Brief research into once-Presidential candidate Al Gore's environmental documentary film, 'An Inconvinent Truth' in support of my essay, and how global and environmental awareness has altered people's perspectives when purchasing food products (and, in particular, buying into the packaging of the brand). Information sourced from the relevant page of online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, as featured below.
An Inconvenient Truth is a 2006 documentary film directed by Davis Guggenheim about former United States Vice President Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming via a comprehensive slide show that, by his own estimate, he has given more than a thousand times.
Premiering at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opening in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006, the documentary was a critical and box-office success, winning 2 Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song. The film also earned $49 million at the box office worldwide, becoming the sixth-highest-grossing documentary film to date in the United States.
The idea to document his efforts came from Laurie David who saw his presentation at a town-hall meeting on global warming which coincided with the opening of The Day After Tomorrow. David was so inspired by Gore's slide show that she, with Lawrence Bender, met with Guggenheim to adapt the presentation into a film.
Since the film's release, An Inconvenient Truth has been credited for raising international public awareness of climate change and reenergizing the environmental movement. The documentary has also been included in science curricula in schools around the world, which has spurred some controversy.
Synopsis
An Inconvenient Truth focuses on Al Gore and on his travels in
support of his efforts to educate the public about the severity of the
climate crisis. Gore says, "I've been trying to tell this story for a
long time and I feel as if I've failed to get the message across." The film documents a Keynote
presentation (which Gore refers to as "the slide show") that Gore has
presented throughout the world. It intersperses Gore's exploration of
data and predictions regarding climate change and its potential for disaster with his own life story.
The former vice president opens the film by greeting an audience with
a joke: "I am Al Gore; I used to be the next President of the United
States."
Gore then begins his slide show on climate change; a comprehensive
presentation replete with detailed graphs, flow charts and stark
visuals. Gore shows off several majestic photographs of the Earth taken
from multiple space missions, Earthrise and The Blue Marble. Gore notes that these photos dramatically transformed the way we see the Earth, helping spark modern environmentalism.
Following this, Gore shares anecdotes that inspired his interest in
the issue, including his college education with early climate expert Roger Revelle at Harvard University, his sister's death from lung cancer
and his young son's near-fatal car accident. Gore recalls a story from
his grade-school years, where a fellow student asked his geography
teacher about continental drift;
in response, the teacher called the concept the "most ridiculous thing
[he'd] ever heard." Gore ties this conclusion to the assumption that
"the Earth is so big, we can't possibly have any lasting, harmful impact
on the Earth's environment." For comic effect, Gore uses a clip from
the Futurama episode "Crimes of the Hot" to describe the greenhouse effect. Gore refers to his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 United States presidential election as a "hard blow" yet one which subsequently "brought into clear focus, the mission [he] had been pursuing for all these years."
Throughout the movie, Gore discusses the scientific opinion on climate change, as well as the present and future effects of global warming
and stresses that climate change "is really not a political issue, so
much as a moral one", describing the consequences he believes global
climate change will produce if the amount of human-generated greenhouse gases is not significantly reduced in the very near future. Gore also presents Antarctic ice coring data showing CO2 levels higher now than in the past 650,000 years.
The film includes segments intended to refute critics
who say that global warming is unproven or that warming will be
insignificant. For example, Gore discusses the possibility of the
collapse of a major ice sheet in Greenland or in West Antarctica,
either of which could raise global sea levels by approximately 20 feet,
flooding coastal areas and producing 100 million refugees. Melt water
from Greenland, because of its lower salinity,
could then halt the currents that keep northern Europe warm and quickly
trigger dramatic local cooling there. It also contains various short
animated projections of what could happen to different animals more
vulnerable to climate change.
The documentary ends with Gore arguing that if appropriate actions
are taken soon, the effects of global warming can be successfully
reversed by releasing less CO2 and planting more vegetation to consume existing CO2. Gore calls upon his viewers to learn how they can help him in these efforts. Gore concludes the film by saying:
"Each one of us is a cause of global warming, but each one of us can make choices to change that with the things we buy, the electricity we use, the cars we drive; we can make choices to bring our individual carbon emissions to zero. The solutions are in our hands, we just have to have the determination to make it happen. We have everything that we need to reduce carbon emissions, everything but political will. But in America, the will to act is a renewable resource."
During the film's end credits, a diaporama
pops up on screen suggesting to viewers things at home they can do to
combat climate change, including "recycle", "speak up in your
community", "try to buy a hybrid vehicle" and "encourage everyone you know to watch this movie."
Gore's book of the same title
was published concurrently with the theatrical release of the
documentary. The book contains additional information, scientific
analysis, and Gore's commentary on the issues presented in the
documentary. A 2007 documentary entitled An Update with Former Vice President Al Gore features Gore discussing additional information that came to light after the film was completed, such as Hurricane Katrina, coral reef depletion, glacial earthquake activity on the Greenland ice sheet, wildfires, and trapped methane gas release associated with permafrost melting.
Origins
Gore became interested in global warming when he took a course at Harvard University with Professor Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Later, when Gore was in Congress, he initiated the first congressional hearing on the subject in 1981. Gore's 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, dealing with a number of environmental topics, reached the New York Times bestseller list.
As Vice President during the Clinton Administration, Gore pushed for the implementation of a carbon tax
to encourage energy efficiency and diversify the choices of fuel better
reflecting the true environmental costs of energy use; it was partially
implemented in 1993. He helped broker the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty was not ratified in the United States after a 95 to 0 vote in the Senate. The primary objections stemmed from the exemptions the treaty gave to China and India, whose industrial base and carbon footprint
have grown rapidly, and fears that the exemptions would lead to further
trade imbalances and offshoring arrangement with those countries.
Gore also supported the funding of the ill-fated satellite called Triana,
which would have provided an image of the Earth 24 hours a day, over
the internet and would've acted as a barometer measuring the process of
global warming. During his 2000 presidential campaign, Gore ran, in part, on a pledge to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
The Slide Show
After his defeat in the 2000 presidential election by George W. Bush,
Gore returned his focus to the topic. He edited and adapted a slide
show he had compiled years earlier, and began featuring the slide show
in presentations on global warming across the U.S. and around the world.
At the time of the film, Gore estimated he had shown the presentation
more than one thousand times.
Producer David saw Gore's slide show in New York City at a global warming town-hall meeting after the May 27, 2004 premiere of The Day After Tomorrow. Gore was one of several panelists and he showed a ten-minute version of his slide show.
I had never seen it before, and I was floored. As soon as the evening's program concluded, I asked him to let me present his full briefing to leaders and friends in New York and Los Angeles. I would do all the organizing if he would commit to the dates. Gore's presentation was the most powerful and clear explanation of global warming I had ever seen. And it became my mission to get everyone I knew to see it too.
Inspired, David assembled a team, including producer Lawrence Bender and former president of eBay Jeffrey Skoll,
who met with Gore about the possibility of making the slide show into a
movie. It took some convincing. The slide show, she says, "was his
baby, and he felt proprietary about it and it was hard for him to let
go."
David said the box office returns weren't important to her. "None of
us are going to make a dime." What is at stake, she says, "is, you know,
the planet."
David and Bender later met with director Davis Guggenheim, to have
him direct the film adaptation of his slide show. Guggenheim, who was
skeptical at first, later saw the presentation for himself, stating that
he was "blown away," and "left after an hour and a half thinking that
global warming [was] the most important issue...I had no idea how you’d
make a film out of it, but I wanted to try," he said.
In 2004 Gore enlisted Duarte Design to condense and update his material and add video and animation. As designer Ted Boda described the work: "As a designer for the presentation, Keynote was the first choice to help create such an engaging presentation.
Initially reluctant of the film adaptation, Gore said after he and
the crew were into the production of the movie, the director,
Guggenheim, earned his trust.
I had seen enough to gain a tremendous respect for his skill and sensitivity. And he said that one of the huge differences between a live stage performance and a movie is that when you're in the same room with a live person who's on stage speaking – even if it's me – there's an element of dramatic tension and human connection that keeps your attention. And in a movie, that element is just not present. He explained to me that you have to create that element on screen, by supplying a narrative thread that allows the audience to make a connection with one or more characters. He said, "You've got to be that character." So we talked about it, and as I say, by then he had earned such a high level of trust from me that he convinced me.
Production
When Bender first saw Gore's visual presentation he had concerns
about connection with viewers, citing a "need to find a personal way
in." In the string of interviews with Gore that followed, Gore himself
felt like they "were making Kill Al Vol. 3".
Bender had other issues including a time frame that was "grueling" and
needed to be done in "a very short period of time" despite many filming
locations planned. These included many locations throughout the United
States and also included China.
"It was a lot of travel in a very short period of time. And they had to
get this thing edited and cut starting in January, and ready to screen
in May. That’s like a seriously tight schedule. So the logistics of
pulling it off with a low budget were really difficult, and if there’s
one person who gets credit, it’s Leslie Chilcott, because she really
pulled it together."
Technical aspects
The majority of the movie exhibits Gore delivering his lecture to an
audience at a relatively small theater in Los Angeles. Gore's
presentation was delivered on a 70-foot digital screen that Bender
commissioned specifically for the movie.
While the bulk of the film was shot on 4:4:4 HDCAM, according to director Guggenheim, a vast array of different film formats were used: "There’s 35mm and 16mm. A lot of the stuff on the farm I just shot myself on 8mm film. We used four Sony F950 HDCAMs for the presentation. We shot three different kinds of prosumer
HD, both 30 and 24. There’s MiniDV, there’s 3200 black-and-white
stills, there’s digital stills, some of them emailed on the day they
were taken from as far off as Greenland. There was three or four
different types of animation. One of the animators is from New Zealand
and emailed me his work. There’s JPEG stuff."
Guggenheim says while it would've been a lot easier to use one
format, it would not have had the same impact. "Each format has its own
feel and texture and touch. For the storytelling of what Gore’s memory
was like of growing up on the farm, some of this 8mm stuff that I shot
is very impressionistic. And for some of his memories of his son’s
accident, these grainy black-and-white stills...have a feel that
contrasted very beautifully with the crisp hi-def HD that we shot. Every
format was used to its best potential. Some of the footage of Katrina
has this blown-out video, where the chroma is just blasted, and it looks real muddy, but that too has its own kind of powerful, impactful feeling."
Scientific basis
The film's thesis is that global warming is real, potentially catastrophic, and human-caused. Gore presents specific data that supports the thesis, including:
- The Keeling curve, measuring CO2 from the Mauna Loa Observatory.
- The retreat of numerous glaciers is shown in before-and-after photographs.
- A study by researchers at the Physics Institute at the University of Bern and the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica presenting data from Antarctic ice cores showing carbon dioxide concentrations higher than at any time during the past 650,000 years.
- Temperature record since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years.
- A 2004 survey, by Naomi Oreskes of 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles on global climate change published between 1993 and 2003. The survey, published as an editorial in the journal Science, found that every article either supported the human-caused global warming consensus or did not comment on it. Gore also presented a 2004 study by Max and Jules Boykoff showing 53% of articles that appeared in major US newspapers over a fourteen year period gave roughly equal attention to scientists who expressed views that global warming was caused by humans as they did to global warming skeptics, creating a false balance.
The Associated Press
contacted more than 100 climate researchers and questioned them about
the film's veracity. All 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie
said that Gore accurately conveyed the science, with few errors.
William H. Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University said "[Gore] got all the important material and got it right." Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
was also impressed. "I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and
accurate. After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away.
There's a lot of details you could get wrong.'...I could find no
error." Michael Shermer, scientific author and founder of The Skeptics Society, wrote in Scientific American that Gore's slide show "shocked me out of my doubting stance." Eric Steig, a climate scientist writing on RealClimate, lauded the film's science as "remarkably up to date, with reference to some of the very latest research." Ted Scambos, lead scientist from the National Snow and Ice Data Center,
said the film "does an excellent job of outlining the science behind
global warming and the challenges society faces in the coming century
because of it."
One concern among scientists in the film was the connection between
hurricanes and global warming, which remains contentious in the science
community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his
view.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate
and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing
impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater
scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, professor of meteorology and
oceanography at the University of Miami. Gavin Schmidt, climate modeler for NASA, thought Gore appropriately addressed the issue.
"Gore talked about 2005 and 2004 being very strong seasons, and if you
weren't paying attention, you could be left with the impression that
there was a direct cause and effect, but he was very careful to not say
there's a direct correlation," Schmidt said.
"There is a difference between saying 'we are confident that they will
increase' and 'we are confident that they have increased due to this
effect,'" added Steig. "Never in the movie does he say: 'This particular
event is caused by global warming.'"
Gore's use of long ice core records of CO2 and temperature
(from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate
the correlation between the two drew some scrutiny; Schmidt, Steig and Michael E. Mann
back up Gore's data. "Gore stated that the greenhouse gas levels and
temperature changes over ice age signals had a complex relationship but
that they 'fit'. Both of these statements are true," said Schmidt and
Mann. "The complexity though is actually quite fascinating...a full understanding of why CO2
changes in precisely the pattern that it does during ice ages is
elusive, but among the most plausible explanations is that increased
received solar radiation in the southern hemisphere due to changes in
Earth’s orbital geometry warms the southern ocean, releasing CO2
into the atmosphere, which then leads to further warming through an
enhanced greenhouse effect. Gore’s terse explanation of course does not
mention such complexities, but the crux of his point–that the observed
long-term relationship between CO2 and temperature in Antarctica supports our understanding of the warming impact of increased CO2 concentrations–is correct. Moreover, our knowledge of why CO2 is changing now (fossil fuel burning) is solid. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the carbon cycle feedback is positive (increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 and CH4), implying that future changes in CO2 will be larger than we might anticipate." "Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2
scaling is," said Steig. "He is making a qualitative point, which is
entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible
to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without
CO2 changes. In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate."
Steig disputed Gore's statement that you can visibly see the effect that the United States Clean Air Act
has had on ice cores in Antarctica. "One can neither see, nor even
detect using sensitive chemical methods any evidence in Antarctica of
the Clean Air Act," he said, but did note that they are "clearly
recorded in ice core records from Greenland."
Despite these flaws, Steig said that the film got the fundamental
science right and the minor factual errors did not undermine the main
message of the film, adding "An Inconvenient Truth rests on a solid scientific foundation."
Lonnie Thompson, Earth Science professor at Ohio State University,
whose work on retreating glaciers was featured in the film, was pleased
with how his research was presented. "It's so hard given the breadth of
this topic to be factually correct, and make sure you don't lose your
audience," Thompson said. "As scientists, we publish our papers in Science and Nature,
but very few people read those. Here's another way to get this message
out. To me, it's an excellent overview for an introductory class at a
university. What are the issues and what are the possible consequences
of not doing anything about those changes? To me, it has tremendous
value. It will reach people that scientists will never reach."
John Nielsen-Gammon from Texas A&M University
said the "main scientific argument presented in the movie is for the
most part consistent with the weight of scientific evidence, but with
some of the main points needing updating, correction, or qualification."
Nielsen-Gammon thought the film neglected information gained from
computer models, and instead relied entirely on past and current
observational evidence, "perhaps because such information would be
difficult for a lay audience to grasp, believe, or connect with
emotionally."
Steven Quiring, climatologist from Texas A&M University added that "whether scientists like it or not, An Inconvenient Truth
has had a much greater impact on public opinion and public awareness of
global climate change than any scientific paper or report."
Reception
Box office
The film opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006. On Memorial Day
weekend, it grossed an average of $91,447 per theater, the highest of
any movie that weekend and a record for a documentary, though it was
only playing on four screens at the time.
At the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, the movie received three standing ovations. It was also screened at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival and was the opening night film at the 27th Durban International Film Festival on June 14, 2006. An Inconvenient Truth was the most popular documentary at the 2006 Brisbane International Film Festival.
The film has grossed over $24 million in the U.S. and over $49
million worldwide, making it the sixth-highest-grossing documentary in
the U.S. to date, (from 1982 to the present). According to Gore, "Tipper
and I are devoting 100 percent of the profits from the book and the
movie to a new bipartisan educational campaign to further spread the
message about global warming." Paramount Classics committed 5% of their domestic theatrical gross from the film to form a new bipartisan climate action group, Alliance for Climate Protection, dedicated to awareness and grassroots organizing.
Reviews
The film received a generally positive reaction from film critics. It garnered a "certified fresh" 93% rating at Rotten Tomatoes (as of May 21, 2007), with a 94% rating from the "Cream of the Crop" reviewers. At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film has received an average score of 75%, based on 32 reviews. Film critics Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper
gave the film "two thumbs up". Ebert said, "In 39 years, I have never
written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to
yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren,
you should explain to them why you decided not to,"
calling the film "horrifying, enthralling and [having] the potential, I
believe, to actually change public policy and begin a process which
could save the Earth."
New York Magazine critic David Edelstein
called the film "One of the most realistic documentaries I've ever
seen—and, dry as it is, one of the most devastating in its
implications." The New Yorker's David Remnick
added that while it was "not the most entertaining film of the
year...it might be the most important" and a "brilliantly lucid, often
riveting attempt to warn Americans off our hellbent path to global
suicide." New York Times reviewer A.O. Scott thought the film was "edited crisply enough to keep it from feeling like 90 minutes of C-SPAN
and shaped to give Mr. Gore's argument a real sense of drama," and "as
unsettling as it can be," Scott continued, "it is also intellectually
exhilarating, and, like any good piece of pedagogy, whets the appetite
for further study." Bright Lights Film Journal critic Jayson Harsin declared the film's aesthetic qualities groundbreaking, as a new genre of slideshow film. NASA climatologist James E. Hansen said that with An Inconvenient Truth, "Al Gore may have done for global warming what Silent Spring
did for pesticides. He will be attacked, but the public will have the
information needed to distinguish our long-term well-being from
short-term special interests."
Criticism
On the other hand, several reviews criticized the film on scientific and political grounds. Journalist Ronald Bailey argued in the libertarian magazine Reason that although "Gore gets [the science] more right than wrong," he exaggerates the risks. Global warming skeptics were vocally critical of the film, such as MIT physicist Richard S. Lindzen, who wrote in a June 26, 2006 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that Gore was using a biased presentation to exploit the fears of the public for his own political gain. Some reviewers were also skeptical of Gore's intent, wondering whether he was setting himself for another Presidential run. Boston Globe
writer Peter Canello criticized the "gauzy biographical material that
seems to have been culled from old Gore campaign commercials." Phil Hall of Film Threat gave the film a negative review, saying "An Inconvenient Truth is something you rarely see in movies today: a blatant intellectual fraud." Conservative commentator Glenn Beck aired a one-hour special, Exposed: Climate of Fear, as a counterpoint to Gore's film with viewpoints of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. "Yes, Al Gore, there is another credible side," Beck said. "An Inconvenient Truth is a study in absolutes, a one-sided argument devoid of any gray area."
In "extensive exit polling" of An Inconvenient Truth in
"conservative suburban markets like Plano and Irvine (Orange County), as
well as Dallas and Long Island", 92 percent rated "Truth" highly and 87
percent of the respondents said they'd recommend the film to a friend.
Accolades
The film won the 2007 Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song for Melissa Etheridge's "I Need to Wake Up". It is the first documentary to win 2 Oscars and the first to win a best original song Oscar.
After winning the 2007 Academy Award for Documentary Feature,
the Oscar was awarded to director Guggenheim, who asked Gore to join
him and other members of the crew on stage. Gore then gave a brief
speech, saying:
My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it.
In addition, the film received numerous other accolades, including a special recognition from the Humanitas Prize, the first time the organization had handed out a Special Award in over 10 years, the 2007 Stanley Kramer Award from The Producers Guild of America, which recognizes "work that dramatically illustrates provocative social issues" and the President’s Award 2007 from the Society for Technical Communication
"for demonstrating that effective and understandable technical
communication, when coupled with passion and vision, has the power to
educate—and change—the world."
For Gore's wide-reaching efforts to draw the world’s attention to the
dangers of global warming which is centerpieced in the film, Al Gore,
along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. The related album, which featured the voices of Beau Bridges, Cynthia Nixon and Blair Underwood, also won Best Spoken Word Album at the 51st Grammy Awards.
Impact
The documentary has been generally well-received politically in many
parts of the world and is credited for raising further awareness of
global warming internationally. The film inspired producer Kevin Wall to conceive the 2007 Live Earth festival and influenced Italian composer Giorgio Battistelli to write an operatic adaptation, scheduled to premiere at La Scala in Milan in 2013.
Activism
Following the film, Gore founded The Climate Project
in 2006 which trained 1,000 activists to give Gore’s presentation in
their communities. Presently, the group has 3,500 presenters worldwide.
An additional initiative was launched in 2010, called "Inconvenient Youth".
"'Inconvenient Youth' is built on the belief that teens can help lead
efforts to solve the climate crisis,” said Gore. The project was
inspired by Mary Doerr, a 16-year-old who trained as presenter for the
organization.
Public opinion
In a July 2007 47-country Internet survey conducted by The Nielsen Company and Oxford University, 66% of those respondents who said they had seen An Inconvenient Truth
stated that it had “changed their mind” about global warming and 89%
said it had made them more aware of the problem. Three out of four (74%)
said they had changed some of their habits because of seeing the film.
Governmental reactions
Then-president George W. Bush, when asked whether he would watch the
film, responded: "Doubt it." He later stated that "And in my judgment we
need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by
mankind or because of natural effects, and focus on the technologies
that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect
the environment." Gore responded that "The entire global scientific
community has a consensus on the question that human beings are
responsible for global warming and he [Bush] has today again expressed
personal doubt that that is true." White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino
stated that "The president noted in 2001 the increase in temperatures
over the past 100 years and that the increase in greenhouse gases was
due to a certain extent to human activity".
Several United States Senators screened the film. New Mexico Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman and Nevada Democratic Senator Harry Reid saw the movie at its Washington premiere at the National Geographic Society. New Mexico Democratic Senator Tom Udall
planned to see the film saying "It's such a powerful statement because
of the way the movie is put together, I tell everybody, Democrat or
Republican, they've got to go see this movie." Former New Mexico Republican Senator Pete Domenici
thought Gore's prominence on the global warming issue made it more
difficult to get a consensus in Congress. Bingaman disputed this saying,
"It seems to me we were having great difficulty recruiting Republican
members of Congress to support a bill before Al Gore came up with this
movie."
Oklahoma Republican Senator Jim Inhofe,
then-chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
didn't plan to see the film (which he appears in), and compared it to Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf"."If
you say the same lie over and over again, and particularly if you have
the media's support, people will believe it," Inhofe said, adding that
he thought Gore was trying to use the issue to run for president again
in 2008.
In contrast to Inhofe, Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, did not criticize Gore's efforts or the movie, which he planned to see.
Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander,
said "Because (Gore) was a former vice president and presidential
nominee, he brings a lot of visibility to (the issue)," Alexander said.
"On the other hand it may be seen as political by some, and they may be
less eager to be a part of it." Alexander also criticized the omission
of nuclear power in the film. "Maybe it needs a sequel: 'An Inconvenient
Truth 2: Nuclear Power.'"
In September 2006, Gore traveled to Sydney, Australia to promote the film. Then-Australian Prime Minister John Howard said he would not meet with Gore or agree to Kyoto because of the movie: "I don't take policy advice from films." Former Opposition Leader Kim Beazley joined Gore for a viewing and other MPs attended a special screening at Parliament House earlier in the week. After winning the general election a year later, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
ratified Kyoto in his first week of office, leaving the United States
the only industrialized nation in the world not to have signed the
treaty.
In the United Kingdom, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron urged people to watch the film in order to understand climate change.
In Belgium, Margaretha Guidone persuaded the entire Belgian government to see the film. 200 politicians and political staff accepted her invitation, among whom were Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt and Minister-President of Flanders, Yves Leterme. Gore received the Prince of Asturias Prize in 2007 for international cooperation.
In Costa Rica, the film was screened by president Oscar Arias. Arias's subsequent championing of the climate change issue was greatly influenced by the film.
Industry and business
The Competitive Enterprise Institute released pro-carbon dioxide
television ads in preparation for the film's release in May 2006. The
ads featured a little girl blowing a dandelion with the tagline, "Carbon
dioxide. They call it pollution. We call it life."
In August 2006, the Wall Street Journal revealed that a YouTube video lampooning Gore and the movie, titled Al Gore's Penguin Army, appeared to be "astroturfing" by DCI Group, a Washington public relations firm.
Use in education
Several colleges and high schools have begun to use the film in science curricula. In Germany, German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel bought 6,000 DVDs of An Inconvenient Truth to make it available to German schools. In Spain, after a meeting with Gore, prime minister José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero said the government will make An Inconvenient Truth available to schools. In Burlington, Ontario, Canada, the Halton District School Board made An Inconvenient Truth available at schools and as an educational resource.
In the United Kingdom
As part of a nationwide "Sustainable Schools Year of Action" launched in late 2006, the UK Government, Welsh Assembly Government and Scottish Executive announced between January–March 2007 that copies of An Inconvenient Truth would be sent to all secondary schools in England, Wales and Scotland. The film was placed into the science curriculum for fourth and sixth-year students in Scotland as a joint initiative between Learning and Teaching Scotland and ScottishPower.
Dimmock case
In May 2007, a group of global warming skeptics led by Stewart Dimmock, a lorry (HGV) driver and school governor from Kent, England, challenged the UK Government's distribution of the film in a lawsuit, Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills with help from political ally Viscount Monckton. The plaintiffs sought an injunction
preventing the screening of the film in English schools, arguing that
schools are legally forbidden to promote partisan political views and,
when dealing with political issues, are required to provide a balanced
presentation of opposing views.
On 10 October 2007, Mr Justice Burton, after explaining that the
requirement for a balanced presentation does not warrant that equal
weight be given to alternative views of a mainstream view, ruled that it
was clear that the film was substantially founded upon scientific
research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a
"talented politician and communicator", to make a political statement
and to support a political program.
The film could then, on that basis, be shown, provided an accompanying
explanation was given of its scientific errors, in order to prevent
political indoctrination.
The judge concluded "I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's
expert, is right when he says that: 'Al Gore's presentation of the
causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly
accurate.'" On the basis of testimony from Robert M. Carter and the arguments put forth by the claimant's lawyers, the judge also pointed to nine "errors", i.e. statements the truth of which he did not rule on, but that he found to depart from the mainstream scientific positions on global warming.
He also found that some of these departures from the mainstream arose
in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of political
theses.
Since the government had already accepted to amend the guidance notes
to address these along with other points in a fashion that the judge
found satisfactory, no order was made on the application.
Each side declared victory. Government Minister of Children, Young People and Families, Kevin Brennan
stated: "We have updated the accompanying guidance, as requested by the
judge to make it clearer for teachers as to the stated
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position on a number of
scientific points raised in the film."
Plaintiff Dimmock complained that "no amount of turgid guidance" could
change his view that the film was unsuitable for the classroom.
A spokesman for Gore said: "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the
judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have
the studies to back those pieces up."
In the United States
In the United States, 50,000 free copies of An Inconvenient Truth were offered to the National Science Teachers Association
(NSTA), which declined to take them. Producer David provided an email
correspondence from the NSTA detailing that their reasoning was that the
DVDs would place "unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign,
especially certain targeted supporters," and that they saw "little, if
any, benefit to NSTA or its members" in accepting the free DVDs. A Washington Post editorial called the decision "Science a la Joe Camel", citing for example that the NSTA had received $6 million since 1996 from Exxon Mobil, which had a representative on the organization's corporate board.
In public, the NSTA argued that distributing this film to its members
would have been contrary to a long-standing NSTA policy against
distributing unsolicited materials to its members. The NSTA also said
that they had offered several other options for distributing the film
but ultimately "[it] appears that these alternative distribution
mechanisms were unsatisfactory."
David has said that NSTA Executive Director Gerry Wheeler promised in a
telephone conversation to explore alternatives with NSTA's board for
advertising the film but she had not yet received an alternative offer
at the time of NSTA's public claim. She also said that she rejected
their subsequent offers because they were nothing more than offers to
sell their "commercially available member mailing list" and advertising
space in their magazine and newsletter, which are available to anyone.
She noted that in the past, NSTA had shipped out 20,000 copies of a
10-part video produced by Wheeler with funding provided by ConocoPhillips
in 2003. NSTA indicated that they retained editorial control over the
content, which David questioned based on the point of view portrayed in
the global warming section of the video.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science publication ScienceNOW
published an assessment discussing both sides of the NSTA decision in
which it was reported that "David says NSTA's imprimatur [i.e.
endorsement or sanction] was essential and that buying a mailing list is
a nonstarter. 'You don't want to send out a cold letter, and it costs a
lot of money,' she says. 'There are a thousand reasons why that
wouldn't work.'"
In January 2007, the Federal Way (Washington State) School Board
voted to require an approval by the principal and the superintendent
for teachers to show the film to students and that the teachers must
include the presentation of an approved "opposing view". The moratorium was repealed, at a meeting on January 23, after a predominantly negative community reaction. Shortly thereafter, the school board in Yakima, Washington, calling the film a "controversial issue", prevented the Environmental Club of Eisenhower High School from showing it, pending review by the school board, teachers, principal, and parents. It lifted the stay a month later, upon the approval by a review panel.
In New Zealand
Former ACT New Zealand Member of Parliament Muriel Newman
filed a petition to have New Zealand schoolchildren be protected from
political indoctrination by putting provisions that resembled those in
the UK to the Education Act. The petition was in response to concerned
parents talked with Newman after An Inconvenient Truth was shown
in schools in 2007. The parents were worried that teachers were not
pointing out supposed inaccuracies in the film and were not explaining
differing viewpoints.
No comments:
Post a Comment