I have to admit that I put off seeing Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth for months. I mean, climate change isn’t exactly a feel good topic, so I wanted to make sure I went in with the mental and emotional stamina to handle what I knew would be tough news to hear.
Feeling good and strong, tonight I finally went. Now that I’ve seen it, I can whole-heartedly do what they request at the end of the film and ask everyone I know to please see this movie.
As a film, it’s excellent: well-produced, informative, clear and accessible to a range of audiences. It managed, for me at least, to take on a brutal topic without being overwhelming or depressing. And Al Gore is a killer speaker – his message, while strongly worded and delivered, remains engaging and proactive throughout.
Gore is convincing in his passion and commitment, and I came away from the film with quite a deep respect for the man (or at least for the character portrayed on screen). I appreciated the incorporation of personal anecdotes from his life, which I found helped me to relate to the issue of climate change in a more direct, human way. On a personal level climate change is such a difficult issue for me to deal with – I struggle to find a way to engage with it in a positive, action-oriented way, without becoming overwhelmed and hopeless. I fould that bearing witness to the human element of Gore’s relationship to the issue was both comforting and supportive.
To be honest, the main reason I put off seeing the film for so long was that I assumed it would devastate me. I already know all this stuff, I figured, so why put myself through an experience that’s just going to leave me even more depressed? But amazingly, I left the film more inspired than when I went in. Not that there weren’t a few emotional moments (I have to figure out why the idea of polar bears drowning in the Arctic is the single most devastating thing for me), but exhausted computer animated polar bears aside, I actually came away from the film with a lighter heart and greater feeling of connectedness.
Afterwards somebody mentioned that it was too bad Al Gore didn’t make this movie before he lost the US presidency to Bush. I thought about it for a moment and then had to disagree. I guess it’s possible that releasing An Inconvenient Truth several years back would have won Gore Florida and put the US on a direct course to ratifying Kyoto and stopping climate change in its tracks, but I doubt it. I think what’s more likely is that we would have simply found ourselves with a different twit in the White House.
My logic? Being a politician means, unfortunately, being in the business of pleasing as many people as you possibly can. It’s unfortunate because the end result seems (inevitably?) to be a watering down of every issue to the most simplified and commonly accepted party line. However, when a politician exits their political career (willingly or unwillingly) they can get back to speaking what’s really true for them, and not just what will get them the most votes.
In arguing this I realized that there’s someone Al Gore reminds me of, and this helps explain my inspiration. Like Mr. Gore, Stephen Lewis also seemed to capture the full strength of his values and voice after he stopped being a politician. He too is a phenomenal orator who demonstrates compelling vulnerability by offering something of himself in the process, a combination I’m convinced is key to making both men so effective. Lewis has been on my list of heroes for ages, and now Gore gets to join him, which is great, because you can never have too many heroes!
Now don’t get me wrong – I think it’s absolutely crucial to encourage people of substance, strong ethical fibre and open-mindedness to participate in our political systems. All I’m saying is that politics in this particular time and place don’t seem to nurture the kind of strong values and action that is needed, or that is evident in the kind of work that former politicians such as Gore and Lewis are doing (or that activists everywhere are always doing). I think it was actually Al Gore’s presidential loss that made it possible for him to get back to being able to speak frankly and passionately about something true, without having to worry about political fallout. For the state of the world, I think it’s a blessing! For the state of democracy, I suppose it’s just another inconvenient truth.
So if you haven’t already, please see this movie: visit www.climatecrisis.net for more info.
subverting overconsumption 
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 29, 2006 at 8:47 am
tamino
Thanks for an intimate review. I too am very concerned about global warming, and I’m well-informed, so the film didn’t give me much new in the way of “information.” But I was very impressed with how Gore made a solid case that was comprehensible to the lay viewer. What impressed me most, perhaps, is the strength of the reaction from all the friends I dragged along with me.
November 30, 2006 at 12:47 am
goodgirlculture
Thanks for your comment! I agree that the accessibility of the film was a huge strength. In retrospect I wish I’d done what you did and dragged people along that aren’t are familiar with the issue as I am. As it was, there was a certain element of preaching to the converted, which I always find frustrating.
November 30, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Corky
Dear Nico,
I disagree very strongly with your thesis that being unelected has changed the way Al Gore and Stephen Lewis (and, by implication, other persons in public life) talk.
I know neither of these men so my thoughts, like yours, are assumptions based on my experience. My experience, though, tells me that it is highly likely that both these fellows said and/or wrote brave and true thoughts while they were elected and we do not know this because it is not in the interest of popular culture to celebrate their thoughts while in office. Worse, I am pretty sure you would be way more likely to hear the dumb things they might have said while in office than the flights of genius.
It annoys me, hugely, to acknowledge the truth of what you say for many modern elected persons who live, and talk, out of a “message box” that keeps them safe, boring, and without passion or vision or comitment. But, Nikko, those folks don’t go on to win your heart when they are out of office. they had nothing to say in the first place. Real persons like those you celebrate out of office, were real persons in public life, too.
It is lovely to sit in my house next to your mom reading your thoughts. I have never read a “blog” before. How cool that it would be yours!
corky
November 30, 2006 at 11:59 pm
goodgirlculture
Corky, I must have psychic powers! I wrote this review very late two nights ago without editing it, and so I was just re-reading it now to see how off base and full of typos it actually was. As I was reading through it I thought, Gee, I wonder what Corky would think of all my hoo hah about poiticians. And then when I was done, there was your brand new comment.
Uncanny, no?
I completely agree with your point. Obviously people with strong values have them regardless of whether they’re considering public office, whether they’re in it, or whether they’ve left it behind. My perspective isn’t that values change or go away in a political career (though I guess that might sometimes be true too), but rather that the political systems we work with make it harder to speak and act as frankly as when you’re operating outside of that structure (e.g., like how I’m free to say whatever I want in this dialogue, but how you have to also consider your accountability to your constituents, party, etc.).
One thing about the movie was that it looked back on Gore’s political career and all the work that he’s done for many many many years on the issue of climate change. So yes, it would be totally unfair to say that he wasn’t speaking his truth or with strong values while he was in public office. It just got me wondering what might have been had he become president. I found myself doubting that he would have been that much better than Bush (though obviously it would have been hard to be worse!), simply because the problems are so much bigger than one man. They’re cultural and structural.
I believe in the principle of democracy. And I believe that every single person elected to political office (regardless of their political stripes) goes in with their own strong values and the very best intentions of trying to serve their constituents to the best of their abilities. But regardless of the good intentions, I don’t see our current political processes achieving what needs to be achieved in terms of dealing with the most serious issues that we currently face. Unforuntately, though the current situation feels unacceptable to me, I don’t (as yet) have anything better to offer. So with that, I’ll shut up and go to sleep.
Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Nikko
December 3, 2006 at 3:35 pm
stonehead
Before quitting the rat race, I spent 20 years in fairly close association with politicians, lobbyists, powerbrokers, the media and big business across several countries and a variety of local, state, and national governments. While agreeing that there are some politicians with principles and good intentions, my experiences left me extremely cynical about allegedly democratic political systems and structures.
I completely agree with your statement that Al Gore can be more forthright about his underlying principles and beliefs now that he is out of office than he could while in office.
This is because politics is about compromise, consensus and deals. Gore in office may well have wanted to do more about the environment, but what compromises and deals would he have had to make in order to achieve his objectives?
To get an initiative through to actual law is a long process of watering down, strengthening, narrowing or widening the original proposal to bring sufficient interest groups and their politicians on board to give the initiative a chance to be put to the vote.
Then, if you want to win the vote, you have to buy off the fence-sitters, the groups and politicians who don’t care about the initiative one way or the other, but who will vote for you if given the right incentive. So, you might move a military base from an area where you’re never going to get support to one where you will get support with the right inducement. You might approve funding for a new highway (even though you think it’s wrong) because it gets you the vote on the more important initiative.
And if you still don’t have the support, then you roll out the threats. Does X want voters to know that while outwardly a moral, upright family man, he likes to spend one Saturday night a month in the bath house? Does Y want the media to know her daughter is living with a convicted drug dealer? Does Q want those pictures of him in women’s underwear splashed across TV screens?
And even then, the vote can still be lost.
There are a handful of very principled men and women who won’t tolerate this, but they’re almost always isolated and usually portrayed in the media as cranks. They keep getting elected because their voters know what they’re really like, but they’ll never have a power base.
There is a large group of politicians who try to stick to a handful of key principles, but will compromise elsewhere if it will get them a gain where they think it matters more.
There is an equally large group who follow the party leadership because unwavering loyalty earns rewards while also avoiding issues of personal principle and responsibility.
And there is a small but significant group of venal, corrupt shysters. Some started principled and became corrupted, but most went into politics for personal gain and advantage. The “best” stay bought, the rest shift with the wind and the favours.
That’s why I am so concerned about climate change, peak oil and peak minerals. Not because the situation is so serious, but because I strongly suspect we don’t have the leaders, systems and structures to make a real difference quickly enough.
It’s also why I put my hope in the people. If enough individuals decide change is needed and needed fast, if they can overcome their differences and work together behind new leaders, then change can happen. History has shown this time and time again.
Isn’t it time we made change happen again?
December 5, 2006 at 8:56 pm
goodgirlculture
Thanks for your comment Stonehead! (I wanted to respond sooner than this, but unfortunately I got sidetracked with my own rat race…I haven’t found a way to extricate myself from it quite yet, though I’m working on it.)
Yes, I agree it is time for real change. Each individual commitment to manifesting change in their own life is key. Whether this will snowball into the kind of global will necessary to turn things around remains to be seen.
For my part, I am very cautious about how I use the term hope these days. I recently read an interview with Derrick Jensen about hope (in a back issue of Lip Magazine), and I thought he captured it well: “Hope is a longing for a future condition over which you have no agency.” (p. 18, Summer 2005)
I realized a while back that although despair might be the easiest and most obvious alternative to hope, it’s really not a sustainable option (for me at least). So I’m in the process of looking for something in between…or even outside that paradigm altogether. Not sure where that will lead, but it’s damn interesting.
Thanks again!
n
December 7, 2006 at 2:58 am
stonehead
That’s a rather sad definition of hope!
I’d define hope as a combination of resilience, faith and a sense of influence or control.
I’d like something to happen so I know from experience that I have the resilience to overcome or bypass obstacles between myself and that goal.
I have a strong sense of faith in my own abilities, mental, physical and spiritual, to cope with those obstacles, and I also have a strong sense of faith in those people that I can call on for support and assistance.
I feel that I can influence or control most or all of the decisions that must be made between the here and now, and my objective.
When I put all of those together, then I have hope.
I have to be wary of false hope and unrealistic hope but there are pitfalls on every path. For me, the occasional stumble is a reminder to tread carefully but never an excuse to give up.
Of course, I do have an advantage in that for me the journey is the destination so my hopes are never dashed when I reach a point only to find it is not what I imagined. Instead, I delight in the differences between imagination and reality, as this gives me hope for what I might come across next.
This is probably a bit profound for early morning, but that’s what happens when you get up early to feed the animals before watching the sun come up with the sheep.