, but he's not yet mentioned the one critical thing to civilisation: energy.

Yet.

Seems odd to not at least 'mention' it. I guess he'll demonise fossil fuels later.

When the shocking destruction of SE Asian rainforest for palm oil plantations comes up this isn't mentioned:
[In 2018, 65% of all the palm oil imported into the EU was used for energy. 53% of all palm imports was used to make biodiesel for cars and trucks, 12% for elect.&heating]

But this is called "sustainable" by the EU, it's called 'green' and this is the con about energy that Attenborough SHOULD have at least mentioned.

Once again: EPIC FAIL

The 'final solution' that Attenborough has been leading to is a basic Mark Z Jacobson "wind/sun/water" dogma, an energy concept that's more religious than rigorously numerate. He makes claims that are simply ludicrous and at the least highly dubious needing many caveats.

Even a simple questioning of the basic facts should make anyone question his thinking. For example, he says the sun provides 20 times the energy we need. Of course that's spread around the planet's surface every day. But how do we use that? Mostly with photovoltaic panels.

At the best, sunshine is roughly providing one kilowatt per square meter, but our PV is just 20% efficient at converting it to electricity. So 20x the energy is now just 4x times the energy if converted by PV.

So, who wants a quarter of the planet covered with solar panels???

Apart from the appalling walrus over the cliff porn (hint: it's nothing to do with climate change) the entire programme is leading to an energy illiterate demand for living 'sustainably' by harvesting the weather.

It's the LEAST sustainable thing we could do.

Now near the end, it's clear why he started with Pripyat. His entire schtick is to run a propaganda film against nuclear power and present a fantasy with endless eye candy shots of nature.

This is the worst of manipulations. It is dishonest & utterly innumerate about energy.

Attenborough's film is a polemic, against nuclear power, which dismissed it with a few minutes of film of an abandoned city and segued off that to a 'dying' planet.

It is an appallingly dishonest film.

He deserves contempt for this rubbish. He earned mine.

/END

Addendum (on the last 15mins...yeah, life intrudes sometimes :)

Netherlands, intensive agriculture, "doing it sustainably" he says.

Netherlands now deciding to go nuclear because they need to make clean energy with a tiny footprint.

File under: d'oh!

All that climate controlled greenhouse space and LED lighting requires power. They get high yields for high return produce with ENERGY.

You cannot NOT mention that bit. Somehow he manages not to.

GO FIGURE

But right there he makes the argument: dense energy allows dense high yield agriculture.

The 'land grab' is at the most extreme and destructive where there is energy poverty.

Border btwn Haiti & Dominican Rep. shows forest one side, picked bare the other. Difference? Energy:

"Forests are an essential component of our planet's recovery".

Well just look where the forest ends on that border. The solution is clear: end the energy poverty on the Haitian side and the forests won't be pillaged to sustain life.

Use as little land for energy as possible.