How to Watch An Inconvenient Truth

This review was published originally on cinekklesia on July 4, 2006.

Perhaps the strongest evidence that one has achieved moral consensus on a given issue lies in the language that one uses to debate that issue. In Davis Guggenheim's An Inconvenient Truth (2006), the recent documentary focusing on Al Gore's famous slide presentation on global warming, we see the former Vice-President bombarding audience members with a barrage of graphs, statistics, and photographs in an attempt to convince us that global warming is real, caused by humans (or, if you prefer, "anthropogenic"), and a grave threat to the survival of the planet (and, by extension, us). Gore doesn't have to convince us that protecting the environment, in some capacity, has merit; most people would agree with that. The plane on which Gore talks is empirical: he needs to convince us that a particular environmental problem exists and that we should address it with urgency.

The thought of watching a documentary about a slide show, of all things, might strike one as the epitome of nerdy/geeky. For the most part, that is a fair assessment, and though Gore takes pains to make his presentation accessible (which it is), I imagine that this movie will appeal mainly to a relatively well-educated audience — those not inclined to watching, say, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (how's that for an elitist observation?).

In any case, the documentary is well edited, and moves back-and-forth between Gore's main lecture and scenes of him traveling around the world, visiting his family's farm, and reminiscing about his past. We get a picture of a man who suffered major political defeat, but who has moved on with his life, finding purpose and energy from his role as environmental activist. Of course, the movie paints Gore in a positive light, and Guggenheim wants audiences to sympathize with both the message and the messenger. Nevertheless, regardless of whether one agrees with Gore's mission, I see no reason why we should doubt his sincerity.

This bring us to the main question regarding An Inconvenient Truth: How should we watch it? As I mentioned, it is a highly empirical movie: if you are a global warming skeptic, then Gore aims to throw so many factoids your way, to weigh down your mind so heavily with charts, maps, and statistics, that you will have no choice but to raise the white flag and gasp your surrender. In regards to the science, I have no expertise by which to judge the movie—I have found Wikipedia's lengthy entry on the subject to be a helpful primer—but for the purposes of clarification, it might prove useful to list the various perspectives that one can take:

Camp 1: Denial

One simply can deny that any global warming is taking place. However, this view has become almost completely marginalized, even among those who would critique Gore's perspective. Wikipedia maintains a helpful list of scientists opposing global warming consensus, and the last time I checked (07/04/06): "There have not been any scientists since 2001 who express the opinion that evidence of global warming is inconclusive or who are skeptical that temperatures have risen the 0.6 ± 0.2 °C as advanced by the IPCC" [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].

Camp 2: Natural Variation

One can claim that global warming exists but that it merely is part of natural climatic changes that have occurred throughout the earth's history (i.e., there is nothing particularly special or alarming about this current uptick in temperature). Gore is particularly critical of this view.

Camp 3: Anthropogenic...But Not Alarming

A third perspective is to acknowledge that the earth is warming, that the causes of such warming are anthropogenic, but that it's no big deal. The doomsday scenarios painted by Gore are overly dramatic, and humans will adjust to any temperature variations that occur. Besides, there may even be some positive outcomes from global warming, such as increased (and more efficient) shipping via the warmer Arctic Ocean!

Camp 4: Anthropogenic, Requiring Individual-Level Changes

A fourth perspective suggests that the best way to counter global warming is to educate people about the reality and then encourage them to take individual actions to lessen their energy consumption. Suggested actions include remedies that we have heard about for years: energy-efficient lightbulbs and appliances, carpooling, hybrid vehicles, etc. This response, of course, invites a certain level of praise by most environmentalists, but also is regarded by those same environmentalists as incomplete — which leads to the fifth perspective...

Camp 5: Anthropogenic, Requiring Global, Systemic Changes

Individual, voluntary action is insufficient. Global warming is an international problem that requires inter-governmental solutions; the state, after all, has a monopoly on "legitimate violence" and ultimately can make people do its bidding (even in democracies). This is ultimately what is required and is the view advocated by Gore and his supporters (though they might leave out the bit about "legitimate violence").

So what are we to do? Obviously, if one falls within Camps 1, 2, or 3 above, then the answer is simply to do nothing. If one falls within Camp 4, then he/she should consider taking the bus to work — if that person ends up wrong about the dangers of global warming (i.e., is overly pessimistic), then at least he/she is affecting mainly his/her own lifestyle.

The tricky part comes with those in Camp 5 since law and public policy are dangerously tricky animals, often incurring unintended effects that produce other maladies or even exacerbate the problem being addressed. The journalist Ronald Bailey, who has "long been a critic of former Vice-President Al Gore" but who nevertheless is "a recent convert to the view that humanity is contributing significantly to the current increase in average global temperatures" cautions that "being right on science doesn't mean that one is automatically...an expert on the proper policy response." (Bailey's review of An Inconvenient Truth makes for interesting reading: on the one hand, he presents a laundry list of instances in which Gore appears to exaggerate the threat of global warming, but on the other hand, Bailey exhibits a grudging acknowledgment that Gore may have a point.)

Ultimately, I feel torn about this issue, and the team of Gore-Guggenheim deserve a lot of credit for that. We do have a responsibility for taking care of this earth since God has imbued creation with moral significance (Gen. 1:1-2:3). As a libertarian, I also have a strong preference for allowing market forces to hold great sway in this arena (after all, the institutionalization of private property incentivizes the protection of that property). However, policy analyst Shikha Dalmia recently reported on the failure of Europe's attempt at "carbon trading" — probably the most market-friendly solution (so far) to global warming. Her response to this failure is essentially to throw up her hands: "it might be best for countries to eschew collective action altogether...and concentrate, instead, on maximizing economic growth and generating the resources necessary to deal with the threat — when and if it materializes." Perhaps Dalmia's conclusion seems cheap and callous, but I must admit that it is the only one currently crossing my own mind.