An Inconvenient Movie

By Mimikatz

Last night I saw Al Gore's movie.  What you may have heard is true.  It is very, very good and Gore is very entertaining.  As the San Francisco Chronicle's capsule review puts it,

The scariest horror movie of the year is also the year's best documentary, Davis Guggenheim's filmed version of Al Gore's multimedia slide show presentation on global warming. It's a persuasive, informative explication of the issue and a coolheaded but unmistakable warning about the consequences of continued inaction.

Gore is funny, and never talks down to the audience.  The film is pitched to the unconverted, but even someone who is well-informed about global warming cannot help but be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the evidence, as Gore leads us step by step to connecting the dots ourselves.  For my partner it was the sight of what Gore called "the park formerly known as Glacier."  For me it was the sight of South Sea Islanders who have already had to relocate to New Zealand because of rising sea levels.  For another in our group it was the melting of ice in Antarctica that perplexed the scientists with its rapidity, until they realized that water that collects in sort of potholes in the shelf does not freeze at the bottom, but melts the ice right down to the sea, making the ice shelf like swiss cheese until it begins to crack and crumble. For another it was the connection between drought and problems in Darfur.   For others it is the drowning polar bears, or the catalogue of recent natural disasters that Gore calls "a nature hike through the Book of Revelation."

But whatever it takes to shock one out of complacency, that is the end result of any open-minded  viewing of this film.  It is powerful, but also hopeful.  Gore shows us at the end that reversing some of the staggering climate rise is possible, if reasonable measures are taken.  He uses the example of the ozone hole caused by the release of chlorofluorocarbons from such things as refrigerants.  The offending chemicals were banned quickly, under US leadership, and have been declining.  The hole is now thought to be at its maximum, but is expected to decline by 2020 and disappear by 2050.  There are obvious and not so obvious technological solutions to reduce greenhouse gases as well, many of which could create new industries and help rebuild our economy on a more sustainable path. 

But global warming is far more serious than the ozone hole, what Gore calls a clash "between our civilization and the Earth's environment."  It will require a serious commitment by everyone, especially in this country, because we are the largest generators of greenhouse gases.  And this commitment cannot wait, because the problem is growing exponentially.  It is not something that can be left to our children; it is very hard to leave the film believing that this problem can be put off a few years, let alone decades.  And it has the potential to be a transformative issue, but this will require new or at least newly energized leadership.  So what are the implications of this problem for our country, our political landscape and Gore himself?

There are three major obstacles to arousing the kind of action that is needed.  First, there is denial and paralysis.  Many people are so overwhelmed by the problem that they believe it is either not real or insoluble.  A subset believe that God will take care of everything.  In either case, why worry?  Second, significant sectors of the economy believe they will be so adversely affected by solutions that they are willing to either believe the problem is not real or are to try to convince enough others of that so that nothing will be done until they themselves have reached the end of their comfortable lives and have provided for their children.  And then there are the political obstacles.  Some, even if they are not in group one or two,  perceive that admitting and addressing the problem would threaten their hold on political power, and so they are willing to gamble that it isn't a real problem.  All three groups, but especially the latter, are the people who really need to see the film with an open mind.

No one in the scientific community doubts that global warming is real.  There are differences about the cause and what, if anything, can or should be done about it.  But about the phenomenon itself there is consensus.  Therefore, if we do not embark on solutions soon, the problems are just going to get worse.  Higher summertime temperatures.  More cataclysmic storms.  (Mumbai, India, recently had 37 inches of rain in 24 hours.)  More severe hurricanes. More floods.  More tornadoes.  More illnesses as tropical insects and parasites are able to live at higher altitudes and latitudes, not just in Africa but in our own Southwest and Southeast.  And those rising sea levels, which threaten millions upon millions of people who live near the coasts, especially Florida.  What will it take for people to demand action from their leaders?  And will there be a price for those who deceived the people and obstructed progress?  Are we really entering what Churchill called in 1936 a Period of Consequences?

There are some flaws in the film.  Gore glosses over the Democrats' inaction in their years of power, the cynical pact with the auto industry that stymied efforts to create more fuel-efficient cars, although he does show what a diasterous business decision that has been, as American companies lose market share to Toyota and Honda.  And his failure to pronounce all the "c's" in "arctic" and "antarctic" is something that grates almost as much as "nucular".  And then his repetition of the debunked myth of the boiled frog.  But I was not put off by his use of the story of his sister who died of lung cancer.  It makes sense as an illustration of the kind of tragedy that is needed to spur action. 

More interesting are the changes in Gore himself. He is not just heavier but weightier.  As SF Chronicle reviewer Mick LoSalle put it,

In "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore has the look of a man who's been through something big and awful and has come out the other side. Have you ever seen newsreel footage of the young Franklin D. Roosevelt before he contracted polio and contrasted it with the later Roosevelt of history? The young Roosevelt looks like a slick ambition machine, to whom nothing bad has ever happened. The older Roosevelt looks just as shrewd and calculating, but with a look in his eyes that suggests that now he knows why he's being shrewd and calculating. Well, Gore, who saw his life ambition turn to ashes thanks to a faulty ballot in Palm Beach County, has that look, and it's there for everyone to see in "An Inconvenient Truth."

What is the look? It's the look of no fear. It's the look of someone who understands that it's not all about him, and so he can finally relax and be himself. This makes him the ideal conduit for the global warming message.

I believe Gore does not want to run for President lest it interfere with his spreading of the message of the film.  People will more easily discount it if he is seen to be running.  But what if the Democratic leadership remains risk averse and lacking in spine?   More importantly, what if there is a clamor for leadership that sees the big picture and is not afraid to talk about solutions, and no one among the current candidates responds?  Would Gore?  I hope so, because after seeing this film the difference between him and the other candidates in demonstrated intellect, guts and vision is just staggering.

Comments

[Mimikatz]

Two additional points. As Josh Marshall and others have pointed out, it has become de rigeur among "conservatives" to decry the movie and global warming in general, as in this NY Post review, most of which is inaccurate or false. For instance, it fails to distinguish among particulates, toxins, ground-level ozone from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and CO2 emissions. (Particulates, which are carcinogenic, may actually mitigate some of the effects of global warming. Some of the historic cold periods (such as the "year there was no summer" in 1816 have been traced to severe volcanic eruptions.)

But surely much of it is just anti-intellectualism among those who have sold their critical faculties to be hangers-on at the tables of power. As with so much else, they must think they are in on the con.

Second, I was struck when Gore showed the map of where various natural disasters strike. Sure, we face once or twice in a lifetime disasterous earthquakes in California, but the midsection and Southeast have more than their share of much more frequent disasters. And 120 plus is hot even by Crawford (or Phoenix) standards. Yet those aren't the areas where measures are being taken to reduce greenhouse emissions.

[MissLaura]

I have to confess I'm terrified to see that movie. Genuinely don't know if I could deal with it, or if it would send me to a couple of days in the fetal position, reciting a list of my environmental sins and, in a futile attempt to comfort myself, virtues.

[John Casper]

Terrific post, Mimikatz, thanks.
Range wars occurred in the U.S. in the 19th Century, because ranchers didn't want to pay for the real costs of their cattle's grazing. Local, State, and Federal institutions are the only one's positioned to make and enforce the tough decisions about "Costing the Earth."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0875844103/102-4162155-2800960?v=glance&n=283155
Stewardship and enforcement for the environment appears to normally fall on the already overburdened criminal justice system. Perhaps it's time to consider investing in special criminal/civil courts that deal exclusively with environmental crime? We already have special Federal bankruptcy courts, so there is precedent for this kind of specialization.

[Mimikatz]

Miss Laura, the movie is not hard to watch, except maybe the part with the polar bear, which is computer annimated. Gore is very engaging and leads you through the science (all ok, from what I have heard) and then he makes the case for our ability to reverse warming. Don't fear. The real problem is that it makes you really understand that you have to do something. We have decided to buy a new, more efficient front-loading washer (which we need anyway); turn off the lights and appliances and chargers when not in use; and then plant a lot more trees on some property my family owns. I already bought a Toyota Scion (don't drive enough to justify a Prius--only about 300-400 mi a month). And spend less time in front of the computer and more in the garden. But by all means see it.

[Keith Demko]

I never though I'd see the words Al Gore and entertaining in the same sentence. ... This sounds like a great and important film that, unless it continues to get incredible buzz,won't play anywhere my little corner of the world ... I'll definitely get it on DVD though!

[croatoan]

If he isn't running, what's the point of all the home video?

[MissLaura]

The problem is, I have this mother...who keeps me on edge about environmental issues. You know how your mother can push your buttons like no one else? This is something she's semi-hysterical about, so I am required to be the same.

My next car will be a Prius (or similar).

In the winter, I keep the heat essentially as low as it can go without the pipes freezing (to the point where I wake up from cold under 2 comforters, 2 fleece blankets, and one or two others).

Low-energy-use bulbs in almost all of my lights.

Very little local driving.

BUT: Too much highway driving, too much flying. And general Americanness - big fridge, too much solid waste, etc. These things weigh on me on a daily basis, without seeing the movie.

Anyway, I'm not really raising the tone around here much, and I have nothing to offer on this topic but fretting.

[Mimikatz]

Gore is clearly not running in the conventional sense, which would make him a target. I have to believe he doesn't want to subject himself to the kind of press and GOP humiliations that attended his last run. But no platform gives a person the chance to do smething about it that the presidency provides. So he's in effect waiting and seeing, and waiting for what amounts to a draft, is my guess.

The personal footage is also part of what humanizes him so that we can see the source of his passion and respond to him/it. He's been on this issue for decades, just watching it get worse and worse.

People can be cynical about Gore or his motives or the problem itself, but it is hard to deny the facts. And read the bit in the NYTimes Week in Review about how it is already beginning to exacerbate poison oak, mosquitoes, pollen and diseases, if you think you can sit out the problem on your patio.

[Mimikatz]

Steve Clemons agrees the fils is a "triple must-see." I especially liked his comment how the pre-film silliness and preening was replaced by a really sober realization of how we really, really have to do something about this for the sake of the future.

[kim]

There's enough guilt on parade here to start a new religion. Let's try blaming the actions of the Gods on man's behaviour. Could be a winnah, there.
=======================================

[HHN]

After all is said and done,there is only one Solution:

Humans,stop breeding like Rats.
You breed like Rats,you will live(die)like Rats.

[JESchwartz]

Wonderful review.

A young friend of mine said her parents saw the movie and were incredibly moved by it. She's very environmentally conscious for a 14-year old kid and is thrilled that her mother is now turning off the lights when she leaves a room (whereas before she left lots of lights on all the time because she 'liked how they looked'). The mother made the point that the movie is targeted to a literate, sophisticated, adult population but there are clearly lots of other people who need to get the message. (i.e. the NASCAR crowd)

The daughter asked me why no one is creating a book or film or TV program that is designed for kids and other people who need a simpler message. Seems to me like that would be a pretty good idea. I told her we might need to create it.

Does anyone know about anything else out there?

[kim]

Anyone have a simple explanation for why tapping the wind, the water, and the sun for human energy needs, IN NEW WAYS, won't interfere with those modalities traditional role in regulating climate?
=====================================