Reviews
121
An Inconvenient Truth: A Global Warning
Guggenheim, David (Director) 2006. Hollywood, California: Paramount Classics,
96 minutes, UPC: 097363480860, DVD, CDN ~$28.50
Reviewed by Patricia Ballamingie, Department of Geography and Environmental
Studies, Carleton University
An Inconvenient Truth, directed by David Guggenheim and featuring former U.S.
Vice-President Al Gore, presents an unsettling view of the future of our planet.
The film is a cogent wake-up call that debunks the myths and misperceptions
around climate change. Jeffrey Mazo (2006: 151) characterizes it as “propaganda in its original and non-pejorative sense, intended to generate political will.”
Gore delivers a well-crafted, polished, Keynote presentation, seeming more professor than politician. In this sense, he proves an effective conduit to make the
compelling case that climate change represents a real and impending danger.
Clearly, Gore is a master communicator – able to translate scientific concepts into sound bites (and powerful visuals) the lay public can readily access.
As John M. Meyer (2006: 95) writes: “He simplifies without oversimplifying.”
Gore’s talk is interspersed with personal anecdotes, no doubt endearing him
to viewers, and, possibly, making them more receptive to an otherwise uncomfortable message. Gore provides a sobering account of a looming crisis, with
photographs and graphs that portend its magnitude. If anything, the calm tenor
of his voice is inconsistent with the urgency of his message.
Critics out to dismiss Gore succumb to the ad hominem fallacy – a basic
error in reasoning, although an effective strategy in argumentation. Rather than
addressing the substance of his case, they opt instead to shoot the messenger.
They dismiss the film as biased political rhetoric, and accuse Gore of personal
hypocrisy, citing examples of privilege, including his MacBook, estates and private jet. Moreover, they charge him with fear mongering – part of what Marlo
Lewis (2007) of the Competitive Enterprise Institute characterizes as a “scarethem-green political agenda.” In fact, Lewis devotes 16 pages to a primer supposedly debunking the film as: “One-sided, Misleading, Exaggerated, Speculative, Wrong…” Lewis charges Gore with sophistry – although his own rhetorical analysis would be subject to the same characterization. Critics also argue
that increased fossil fuel emissions have ultimately served human interests by
mitigating hunger and poverty, prolonging human life, raising living standards,
democratizing consumer goods and increasing personal mobility. However, such
arguments – although perhaps valid – become moot if climate change destabilizes the world economy and threatens our continued (if unequal) prosperity, let
alone, existence.
An Inconvenient Truth premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January
2006, and the scope of its impact is now global – the film is currently being
screened in 35 countries. Stephen Bocking (2007: 34) recently compared An
Inconvenient Truth to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring for its ability to “reshape the
debate”, as did Mazo (2006: 153) for its ability to act as a “catalyst for a similar
change in public perception, leading to necessary action.”
An Inconvenient Truth succeeds on several fronts. In January 2002, the
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
122
Environments 34(3)
Larsen B Ice Shelf in the Antarctic confounded scientists by disappearing completely in 35 days – a process they predicted would take closer to a century to
occur. By highlighting this sort of example, the film illustrates the potential for
greenhouse gas emissions to push us past certain ecological thresholds – tipping points beyond which rapid, unpredictable changes can occur. Gore also
succeeds in arguing that our immediate response is a moral imperative, and
that each one of us needs to rapidly become part of the solution. He finds the
current U.S. administration’s unwillingness to take political action to be “deeply
unethical.”
Above all else, the film confronts the human cost of climate change. Some
of the most startling footage involves a hypothetical rise in sea level, and the
low-lying coastal communities (from Florida to Bangladesh to the Maldives to the
Netherlands) that, amongst others, would invariably be impacted. Gore cites a
potential rise of 6 m if a major polar ice sheet were to collapse. The IPCC (2007:
16) predicts with “medium confidence” a slightly more modest rise of 4-6 m,
over a period ranging from centuries to millennia, to accompany at least partial
deglaciation of the Greenland, and possibly West Antarctic, ice sheets. However,
whether flooding occurs as a result of a sudden or incremental rise in sea level,
the human toll would be immense.
A series of concurrent events, including the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, ongoing concerns over energy security and the war in Iraq, and an
unusually mild but stormy winter in 2006, amplified the film’s resonance. However, its impact was cemented by a series of high-level press releases: first, The
Stern Review, which examined the economic impacts of climate change in the
U.K., and more recently, the IPCC Reports on Climate Change (issued in February, April and May of 2007). All of these events and reports combined to raise
the profile of environmental issues in a significant way.
At the end of the film, almost as an afterthought, Gore urges his audience
to bike more, drive less, turn off the lights, and run for political office (Congress,
specifically). But, in the end, he does not go nearly far enough in terms of highlighting how inherently unsustainable our lifestyles in Western industrialized
nations have become. He denounces consumerism yet demands very little
material sacrifice of his audience. We rarely hear that if we are to avert this
crisis, we must look deeply and critically at how we live our lives, because we are
all complicit in the problem.
“Go Green” seems to be the latest mantra, no doubt in part due to the film’s
success. A quick survey of popular titles (representative of several others) at the
newsstand in April 2007 included: Canadian Living’s: “Go Green: 275+ Ways We
All Can Be Good to the Planet.” Chatelaine’s: “Go Green: Your Guide to a Better
World.” And Wish’s: “Go Green! 75 Ways to Change Your Health, Your Home
and the Planet.” Since all of these publications are mainstream, consumer-oriented magazines, a discursive shift has most definitely occurred. Whether it
proves to be a permanent shift, and whether the issue retains some salience,
remains to be seen.
The approach embodied in these publications encourages the adoption
of more sustainable lifestyle choices. While laudable, this places the onus of
responsibility on the individual, when integrated public policies and programs
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.
Reviews
123
across all sectors are required. Environmental advocates have for some time
been urging stringent emissions caps, radical improvements in fuel efficiency
standards, massive investments in cleaner, renewable energy technologies,
expansion of public transit and smart growth, among countless other progressive
initiatives. Perhaps this film will provide some political leverage to enable a more
ambitious environmental agenda to receive broader public support?
Guggenheim and Gore have taken us part way along the journey towards
transformation: a growing segment, and perhaps already a majority, of the population acknowledge that the problem exists. Even skeptics will have likely left the
theatre a measure more convinced of the impending challenges associated with
climate change. But, as Meyer (2006: 96) reflects, if the solutions remain unfamiliar and elusive, heightened cynicism and despair will likely result. Because
the potential impacts of climate change are staggering, in the face of uncertainty,
we must err on the side of caution and attempt to mitigate emissions – we must
adopt a precautionary approach. All we need now is someone with moral integrity and strength of vision to craft an equally compelling sequel to point us explicitly towards both the convenient and the inconvenient solutions.
If you purchase the DVD, be sure to watch one of its special features – a
2007 documentary, An Update with Former Vice President Al Gore.
References
Bocking, S. 2007. The Silent Spring of Al Gore. Alternatives Journal 33(1): 3435.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). April 13, 2007 Climate
Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Geneva, Switzerland:
IPCC Secretariat. <http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf> [Accessed: May
14, 2007].
Lewis, M. Jr. March 15, 2007. A Skeptic’s Primer on Al Gore’s An Inconvenient
Truth. Washington: Competitive Enterprise Institute. <http://www.cei.org/
pdf/5817.pdf> [Accessed: April 11, 2007].
Mazo, J. 2006-07. Putting out the fire. Survival 48(4): 147-156.
Meyer, J. M. 2006. Another inconvenient truth. Dissent (Fall):95-96.
Stern, N. 2007. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. United
Kingdom: HM Treasury. <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/999/76/
CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf> [Accessed: May 15, 2007].
© Copyright Environments: a journal of interdisciplinary studies/revue d’études interdisciplinaires.