![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Al Gore Show
Oct. 11th, 2017 09:13 pmFor the third Tuesday in a row, I headed off to Reading Film Theatre, this time for An Inconvenient Sequel. I'm not sure if I've seen the first film; certainly, if not, I have seen fragments of it. As a campaigning film, I find it interesting to compare it to Michael Moore's films: for the most part, Gore is calmer, though it seems to me he's more effective when he occasionally gets angry. Moore, on the other hand, can get a bit whiny. The end results are that - sometimes - Gore has contacts, pulls strings, and achieves results; Moore - well, I won't say he has achieved nothing, but the impotence of working outside the establishment can be circular.
If I have a negative point to make about the film, it's that quite a bit of it is about Al Gore, Al Gore, and Al Gore. I've nothing against the guy, but filming so many of your conferences and training sessions, and then doing a voice-over telling the audience about your conferences and training sessions, can detract from the main message sometimes, as though what you're actually selling, is, the art of selling, as if it were a pyramid scheme. There is also a certain irony about flying around the world broadcasting a message that we need to do something about climate change. But for the most part, Gore has a real story to tell, including the science, the economics, dramatic footage of various extreme weather incidents, and possible agendas some people, companies, and governments might have against the curtailment of fossil fuel emissions. Strangely, he doesn't draw any parallel between the behaviour of energy companies and regimes, and earlier behaviour of tobacco product manufacturers. The denial, then the spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt, seem similar to me.
There are bright spots - the rising viability and capacity of solar power, in particular; also the achievement of the Paris agreement. Gore provides examples of bipartisanship in the US, but the film ends with the note of the Trump administration's withdrawal from the agreement, with a message, I suppose particularly for US audiences, to "use your vote". I rather doubt the film itself is going to sway anyone in our increasingly polarised political world, though maybe it will inspire and strengthen some campaigners. Sadly, I suspect only a sustained stream of events will change some minds, and by that point so much damage will have been done. It would be nice to be wrong about that.
If I have a negative point to make about the film, it's that quite a bit of it is about Al Gore, Al Gore, and Al Gore. I've nothing against the guy, but filming so many of your conferences and training sessions, and then doing a voice-over telling the audience about your conferences and training sessions, can detract from the main message sometimes, as though what you're actually selling, is, the art of selling, as if it were a pyramid scheme. There is also a certain irony about flying around the world broadcasting a message that we need to do something about climate change. But for the most part, Gore has a real story to tell, including the science, the economics, dramatic footage of various extreme weather incidents, and possible agendas some people, companies, and governments might have against the curtailment of fossil fuel emissions. Strangely, he doesn't draw any parallel between the behaviour of energy companies and regimes, and earlier behaviour of tobacco product manufacturers. The denial, then the spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt, seem similar to me.
There are bright spots - the rising viability and capacity of solar power, in particular; also the achievement of the Paris agreement. Gore provides examples of bipartisanship in the US, but the film ends with the note of the Trump administration's withdrawal from the agreement, with a message, I suppose particularly for US audiences, to "use your vote". I rather doubt the film itself is going to sway anyone in our increasingly polarised political world, though maybe it will inspire and strengthen some campaigners. Sadly, I suspect only a sustained stream of events will change some minds, and by that point so much damage will have been done. It would be nice to be wrong about that.