The movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is a documentary whose central character, Al Gore, an American politician and environmentalist and a Nobel Laureate, speaks against Global Warming which is the subject matter of the movie. When I first watch the movie it is only a bundle of images for me. And these images speak loudly. Big slides, serene environment, a quite flowing river with green trees on its banks, melting ice sheets, dry cracking surfaces, fuming industries, forest fires, breaking icebergs, vanishing forests, diminishing water bodies- Lake Chad and Ural Sea, rising temperatures, a polar bear who finds no ice to rest on and swims, swims and swims, deadly hurricanes, among others Katrina whose victimisation is rather racist, benevolent sunrays and the rowdy Green House Gases who trap them and warm the earth’s atmosphere….Of classroom (probably a studio) full of faces, clapping and laughing at Gore’s occasional humour, huge screens with data represented by line and bar graphs showing what have we done to the earth, our own habitat. It’s a film evoking hysteria, giving a warning, providing images that are sometimes voyeuristic- images of planet earth, full, partial, rotating; sometimes panic inducing- the circulation of Gulf Stream which would eventually stop circulating and bring an Ice Age to Western Europe, a polar bear swimming away towards death, people being displaced by rising sea levels-Manhattan, Calcutta, San Francisco, Beijing; the emergence of deadly vectors, new born ones and old ones making a comeback; and, sometimes (pulling our attention) making us aware of what’s happening in places that we always imagined to be serene, beautiful and untouched by human hands- Kilimanjaro peak that’s fast loosing its snow cover, the retreating glaciers over the world, the melting of Antarctica and vanishing plant and bird species. Beyond these the film is also about another world full of swank airports, chic cars and tuxedo suits with White men in them, with laptops on their laps. I often wonder why do we see only white people is chic cars and swank airport lounges and Black, Brown, Red people trapped in hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones and typhoons, suffering in pain, poverty and waiting to be rescued by First World planes and fed by air dropped meal packets. It’s just an observation. Or perhaps a thought that wrenches out forcefully.
The camera moves on. Its gaze intrigues me. It covers almost the whole of the Globe, the inaccessible areas that many of us might have never come across or known, making didactic effort to bring to us the world that is beyond but still connected to our lives in some way. Yet the gaze has its own politics and place. It is a gaze from above. It is never on the land, with the grassroots. It never comes down but remains far away- from the satellite- Apollo, Galileo among others; from the flying airplane, from places that aren’t on the ground but in mid air. It’s a gaze that sympathises but never experiences or shares the problem. It’s a gaze of warning, of alert. It’s not of victimisation but that of a warning of the threat of victimisation. A view from the top. Not too far so as to be away, not too near so as to get involved, experience and empathise. It shows the helpless polar bear, the Black victims of Katrina, the floods of Mumbai, the droughts of Darfur, but never goes too near, never becomes one, always keeping a distance of Us and Them. They are pictures with no sounds. Mute. Perhaps with no Voice. All laid bare for a particular audience. The Statistics (of Department of Energy, World Resource Institute among others) legitimises the threat of global warming while the American audience cheers and laughs even as elsewhere people feel the heat of their misdoings (30.3% of the world’s Carbon emissions come from USA).
The Narrative moves on with the narrator whose environmental activism stems from his own personal experiences and tragedies- his political career, his childhood memories, his son’s death, his sister Nacy’s loss to lung cancer etc. (I am often perplexed as to why only when an individual’s life is struck by personal loss that wider problems which are until now unheard of or simply ignored, begin to pinch. I am not questioning Al Gore’s commitment but the nature of Human Spirit.) Entwining the personal narrative to the wider issue of global warming, Al Gore takes us to places as he journeys from north pole to the south pole, from the glaciers of Alaska, Argentina and Andes to the lakes of Chad and Ural Sea, to the forests of Amazon and deserts of Africa, to cities of Manhattan, Calcutta and Mumbai, from underneath of the thinning ice sheets to the summit of Kilimanjaro, to Pacific Islands whose inhabitants had to be evacuated due to sea level rises and New Orleans whose residents were devastated, their livelihoods destroyed, the oil economy buried in the fury of Katrina, thus showing how we have entered the ‘Period of Consequences’. Yet even after globe trotting his panic, warning, hysteria (whatever ones likes to call) largely remain US centred. The data used, the policies critiqued, the warnings given (the dangers of Pine Beetle, the ravages of Katrina, panic of Manhattan drowning) all in the interests of a particular country- forcing me to think twice that why only when America feels the heat of issues- Global Warming, Terrorism, Energy Crises; that issues suddenly become “global” issues, truths become more truthful and the whole world is summoned to think over them and act, either making sacrifices or compromises or forced to bend knees in favour of the increasingly dying superpower. Lets not forget the not signing of Kyoto protocol by America for the survival of its own energy industry or for that matter how can one forget the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that were imposed shamelessly for the pleasure of the Oil and Gas lobby, the Military and Humanitarian industry. After all “Political Will is a renewable resource in America” that sways to save the world. Or is it the other way round?
The Second watching/ reading of the movie takes place after a long gap. The politics and (its) representation settle to the backgrounds. Having given it/them an apt place, it is Al Gore and his arguments that occupy my thoughts.
What is the Basic argument that Al Gore makes in the Movie?
How does he substantiate it?
What could be the counter Arguments that this work could have attracted?
The basic argument that runs in the movie is that the world is increasingly experiencing Global warming and this is essentially due to increasing Carbon Emissions (Green House Gases GHGs) which are trapping the outgoing long wave radiations, thus warming up the earth’s atmosphere as a consequence of which our ice sheets are melting giving rise to sea levels, at the same time the water bodies are drying up, glaciers retreating and climate undergoing a human-made change resulting in emergence of new diseases, extinction of species, intensifying of cyclones and which could lead to destruction of our own habitat and civilization.
He substantiates his point by correlating CO2 with rise in temperature and establishes a direct causal relationship between the two.
Al Gore focuses on three major areas: The Glaciers of the World, The Arctic Region, Antarctica and Precipitation and droughts.
He puts on record the facts pertaining to climate change and its consequences from the 1970s, sometimes from earlier dates. The rising CO2 and temperature levels, the hottest decade-1990s, the hottest year-2005 etc. He then looks into what such rise in temperatures all over the world have resulted in.
Between 1970s and the current times, Kilimanjaro has lost its snow cover, different glaciers have retreated- Grennel Glacier, Boulder Glacier in Glacier National park, Columbia Glacier in Alaska. And such retreat of glacier, basically in Himalayas could have further consequences as millions of people depend on the rivers that these glaciers feed.
He shows us the effect of rising atmospheric temperatures on ocean body temperatures which resulted in violent hurricanes and tornadoes. He argues “As temperatures increase- the wind velocity increases and moisture content increases. Thus intensifying the power of hurricanes.”
He furthers argues that rising temperature causes more precipitation, leading to more severe weather events like flooding in Mumbai and China. It also causes more droughts by relocating precipitation. Eg: the drying Lake Chad. Global warming causes more evaporation from water bodies and also dries the soil moisture.
Arctic Ice sheets melt, permafrost melt and damage the buildings built on them and dunk the trees and roads. 225 frozen days in 1970 to 75 days in 2005. Sea ice diminished 1.5 million sq meters. When sun’s rays hit the arctic ice more than 90% are reflected. But then as ice melts, all sunrays are absorbed further fastening up the heat in Arctic Ocean. One of the more visible consequences of the ice melt, he says, are increasing deaths of polar bears. Polar bears depend on the ice. And many have drowned swimming longer distances looking for ice to rest.
He fears the planetary working of wind and ocean current patterns might go up in the air. The Gulf stream might just stop because of warming of waters in arctic regions, and Greenland melting away which could push western Europe into an Ice Age.
He takes the case studies done in Netherlands to bring to our notice that in the span of twenty years (1980-2000) how the seasons have shifted affecting the Migratory birds. During 1980s migratory birds hatched their eggs and this time coincided with the caterpillar stage of insect life cycle providing potent chances of availability of bird feeds. Twenty years later the caterpillars emerged much before the emergence of the chicks from eggs which has created an imbalance in the food and life cycles of the birds. As such there are millions of ecological niches that are affected by global warming in the similar ways. He correlates the declining number of frost days and emergence of new exotic species (inversely related) in southern Switzerland, filling the new ecological niches that are opening up. Again fewer days of frost meant ‘not-killing-the Pine beetles’ which have affected the 14 million spruce trees in Alaska, US. Moreover there have been new vectors (West Nile Virus, 1999) and diseases (Avian Flu) emerging, old ones making a comeback.
Coming on to Antarctica, he uses the melting of the Antarctica’s Larsen B peninsula since 1978 as an alarming sign of the global warming. The Larsen B ice shelf broke way from 2002. More so ever, once the sea based ice melted, it was the land based Ice which broke into the waters. As a result of which Pacific nations had to evacuate to New Zealand.
He further goes on to say that while moulins always existed, in the recent past they have been numerous and they have increasingly acted as agents for causing lubrication with the bed rock for Ice sheets to breakaway.
If Ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica melt away, sea level would eventually rise putting cities under water- Florida, San Francisco, Calcutta and East Bangladesh (South?), Manhattan, Netherlands, Beijing, Shanghai, devastating places and regions that hold millions of people creating a hundred thousand million environmental refugees.
According to him, “We are witnessing the collision between the Civilisation and the Earth and there are three factors that are creating this collision.”
Population- rising Life Expectancies and high Birth Rates (soon adding it’s the developing countries), Science and Technology- the more scientifically and technologically advanced we become, the more destruction we cause to the environment;
Our attitudes to the environment- our lifestyles and consumption patterns that transform our relationship with the environment;
He further brings out three misconceptions that are politically created:
Though no scientists disagree that global warming is not happening, they are many a times forced to change their conclusions to confirm to political ideologies. Moreover media reports create confusion by bring an element of doubt in the public minds. People who are a part of the anti-Global Warming lobby are increasingly being appointed in responsible positions (Environment department) in the Bush Administration. The choice between Economy and Environment is always a difficult and contested one.
But there are points where his arguments can be contested. Like
Co2 emissions lead to temperature rise. There have been geological periods where the carbon dioxide content in atmosphere was more than it is today but the temperature were much below that today’s levels. So how valid is the point of such a co relation. Thus the basic premise itself is contestable let alone the rest of the consequences.
He argues “As temperatures increase- the wind velocity increases and moisture content increases. Thus intensifying the power of hurricanes.” But then why did we not have more hurricanes like Katrina after that particular year. If temperature is rising, then the hurricane intensities should also have risen.
Between 1970s and the current times, Kilimanjaro has lost its snow cover: But Kilimanjaro has lost snow not because of temperature rise but because of lack of snowfall.
Rising temperature causes more droughts by relocating precipitation. Eg: the drying Lake Chad. But Chad Lake is drying because of intensive irrigation and diversion of the feeder river than chags in temperature levels.
The Gulf Stream might just stop because of warming of waters in arctic regions, and Greenland melting away which could push Western Europe into an Ice Age. But then ocean currents depend on pressure differences and as far as the wind system remains intact there would be no changes in the ocean currents.
Thus the premise on which the whole movie is based is contestable. Moreover the panic inducing consequences are as much flawed and are produced by many other factors too.
The biggest critique of this movie has been the energy industry, the Republicans and the anti environmental lobby. It’s more a politically embedded than factually correct. Many cases have been put on Al Gore’s Team and the team did accept that there were many flaws in the movie. In fact he even uses a fictional video of Ice Shelve calving from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. Chistopher Horner and Iain Murray have written books- Politically incorrect guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism and The Really Inconvenient Truths respectively questioning the premises of Al Gore’s Movie. But one does need to be careful while reading this as both the authors belong to the 'Competative Enterprise Institute' (Part of the pro energy, anti- environment lobby) ,which speaks about opposite direction of the blowing wind .
At the end of the day every work is a political work and every critique is a political one. And it’s the struggle of interpretation, arguments and counter arguments and in the end it is the victory that establishes whose truth is more convenient, big and valid and whose is not. While the two parties debate over the happening, causes and consequences of global warming, I try to stop believing in both. For me Global warming isn’t a matter to be worried about. I don’t know who is right, who is wrong. Both parties are playing their games. I retreat.
Last autumn was clear and beautiful. This year was something different. It rained for the whole year back home. It is still raining. There were unusual late summer showers in North India that affected the crops adversely and kept the food prices high. In autumn this year we had swarm of light-flies, lakhs of them, irritatingly flying around florescent tubes and bulbs. This was the first time in autumn that so many insects came every evening and died every morning. I wonder….. Is something happening to our climate……….
No comments:
Post a Comment