Since his departure from politics following the presidential election in 2000, former Vice President Al Gore has surfaced on various occasions to give speeches and university lectures. Recently, he turned one of those presentations – a slide show on the topic of global warming – into a movie entitled “An Inconvenient Truth”
. For a film presented by a career politician, it manages to remain largely non-partisan with almost no mention of politics barring a couple of jabs at the current administration and its Republican predecessors. Far from being a belligerent polemic, Mr. Gore focuses on the bare facts about global warming and shows us the undeniable damage we, as humans, have done to the planet and lays out the case for immediate action.
“An Inconvenient Truth” is by turns humorous, with Mr. Gore exhibiting a wry wit few considered him capable of, and horrifying, displaying still photos and video footage of melting polar ice caps and evaporating lakes serving as proof of the gradual warming of the planet. The images on the screen are shocking – even for those of us who “believe in” global warming. The irrefutable evidence exists to put an end, once and for all, to the idea that there is a “global warming debate”. There is no debate. In the scientific community, not a single expert will attempt to counter the ideas that (a) the planet is getting warmer, (b) the climate change is bringing about extensive changes in the habitability of the planet, and (b) the cause is our unchecked use of fossil fuels. This faux debate reminds us of the so-called ‘debate’ concerning the origin of life – evolution versus creationism. To discuss the two in the same breath is ludicrous since the two cannot even exist in the same plane; one is supported by evidence and facts while the other is a collection of made-up stories. (The term “creationism” is an apt explanation of how this would-be theory was developed.) But by creating the false impression in the minds of the public that there is a debate, the opposition doesn’t need to convince us that they are right or that their theory is even plausible. They just need to convince the public that there is some doubt in the science.
Why would anyone go to such lengths to malign scientific reasoning? The traditional reasons for the suppression of the idea of global warming are also picked apart by Mr. Gore. The idea that the economies would suffer (the movie contains a clip of President George Herbert Walker Bush’s infamous speech in which he says that we’ll be overrun by owls) is refuted as are the other excuses for not doing anything about the problem. The theory that signing the Kyoto Protocol would make us less competitive abroad is ridiculous – we’re already less competitive abroad. Producing more efficient cars can only help us financially – it wouldn’t be an economic sacrifice, quite the opposite, it would help our failing industries (see Ford and GM’s poor performance compared to the fuel efficient Toyotas and Hondas).
The oil industry may suffer slightly if we found an alternative, cleaner fuel source, but would that be an immense problem? If we could reeducate and retrain the workers in the fossil fuel industries for work in other industries (be it hydrogen fuel cells, solar energy, or carbon capture and sequestration – CCS – a short term solution that would serve to alleviate the CO2 being dumped into the air due to the burning of fossil fuels), we would be able to take great strides forward in reversing the damage we’ve done. Plus we’d benefit from the added bonus of eventually eliminating our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. The idea that using a domestic oil source (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is often cited by the current administration as being a prospective drilling area) is impractical, if not immoral. The glaciers at the poles are melting rapidly enough that the trucks required to travel through Alaska to lay the pipeline down hardly have any time to do so – there are barely two months in the year when the ice is strong enough to support their weight, down from over two-thirds of the year.
Even if reversing global warming were not the most cost effective option, can we really afford to choose any other course for our future? The heating of the ocean waters increases the intensity of hurricanes that strike our coasts (no one needs to be reminded of Hurricane Katrina), we’ve seen a hurricane hit the south Pacific – something that’s never happened before, and Japan suffered a record number of typhoons as well. The changing temperature also increases the ability for disease carrying agents, such as mosquitos, to expand into communities they ordinarily wouldn’t be found in. The West Nile Virus, the Avian Flu, these are just two of the diseases being passed around as a result of the changing climate.
Mr. Gore, throughout his career, has been often criticized for an inability to relate to the common person, for being an intellectual elitist. In fact, his “loss” to current President George W. Bush in the election of 2000 can by and large be attributed to the widespread public misconception that Mr. Gore is an elitist with no real understanding of the problems of the average American whereas Mr. Bush is an average Joe. This movie should dispel that myth. In the intervening years since that contentious election, it has become abundantly clear that while Mr. Bush may possess an average intellect (with even less intellectual curiosity), he is not an everyman, with all of his policies only benefiting the wealthy elite.
Furthermore, Mr. Gore shows a speaking style that is simultaneously sharp intelligent and accessible. His presentation is not overly complex, he doesn’t get bogged down in the details, and he breaks down reams of scientific data into its most salient points. He accomplishes this without appearing to talk down to his viewers, without much of the condescension he had been accused of in the past.
An affable speaking style is difficult to adopt overnight and superfluous once your political career is all but over. To be sure, many of Mr. Gore’s speeches prior to 2000 have featured the same tone – the ability to educate without appearing to condescend. So how did this misconception of Mr. Gore’s supposed superior attitude take hold? The answer is that the media is quick to pick up on one theme and hammer it home until facts become merely an afterthought. A sigh in one debate (and can he be blamed, given the opponent?) became magnified until it was all anyone heard; policies and serious discussion took a backseat. Similarly, Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign was derailed by a yell. One simple, repetitive, superficial message is all that the masses can handle, or so goes the media’s philosophy. Now who’s being condescending?
Mr. Gore’s take-home message for his audience is not all doom n’ gloom however. He warns us not to jump from “denial to despair” in one step, lest we begin to believe that there is nothing we can do to reverse the tide. He uses the boiling frog example to spur us to action, to make us realize that we no longer have any time to lose in the quest to save the earth. As the parable goes, a frog placed in boiling water will jump out immediately, but a frog sitting in tepid water which is slowly heated to a boil will sit there till it dies. Mr. Gore believes we can not only prevent further damage but also reverse some of the damage we’ve done. He cites our elimination of ozone-destroying CFCs via the Montreal Protocol as an example. Now that we’ve been armed in the fight against global warming, will we react, or just wait for the water to boil?
Mr. Gore’s movie opens with a joke about how he “used to be the next president of the United States”. After his performance here, that title could be revived.
For more information, please visit: http://www.climatecrisis.org