Franzen's article outlines what he believes is the inevitability of the massively negative impacts of global warming, but without any personally-directed anger aimed at those whom we might be tempted to blame. Franzen understands that our global warming crisis really is a crisis that we have all caused, and that it is not a "plot," or something that has been nefariously imposed upon us by the wealthy. Planet of the Humans actually does say something quite a bit like what Franzen says, but the film's projected anger onto our environmental "leaders" is a component not found in Franzen's presentation.
For a good example of the pushback to the film, I'd suggest this article, from the Ecoequity website: "Why 'Planet of the Humans' is crap." Tom Athanasiou, the author of that article, who calls the film "crap" (thereby adopting the same antagonistic model of discourse as the filmmakers ) is the author of Divided Planet: the Ecology of Rich and Poor and Dead Heat: Global Justice and Global Warming, and is co-author of Greenhouse Development Rights: The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World. He is, in other words, a bonafide (and so far unsavaged) expert. In that article calling the film "crap," Athanasiou does give some credit to the film, even as he objects to a lot of it:
Let me be clear. Gibb’s critique of renewables is just wrong, and its proportions are absurd. You would never know that the “gas as a bridge fuel” people are no longer held in esteem. You would never know that the intermittency problem is being solved, and the storage problem too. You would never know that the problem of decarbonizing the grid has been front and center on the renewables agenda for decades, and that the electric car people know it all too well. You would never know that the technology revolution is well and widely understood to be necessary but not sufficient to the green transition. All of which is to say that this would have maybe been a good movie 20 years ago. Maybe.On the other hand, alas, there is another hand. His critique of biofuels, in particular, is generally spot on. I was briefly beguiled by the idea back around 2004, when I was paying too much attention to the carbon cycle and not enough to the realities on the ground. But everyone in the movement knows the score on this today, everybody who’s paying attention that is. Just like no-one still believes that natural gas is a bridge to transformative decarbonization, except maybe Michael Bloomberg. And while there are clearly idiot salespeople in the solar movement, it’s not like they’re representative. Though maybe they are, some of the time. The business of business, is, after all, business. But the Sierra Club had its reasons for joining hands with Bloomberg in the Beyond Coal campaign, and they were good ones. It used his money to shut down a lot of coal plants. Case closed (emphasis added).
We (ordinary people, non-experts) must reallocate our time and get much more deeply involved in and informed about the key political and policy issues that are central to how our local, state, and national governments operate, and how they are responding to our Global Warming crisis. We can't just assume that between Al Gore, 350.org, and the Sierra Club, we've got our best and our brightest on the job, and that we can continue on with our "normal" patterns of consumption and complacency. The groups that I think best understand this are groups like Extinction Rebellion and Citizen's Climate Lobby. Personal involvement by ordinary citizens is their raison d'être.