A "Planet in Peril" [Archive] - KH-Vids.Net Forum

PDA

View Full Version : A "Planet in Peril"


Laurence_Fox
10-21-2007, 11:24 PM
NEW YORK - It's a tough world, all right. Too bad it's not tougher. Right now Earth is looking pretty fragile as it suffers from increasing human punishment.

This isn't really news, of course. But CNN has packed the two-night, four-hour "Planet in Peril" with information and images that give a familiar story new urgency. Here is an eye-opening, often heart-wrenching exploration.

Airing Tuesday and Wednesday at 9 p.m. EDT, "Planet in Peril" dispatched correspondents Anderson Cooper and Dr. Sanjay Gupta, as well as Animal Planet wildlife biologist Jeff Corwin, to report on far-flung instances of "environmental change." This term encompasses four key areas: climate change, vanishing natural habitats, disappearing species and human overpopulation.

By taking on so much, the series risks becoming a catchall bin of environmental woes.

"At first glance, it may seem unfocused," said executive producer Charlie Moore. "But those are the four pillars. Almost everything falls under them, and they're all interconnected. For instance, you can't talk about endangered species without dealing with overconsumption of the world's natural resources and overpopulation."

Just a few days before his airdate, Moore was racing to put the final touches on a project that began, he said, about a year ago, during a conversation with David Doss, his producing colleague on "Anderson Cooper 360," who served as senior EP for "Planet in Peril."

"We wanted to take a look at all of the world's environmental problems in one big swipe," said Moore, "and we wanted to avoid the clinical, classroom approach by going to the front lines of the stories."

CNN's first high-def production, "Planet in Peril" was shot — beautifully — all over the world, beginning last February in Brazil, where Cooper and Corwin explore connections between the rapid deforestation of the Amazon River Basin and changes in the world's climate.

Other points of interest include Cambodia, Alaska, Wyoming's Yellowstone National Park, Greenland and the African nation of Chad.

One segment finds Cooper and Corwin in Bangkok. They accompany undercover police attempting, with little success, to raid shops that illegally traffic in wildlife from all over the world. Among dozens of other threatened creatures for sale, rare tortoises are glimpsed by CNN's hidden camera. They were imported all the way from Madagascar.

So off goes Corwin to Madagascar — a large island off the southeast coast of Africa — for the next segment. With 90 percent of its wildlife found nowhere else, Madagascar is a powerful draw for poachers. Meanwhile, deforestation and other environmental assault has left only 10 percent of its original habitat to support all that life, Corwin reports.

In a segment from China, Gupta reports that, partly thanks to economic boom and a surging population, China can claim 16 of the world's 20 most air-polluted cities.

More than half of that vast country's rivers are severely polluted, he adds. He interviews the young widow of a farmer who died of colon cancer at age 30, just one of many cases in a community dubbed a "cancer village." No wonder. The local river used for drinking and irrigation is polluted with carcinogens from nearby iron-ore mining operations that have gone on for decades.

For the average viewer, this is a troubling story. But then, a bit later, the scene shifts to New York, where Cooper submits to a "body burden assessment" — a complex, comprehensive blood test measuring the presence of 246 synthetic chemicals. Weeks pass while Cooper's blood is analyzed. Then he learns, not happily, that he tested positive for more than 100 of those chemicals, including the long-banned carcinogens DDT and PCBs.

No worries, says the president of the American Chemistry Council in an interview: "Just because we find chemicals in the body doesn't mean that it causes disease."

Maybe not. But, as Cooper notes, no one knows for sure what the health implications might be. Questions far outstrip any research to answer them. This is how Tuesday's installment ends.

"I wanted each night's episode to end up at home," Moore explained. "The fact that bad things are happening in faraway places doesn't make them any less important. But I wanted to make sure that the issues don't feel too removed from the viewer's everyday life."

No doubt about it: "Planet in Peril" has an up-close-and-personal global reach. Its immediacy can be measured in the blood flowing through the veins of one of its reporters.

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_on_en_tv/ap_on_tv_planet_in_peril;_ylt=AjQJG4JrehXD5fPoB6Xc vqes0NUE)

Any thoughts?

8730
10-22-2007, 03:59 PM
Firstly, a lot of these problems are caused by the West. Things like deforestation and poaching only occur because there are demands for the products. When people stop wanting expensive furniture and rare animals then this problem will either cease or at least be reduced.

As for the problems in China, it's to be expected. It is a fertile country in terms of both food and people. Also, it is developing through the secondary stage. This means it has quite a lot of farming and loads of manufacturing industries. These are fuelling it's development. The UK and US went through the same stages except during the Industrial Revolution. We can't complain if they want to reach the same level of development that we have using the same methods just because we have decided it's too detrimental to the environment.

The bit about chemicals is just going to unnecessarily panic the public. This is a moment where what people don't know can't hurt them. You will always have traces of unhealthy substances in your body, knowing about them just makes you into a hypochondriac.

Really I think it may just be the media jumping on the environment bandwagon to get higher ratings. May have been well intentioned but will only serve to panic people, or even mis-inform them =/

Laurence_Fox
10-22-2007, 05:25 PM
I can see where you're coming from here with your post. Anything that is broadcast needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Just because someone on tv says it doesn't necessarily mean it is true in other words.

I think they might just be trying to 'shock' us into being more environmentally aware of the world around us. Sure China is developing in it's own Industrial Revolution but there are some cities that don't see day light due to the amount of smog( and that's a technical term) in the air.

I'm planning to at least watch some of this just to see what it's about. But I don't see myself watching the whole thing.

8730
10-22-2007, 05:29 PM
It's just it doesn't seem to be anything new =/ I already knew all of that. Also, IMO it won't shock anyone into doing anything. Unless you show someone how it will directly affect a part of their actual life they aren't likely to do anything about it. People have too much to worry about without having to take on global responsibilities as well.

As for watching it, meh I'm too busy. Lol I don't watch TV anymore ;D.

Roxas is Hot
10-22-2007, 09:03 PM
I don't really bother watching that show; it's terribly Liberl, there's more than like, 9 errors in it, my dad would kill me if I did (He's politicial -.-) And all and all...it's a waste of my time.


A Planet in Peril = bull.

Darkwatch
10-23-2007, 05:02 AM
The whole matter isn't necessarily new, as said before. It's not surprise, also.

I don't really bother watching that show; it's terribly Liberl, there's more than like, 9 errors in it, my dad would kill me if I did (He's politicial -.-) And all and all...it's a waste of my time.


A Planet in Peril = bull.
.... =/

Laurence_Fox
10-23-2007, 02:32 PM
I'll give anything a chance before I write it out. But I don't think the show is supposed to point fingers at anyone. I think it's more supposed to be like 'Hey, this is what might be going on if we don't be careful.' Not like 'Such an such a country is responsible for global warming and the toxigens in the drinking water.'

N
10-23-2007, 04:50 PM
I agree with Bunterx's first post and his others. My grandfather is one of those people who 'panic' if something that can give you cancer, is toxic, or gives you some kind of fatal disease is broadcasted on television. And, in my opinion, stop broadcasting this and do something. The average person who isn't aware of the enviroment is not going to do anything as Bunterx said unless it affects their 'average' lifestyle. I am aware of nature, I love it, but what is there much to do? I mean, I don't have a magic wand where I can stop production of chemicals that harm the atmosphere. I can't stop deforestation, I can't stop people killing exotic animals.

People just don't listen, because half of them don't care. Money (or whatever) is all is in the minds of people today. People want to be multimillionaires, not enviromentalists. It's harsh reliaty that people can be so ignorant when it comes to nature. There are a lot of people who are just like me - they love nature and want to help it, but then again we've got these guys who don't have a bullcrap about it.

That's my opinion, nothing much to say after that. :\

Repliku
10-25-2007, 03:14 PM
I really don't like Michael Moore much as he's been noted to skew things and slant them to his own directions and misquote information. I am surprised Jeff Corwin is doing this. Kind of disappointing.

I do agree that the world is in some sad shape and the information is out there on how bad but I also do not like it when environmentalists take things to the extreme to make them worse than they are as well. It makes the other side that doesn't care as much say 'they are lying' so that things keep on as bad as they were. For once, it'd be nice to just have some honest, non-slanted reports instead of this way too far extreme fanatical work that Michael Moore is known to do. I suppose I will be required to actually watch it to say it is so bad, but anything else I've seen of Michael Moore's just is not very good. He raises points but then always goes way too far to bash them into people and has slandered things to meet his own agendas. I have no faith in the guy at all. However, I like Jeff Corwin so maybe it won't be -so bad-.

We do need to fix up the planet and all. However, I debate why Michael Moore, who cares about this junk so much, doesn't bother funding more money to such projects instead of just doing films so he can dress up and have a bigger house.