![]() ![]() It’s a thought provoking and informative film, but only sporadically compelling. The future, Gore contends, is not so bleak after all, and it’s his endless, energetic sense of hope that powers the film. With solar power booming, climate science in good shape and much cooperation with international allies, things are looking up, despite a Commander in Chief who is hellbent on ruining everything. The film does, however, express its congratulations on getting so far. Are all our changes in behaviour actually benefiting the earth? What more can we do? Well apparently a lot more.įollowing Gore across the continents, directors Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk film the devastating effects fossil fuels are having on our planet and the murky political considerations that stand in the way of fixing it. It therefore seems odd to now have a sequel essentially telling us the same things again. However the style is perhaps a little too didactic and some people might not like the personal touches from Gore’s life.Gore previously stated that all our actions have consequences and that the earth will die quickly if we do not do something about it, pronto. The stunt of Gore going up in the cherry picker beside the graph is clever. There was a little bit of humour (though the cartoon near the beginning might seem a bit silly to some people). Score=5/5Įngagement & cinematic quality: The movie was engaging with high quality visual images (photographs and graphs). Since the movie he has also won a Nobel Peace Prize (in conjunction with the International Panel on Climate Change). Gore seemed very credible given he has been considering this issue for a long time, had some science training himself and has personal networks that include many key scientists. Persuasiveness of the movie: The documentary nature contributed to this film’s plausibility along with the overall depth of the analysis and range of data presented. The website listed at the end provides additional information. Gore also cites US leadership on the response to the ozone hole problem. The end of the movie provides examples for personal action on climate change and is fairly upbeat about the scope for societal action (with other major social changes being cited eg, women getting the vote, the end to apartheid etc). When working as a politician he also shows examples of his advocacy for responding to climate change. He also has visited key sites at the frontier of the climate change. Potential for empowerment and use of advocacy: The movie provides numerous examples of skilled advocacy techniques used by Al Gore: eg, his doing over 1000 presentations around the world. Nevertheless given the size of the subject some areas are a bit superficial and are even slightly wrong (or have become a bit out-of-date in the subsequent time). There is a wide range of data presented on the evidence for climate change occurring and counter views is also examined. Sophistication of analysis of public health content: The analysis is very sophisticated compared to most documentaries. ![]() ![]() There is interesting use of “tobacco farming” and “tobacco use” as metaphors for the slow diffusion over time of scientific knowledge into appropriate personal responses and public responses. There is some brief coverage of infectious diseases eg, malaria, West Nile virus (but some of the diseases mentioned have no clear link to climate change eg, SARS, pandemic influenza). The ones that are discussed include: floods, storms, droughts (with food security issues), water supply, ecosystem disruption and environmental refugees. Summary: Al Gore examines the causes and effects of global warming.ĭegree of public health theme coverage: This documentary is not directly related to public health but there are many aspects of climate change that could have massive impacts on health. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |