Film Review
Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"
Al Gore’s movie is watchable and credible.
That it might not be was my main concern before seeing it.
Now the challenge is how we get enough people to take enough time to see it.
We need something or somebody or somebodies to motivate people to take the time to see it. There is an appetite for this kind of programme, but it’s on TV and it needs to be pushed by the Oddies and the Attenboroughs who’ve found a way of reaching into that deep British love of nature and wildlife.
As for the film, Al Gore is great, and he has time to be.
The first key message is – the science is convincing. The earth’s surface temperature runs in step with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Gore is convincing, the scientists are convinced and as the film shows, it’s the opinion formers - or a least a good half of them – that defy the scientific knowledge and say it may not be so.
Second key message – there are processes that might kick in that will make the situation hard to recover. Al Gore focuses on two particular concerns - the risk of ice loss in Greenland and West Antarctica that would lead to a 20 foot increase in the sea level. Alarming.
His third key message is not made so well – that we can do something about it. “Political will is a renewable resource” he proclaims. But he then takes the whole story outside of the political arena by saying this is a moral issue. That makes it difficult for any politician to take it anywhere (cos we make our impact using different skill sets and processes, not because we don’t have morals).
Tony Blair has tried, but he was defeated in the fuel crisis and he is concerned about being too challenging on transport policies, particularly on those of constraint. Now before people get too critical, it is astonishing enough that any Labour Leader should win 3 General Elections in the face of a media that is so right-wing and belittling of any ambition for radical change or even any change; and when the consumerist pressure on people is enormous. A lot of progress has been made in Britain, including by local government – just ask Americans from local government (like I did) who’ve had to suffer 5 and a half years of George Bush.
Tony Blair placed Climate Change alongside Aid as the top priority for its presidency of the G8. But note how the focus became “Live 8”. There was no equivalent of Bob Geldof for the planet.
David Miliband and Margaret Beckett have both taken important steps in July alone to show how much the issue matters to them.
I don’t think the issue is a moral one. It’s just we haven’t yet found the politics for this issue that work. And part of this goes to the heart of the analysis Blair made in September 2004 – you can’t see the problem arriving before the next election and you can’t see the immediate difference of any measure you take.
So, in the end, not much of a film review. Just the knowledge that the film is worthwhile and comes at a significant time (the combination of gov’t advertising, the energy review and an emerging political consensus in Britain that it is an important issue). The point is not to analyse the world but to change – or in this case - to change part of it back.
The significance of the film (and of Al Gore’s work) is that the next step is to maximise the viewing of this film.
[Last updated 2006-08-27]
Comments