tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/an-inconvenient-sequel-41846/articlesAn Inconvenient Sequel – The Conversation2017-08-16T23:06:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/817992017-08-16T23:06:48Z2017-08-16T23:06:48ZAn inconvenient truth about An Inconvenient Truth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182130/original/file-20170815-27845-90sduq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Still from An Inconvenient Truth (2006)</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Handout)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Al Gore has a follow-up to his blockbuster documentary film, <em>An Inconvenient Truth</em>. However, <a href="https://inconvenientsequel.tumblr.com/"><em>An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power</em></a> was greeted with far less fanfare than the original. </p>
<p>This is not surprising given how the first movie dominated the <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm">international box office</a> and became one of the most successful documentaries of all time. The film ultimately helped Al Gore win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in promoting action against climate change. </p>
<p>In addition to the many accolades it received, the movie undeniably raised the public awareness of climate change. <a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-years-on-how-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-made-its-mark-59387">According to a prominent climate scientist</a>, the movie “had a much greater impact on public opinion and public awareness of global climate change than any scientific paper or report.” </p>
<p>However, 11 years after its release, there is also evidence that it might have had an unintended consequence: serving as a catalyst in the polarization of American public opinion on climate change. </p>
<p>We have studied in detail how the media covered the issue of climate change since the 1980s and how it may have played a role in polarizing the American public. The commonly observed pattern is that <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo11644533.html">public opinion tends to follow</a>, rather than lead, debate among political elites. This is of particular importance for our work.</p>
<h2>Opinions dictated by political parties</h2>
<p>Voters, particularly in America, tend to harbour strong positive <em>and</em> negative attachments to political parties. These form critical components of their social identities. When uncertain about novel political issues, like climate change, they look for signals from political elites for guidance. These signals are, more often than not, carried to them by the mass media. </p>
<p>In our research, we examined the political signals that were present in the coverage of climate change in major, high circulation daily newspapers, like the <em>New York Times</em>, <em>Wall Street Journal</em> and <em>USA Today</em>, as well network television channels <em>ABC</em>, <em>CBS</em> and <em>NBC</em>, and cable news channel <em>Fox News</em>. </p>
<p>What we found is a nuanced story that sheds considerable light on why the public polarized on climate change. First, politicians became increasingly common in coverage, politicizing the issue as it grew in importance. As a result, the public has been exposed to a growing number of messages about climate change from party elites. </p>
<p>Second, Democratic messages have been more common in news coverage, and, unsurprisingly, consistent in a pro-climate direction. Meanwhile, Republican messages have been fewer in number, and, until the Obama presidency, ambiguous in direction. Contrary to conventional wisdom, only a small fraction of Republican messages on climate change explicitly denied the scientific consensus on climate change. </p>
<p>When one side’s messages are clear and the other side’s are muddled, as was the case here, it’s <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00541.x/abstract">plausible</a> that Republican voters took their cues from Democrats. This should not be surprising. In an age of <a href="https://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2015/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf">affective polarization</a> where Republicans and Democrats each increasingly dislike the other, it makes sense that Republicans may have taken an oppositional stance on climate change, at least partly, in response to signals from Democratic elites.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182139/original/file-20170815-18355-lwq245.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this January 2007 file photo, former Vice President Al Gore acknowledges spectators in Japan in front of a poster of his documentary film</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Koji Sasahara)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>An Inconvenient Truth</h2>
<p>So, what about the role of Al Gore and <em>An Inconvenient Truth</em> in this process? Al Gore was featured prominently in the news media coverage of climate change. This was particularly true when climate change was salient and Americans were significantly polarizing on the issue. </p>
<p>For example, Al Gore was featured in 48 per cent of climate change stories on <em>Fox News</em> in 2006 and in 57 per cent in 2007. There were explicit references to the movie in 28 per cent of the stories in 2006 and 17 per cent of the stories in 2007. On the other hand, a leading Republican climate change denier, Sen. Jim Inhofe, was not featured in a single story on <em>Fox News</em> in 2006 and in only one per cent of the stories in 2007. </p>
<p>The traditional media also focused heavily on Al Gore. In 2006 and 2007, the former U.S. vice-president was featured in 13 per cent and 17 per cent of news stories in the highest circulation newspapers in the United States, and in 16 per cent and 23 per cent of the network broadcasts. </p>
<p>In other words, if you tuned in to news about climate change in that time period, you were exposed to Al Gore and his message. And even though that message was unabashedly pro-climate and for strong climate action, it likely played a role in turning Republicans against that message, since to them, Gore was simply a Democratic politician they disliked. </p>
<p>It’s highly unlikely that the release of Al Gore’s sequel to <em>An Inconvenient Truth</em> will have an impact similar to the original. The movie is generating significantly less traction in the <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=aninconvenientsequel.htm">box office</a> and in the media. Furthermore, climate change has already become one of the most polarized issues of the day. </p>
<p>Sadly, there is likely no way to turn back the clock. But it should serve as a warning for the future. It is not only important to pick a salient and informative message, but also an effective messenger to deliver it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81799/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominik Stecula receives doctoral research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Merkley receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>Eleven years after its release, An Inconvenient Truth, the iconic climate documentary, has spawned a sequel. But did the original do more harm than good by polarizing Americans on climate change?Dominik Stecuła, PhD candidate in political science, University of British ColumbiaEric Merkley, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823802017-08-15T20:14:35Z2017-08-15T20:14:35ZCostly signals needed to deliver inconvenient truth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181932/original/file-20170814-14751-a5g2dk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former US Vice President and Chair of the Climate Reality Project Al Gore and Victoria's climate and energy minister Lily D'Ambrosio (right) ride on a tram after speaking at the climate conference in Melbourne.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tracey Nearmy</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A little over half the world’s population sees climate change as a serious problem (<a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/">54% according to a 40-nation Pew Research survey</a>). Coincidentally, roughly the same number identify as <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/pf_17-04-05_projectionsupdate_grl310px/">Christian or Muslim (55%)</a>. </p>
<p>On the one hand, these statistics speak to the success of climate change communication. In just a few decades, climate scientists have convinced a large part of the world’s population that a set of powerful, invisible forces have important implications for the way we live. World religions took centuries to achieve similar success. </p>
<p>On the other hand, religion spreads without the support of empirical evidence and is capable of generating <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/cultural-evolution-of-prosocial-religions/01B053B0294890F8CFACFB808FE2A0EF">changes in people’s behaviour</a> that climate scientists would envy. Religion pervades almost every aspect of the lives of believers, from the food they eat to what they do on the weekend. We argue that scientists can take lessons from this.</p>
<h2>Actions louder than words</h2>
<p>One way that religions succeed is to focus not just on what adherents say, but what they do. A key strategy is to encourage or require adherents (including leaders) to engage in <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1069397103037002003">behaviours that act as signals of commitment</a> to their beliefs. Followers, for example, may be asked to dress in distinctive (often impractical) garb, engage in regular rituals in public (sometimes multiple times a day), or abide by seemingly arbitrary dietary restrictions. </p>
<p>Even more is required of leaders, from highly restricted diets, giving up worldly possessions, to lives of celibacy. The costs of these behaviours make them hard-to-fake signals of sincerity that <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513809000245">help spread belief</a> to otherwise sceptical outsiders and bolster support among followers.</p>
<p>We like to think that science is completely different. While religion is dogmatic and based on faith, science is continually questioning, grounded in the scientific method and the many useful predictions and technologies that emerge from it. </p>
<p>But we do not, as individuals, test all the claims that scientists and science communicators make. Out of practical necessity, we must all take a good deal of what science tells us, as well as it’s implications for how we should live our lives, on trust. </p>
<h2>Sending signals of commitment</h2>
<p>Al Gore’s 2006 movie <a href="https://www.algore.com/library/an-inconvenient-truth-dvd">An Inconvenient Truth</a> was hailed as a turning point in public awareness of climate change, but it also attracted heated criticism. Some criticism was directed at the movie’s content, but much was also made of Gore’s apparent hypocrisy, including his use of private jets, home energy consumption and acquisition of beachfront property. </p>
<p>While ad hominem attacks do not undermine the factual claims made in the movie, Gore’s actions undoubtedly reduced the credibility of his message to some people. If he is still flying extensively and buying up beachfront property, how bad can the problem really be? </p>
<p>We argue that because all of us, scientists and non-scientists alike, must take much in science on trust, behavioural signals are potentially just as important to the spread of scientific knowledge as they are to that of religion. It does not follow that science and religion stand on the same <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-know-is-true-thats-epistemology-63884">epistemological foundations</a>; rather it is an acknowledgement that trust in the vast stocks of scientific knowledge and its implications can only be established by any one individual using non-scientific means. </p>
<h2>Going beyond talk</h2>
<p>Scientists and science communicators should therefore be prepared to make better use of signals, particularly costly signals, to demonstrate they are truly committed to what they are advocating.</p>
<p>Whether or not An Inconvenient Truth was undermined by apparent hypocrisy, it was a lost opportunity on Gore’s part. If, for example, he had sold his energy-intensive mansion and refused to fly to his engagements, he could have sent a credible signal to the public that he was personally deeply concerned about the threat of climate change. As his new movie, <a href="https://www.algore.com/library/an-inconvenient-sequel-truth-to-power-a39b1050-d846-4b9e-a4e7-3b5fd6bb6b03">An Inconvenient Sequel</a>, is released around the world, he has another opportunity to bolster his argument with action.</p>
<p>We do not wish to lambast leading climate change communicators for hypocrisy. There are plenty of others who do that already. But our point is this: although the validity of scientific ideas should be independent of their messenger, our actions matter for generating the kind of deep commitment to scientific evidence that will be required to tackle the problems of our time. Scientists and science communicators need to focus not just on what we say, but on the signals we send via our actions.</p>
<h2>Our personal action plan</h2>
<p>Our own first step in this direction is a commitment to forgo air travel in 2018 as a costly signal of our belief in the need for urgent action on climate change. By far our largest contribution to greenhouse gas emissions is flying to academic conferences. <a href="http://www.carbonbalanced.org/calculator/flights.asp">A single return flight from Auckland to London</a> is roughly equivalent to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/carbon-emissions-per-person-capita">the average annual carbon dioxide emissions per capita of New Zealand</a>. </p>
<p>Carbon offsets are one way to address emissions from flying, but <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/wcc.207/abstract">(efficacy aside)</a> they are controversial and tend to be cheap and invisible, which makes them ineffective as credible signals of commitment. </p>
<p>We make our commitment to forgo flying publicly and challenge other senior academics to do likewise. Forgoing flying, particularly for those in New Zealand and Australia, carries costs in that networking and exposure to new ideas can become more difficult. Giving a speech at an international conference is highly prestigious for an academic, and in New Zealand it is one of the criteria in our <a href="http://www.tec.govt.nz/assets/Forms-templates-and-guides/PBRF-Panel-Specific-Guidelines-2018-Quality-Evaluation.pdf">national research assessment exercise</a>. </p>
<p>With careful planning, we believe we can overcome some of the costs in forgoing opportunities to travel. We intend to make better use of prerecorded talks and video conferencing and support local and online conferences and research networks. By committing to these practices, and encouraging others to do the same, scientists can demonstrate that change is possible and send a powerful signal that they are personally committed to action on climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82380/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Taking inspiration from the spread of world religions, Quentin Atkinson and Shaun Hendy argue scientists need to do more to signal commitment to ideas they want to spread.Quentin Douglas Atkinson, Associate Professor in Evolutionary Psychology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata RauShaun Hendy, Professor of Physics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata RauLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823762017-08-14T20:16:07Z2017-08-14T20:16:07ZThe truth about inconvenient truths: ‘big issue’ documentaries don’t always change our behaviour<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181889/original/file-20170814-28461-5wystt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Al Gore brings climate change back to the big screen in An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Paramount</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Climate change has returned to the big screen with the release of Al Gore’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6322922/">An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power</a>. It’s the follow-up to his Oscar-winning documentary from 2006, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/">An Inconvenient Truth</a>, which raised awareness about global warming and encouraged us to reduce our carbon footprints.</p>
<p>The sequel puts the spotlight on climate change once again and will likely re-ignite the debate in popular culture for a whole new generation of moviegoers.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Read more:</strong> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-years-on-how-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-made-its-mark-59387">Ten years on: how Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth made its mark</a></em> </p>
<hr>
<p>While “big issue” documentaries do a great job raising awareness and developing attitudes on important issues, they often don’t go far enough in inspiring a “call to action” – especially one that leads to long-term behaviour change. Gore’s first film did inspire short-term action on climate change, but the effects soon faded. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/huX1bmfdkyA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>As well as being artistically engaging, a successful advocacy film should encourage viewers to do something. This might be to reduce their consumption of fast food (as in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/">Super Size Me</a>), petition for the protection of threatened wildlife (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1313104/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">The Cove</a>), or adopt a whole-food plant-based diet (<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/">Forks Over Knives</a>).</p>
<h2>Media influence</h2>
<p>Media can and do affect our behaviour. There is a well-established link between <a href="http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/204790">violent media and aggressive behaviour</a>. <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/116/6/1516.short">Smoking in movies</a> can encourage teenagers to take up smoking. </p>
<p>Less is known about the media’s ability to have a positive influence – such as encouraging environmentally friendly behaviours. Even when research is conducted, the long-term effects are rarely considered.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/al-gore-qanda-and-video-interview-fixing-democracy-to-combat-climate-change-82426">Al Gore Q&A and video interview:
Fixing democracy to combat climate change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some studies have looked for a direct link between viewing an environmental documentary and environmental donations. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2014.993415?journalCode=renc20">One study</a> found that twice as many people donated to an environmental cause after watching a seven-minute environmental clip. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1533015X.2016.1142197?journalCode=ueec20">Another</a> found that after watching a full-length dolphin documentary, almost everyone donated to a related cause.</p>
<p>These studies might seem encouraging, but in both cases money was given to participants and they were asked to donate it to one of a predetermined list of charities. Sadly, this means the behaviour is unlikely to translate to the real world.</p>
<h2>Short-lived success</h2>
<p>In the case of Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, individuals who watched the film <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916509357696?journalCode=eaba">reported</a> an increase in knowledge, environmental concern, and willingness to act. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069610001014">Another study</a> found that two months after the film was released, the purchase of carbon offsets increased by 50% in suburbs near cinemas that screened it.</p>
<p>After watching the documentary <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/">Food, Inc.</a>, which takes a critical look at America’s industrialised food industry, one of us (Kim) personally took up the challenge of avoiding processed foods. She stocked her fridge with local produce and started eating more fresh fruit and vegetables. Her friends and family also copped an earful about the difference between “food” and “food-like products” – some even adjusted their behaviours as a result.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rjh5aZKgtSY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>It appears Kim wasn’t alone in her response. A study by the <a href="http://www.participantmedia.com/2012/02/research-study-finds-film-can-have-measurable-impact-audience-behavior">Norman Lear Center</a> found that people who saw Food, Inc. were more likely to do as she did, at least in the short term (there was no follow-up study). The real challenge is in creating long-term sustainable change. Kim’s Food, Inc.-induced commitments faded within six months.</p>
<p>This seems to be the common trend with “big issue” documentaries. While more people intended to reduce greenhouse gases after watching An Inconvenient Truth, <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916509357696?journalCode=eaba">a survey a month later</a> showed few had followed through.</p>
<p>Similarly, the increased purchase of carbon offsets failed to translate into a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069610001014">repeated behaviour</a>. If customers had renewed their film-inspired purchase, the notable spike two months after its release should have been observed the following year, but this was not the case.</p>
<h2>An unexpected win</h2>
<p>One success story was the “big issue” documentary <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2545118/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1">Blackfish</a>, which centres on the plight of captive orcas in parks like SeaWorld. The film didn’t tell people how to feel or how to respond (it didn’t include a specific “call to action”), but since its release in 2013 SeaWorld has reported a consistent drop in <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-seaworld-earnings-20170228-story.html">visitors and revenue</a>. In 2016 Seaworld <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/17/seaworld-to-stop-breeding-killer-whales-orcas-blackfish">discontinued its orca breeding program</a> and recently discontinued <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-08/seaworld-san-diego-ending-killer-whale-show/8168512">the orca show itself</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G93beiYiE74?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Apart from its strong emotional appeal, part of the film’s success is credited to the distributor, CNN, for capitalising on the growing popularity of social media. As a result, Blackfish became the <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/a/2013/the-blackfish-phenomenon-a-whale-of-a-tale-takes-over-twitter.html">most-talked-about show on Twitter</a>, achieving almost <a href="https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=096112996165527;res=IELLCC">70,000 Tweets</a> on the night it was released in the US. It sparked a fierce online debate, which included celebrities and media personalities, further stimulating its reach and success.</p>
<h2>Making change last</h2>
<p>If documentary makers want to create long-term change, they need to do more than just pull at our heartstrings. They must include a solution message and an achievable “call to action”. Without telling viewers how they can help, they can be left feeling that it’s a lost cause and that everyone is doomed.</p>
<p>Advocacy documentaries should also be coupled with other behaviour change techniques to increase their chances of success. For instance, they should ask viewers to publicly pledge to change their behaviour or to set goals, give them tools to help form a new habit, or tell them exactly how to petition organisations and governments to make structural changes.</p>
<p>Gore’s latest film ends with a brief “call to action” – urging viewers to encourage local governments and institutions to switch to 100% renewables. It even asks for a public pledge on Twitter using the hashtag #beinconvenient. But these requests seem like an afterthought. Although the doom and gloom message is paired with glimmers of hope, watching Gore’s personal struggles against big business and politics did not leave Kim, an everyday citizen, feeling empowered. </p>
<p>Documentaries can be a useful instrument in the behaviour change toolkit. But lasting change needs more than an engaging story on its own.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82376/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth woke up the world to climate change. But with its sequel hitting cinemas now, it’s not clear that ‘big issue’ documentaries make a difference in the long term.Kim Borg, Research Officer at BehaviourWorks Australia within the Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash UniversityBradley Jorgensen, Senior Research Fellow in Applied Social and Environmental Psychology, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/824262017-08-13T18:12:53Z2017-08-13T18:12:53ZAl Gore Q&A and video interview:
Fixing democracy to combat climate change<p>It is more than ten years since Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth brought climate change to the masses. At its heart, it showed the former US vice-president giving a comprehensive global warming slide show – warning of the dire consequences if we do nothing about the climate crisis. </p>
<p>The film grossed US$24m in the US and US$26m internationally. Not only was the film a financial success but it was also a critical success and won two Oscars. An Inconvenient Truth has been credited for raising international public awareness of climate change and re-energising the environmental movement. The documentary has been <a href="https://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue/issue-6/inconvenient-truth">included in science curricula</a> in schools around the world. It was also instrumental in Al Gore sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-scientists-know-climate-change-is-happening-51421">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> (IPCC). </p>
<p>A decade on, Gore has made a follow-up entitled <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-environmental-documentaries-make-waves-76683">An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power</a>. This film updates us on the major changes that have occurred over the past decade; including the accelerated retreat of the ice caps, extreme weather events and the historic signing of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-paris-climate-deal-52256">Paris Climate Agreement</a> in 2015. </p>
<p>The sequel is different to the first film – it is much more biographical and focuses on how Gore became the great climate change communicator and what he has been doing with his charities to build awareness and train future climate change leaders around the world. </p>
<p>Had this film been released a year ago, its optimistic tone would not have seemed out of place. It is almost as if the filmmakers had assumed there would be a different election result. The film has been hastily edited to include <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-decision-to-quit-the-paris-agreement-may-be-his-worst-business-deal-yet-78780">Donald Trump’s withdrawal</a> from the Paris Agreement. The end of the film seems out of kilter with the optimistic tone of the rest of the film, which occasionally borders on triumphant.</p>
<p>I interviewed Al Gore and we mainly focused on politics and how to deal with bipartisanship. We both believe that it will be in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-ill-talk-politics-with-climate-change-deniers-but-not-science-34949">political realm</a> where the fight to solve climate change will be won or lost.</p>
<p><strong>Watch the interview here</strong></p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uSvccoXbP0k?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<hr>
<p><strong>Mark Maslin: It’s clear that the first film had a huge impact. So what is the motivation behind you doing a sequel?</strong></p>
<p>Al Gore: When we reached the ten-year anniversary of the first movie it seemed like an appropriate time to present what’s new in the previous decade – and there have been two very big changes and a third that occurred during the filming of the movie. </p>
<p>The first is that unfortunately the climate-related extreme weather events have of course become far more common and more destructive. Mother nature is speaking up in a very persuasive way. </p>
<p>The second big change is that the solutions are here now. A decade ago you could see them on the horizon but you had to have the technology experts reassure you that they’re coming, that they’ll be here – well now they’re here. And for example electricity from wind and solar has fallen so quickly in price that in many regions it’s much cheaper than electricity from fossil fuels and soon will be almost everywhere.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181857/original/file-20170813-27082-a8f69p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181857/original/file-20170813-27082-a8f69p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181857/original/file-20170813-27082-a8f69p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181857/original/file-20170813-27082-a8f69p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181857/original/file-20170813-27082-a8f69p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181857/original/file-20170813-27082-a8f69p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181857/original/file-20170813-27082-a8f69p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Electric cars are fast becoming the new normal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nadezda Murmakova via Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Electric cars are becoming affordable. Batteries are now beginning to decline sharply in price which will be a real game-changer for the energy industry. LEDs and hundreds of new far more efficient technologies are helping to stabilise and soon reduce emissions.</p>
<p><strong>I was struck in the middle of your film by a profound statement: “To fix the climate crisis we need to fix democracy”. And then the film moved on to another topic. How do you think we can fix our democracies now in the 21st century?</strong></p>
<p>Well, big money has hacked our democracy even before Putin did. And it accompanied the transition from the printing press to television, when all of a sudden candidates – especially in the US – were made to feel they have to spend all their time begging rich people and special interests for money so they can buy more TV ads and their opponents.</p>
<p>And that’s really given an enormous unhealthy and toxic degree of influence to lobbyists and special interests. Now just as television replaced the printing press, internet-based media are beginning to displace television and once again open up the doorways to the public forum for individuals who can use knowledge and the best available evidence.</p>
<p>If you believe in democracy as I do and if you believe in harvesting the wisdom of crowds, then the interaction of free people exchanging the best available evidence of what’s more likely to be true than not will once again push us toward a government of by and for the people. One quick example. Last year the Bernie Sanders campaign – regardless of what you might think about his agenda – proved that it is now possible on the internet to run a very credible nationwide campaign without taking any money from lobbyists and special interests or billionaires. Instead, you can raise money in small amounts from individuals on the internet and then be accountable to them and not have to worry about being accountable to the big donors.</p>
<p><strong>There was a poignant moment in the film when you’re sitting in front of the Senate hearing – and there’s a Republican senator and he’s just not hearing what you’re saying. In a two-party system, how do you reach out to those Republicans – and some of the Democrats – that still don’t to get climate change?</strong></p>
<p>Well, part of it is related to the changes necessary in the financing of campaigns. A famous journalist in the US, over a century ago, Upton Sinclair wrote: it is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon him not understanding it. And if you substitute campaign finance for salary, you get part of the answer. </p>
<p>But I know for a fact that there are many Republican members of the Senate and House who know that what they’ve been advocating is wrong and would like to crawl back from the end of the limb they’ve put themselves on. And as more and more people express the passionate view that we’ve got to solve the climate crisis that can give them the backbone to change their position, some of them already have.</p>
<p>There’s a new Noah’s Ark caucus <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/27/climate-solutions-caucus-republicans-trump">the Climate Solutions Caucus</a> in the Congress – a reference to the biblical deluge but also a reference to the fact that they only can join by twos one Democrat one Republican – and more Republicans are now switching sides.</p>
<p><strong>You’ve done a great job at communicating climate change around the world – but perhaps you being a very prominent, highly respected liberal Democrat has incensed some Republicans and actually hardened their view against climate change. Do you feel that’s fair?</strong></p>
<p>I don’t think that’s fair at all and in fact there’s been a great deal of social science research that shows that’s completely inaccurate. You may know <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/climate/">Joe Romm</a> – a great climate blogger – he has compiled all that research. For two and a half years after the first movie, bipartisanship increased significantly on this issue. The Republican nominee in 2008, John McCain, had a very responsible position on this issue.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xW6ah5scm34?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But what happened was in the wake of the Great Recession the carbon polluters launched the Tea Party movement – some of them joined on their own, but they actually provided the seed money and insisted that climate denial be a part of that political movement. The polluters have done exactly what the tobacco companies did years ago when they hired actors and dressed them up as doctors and put them on camera to say there are no health problems with cigarettes – 100m people died as a result.</p>
<p>Well, now the carbon polluters have taken that same approach hiring the same PR firms spending more than a billion dollars to put out pseudo science and false information. They’re not necessarily going to win the debate. They just want to give the appearance that there is a debate – in order to paralyse the political process. But people are seeing through it now.</p>
<hr>
<p>What struck me about the interview – and also the film – is that Gore is making two very clear points. First is that now all the solutions to climate change exist. There is a wonderful sequence in the movie where he meets <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-mayor-texas-clean-energy-no-brainer-n769056">Dale Ross, the mayor of Georgetown in Texas</a>. The mayor describes Georgetown as the reddest city in the reddest county in Texas – and he’s a conservative Republican. But he sees moving toward renewable energy, as just making sense. As his job is to deliver the best value for money to his taxpaying citizens and wind and solar are the cheapest energy source. </p>
<p>The second is that Gore makes the profound statement that Western democracies are broken and in order to solve the climate crisis they need to fix democracy. In the interview, Gore suggested that big business has bought many politicians and this must be unpicked so that they are free to make informed unbiased decisions. </p>
<p>He sees social media as the great leveller as campaigns can be run on much smaller budgets reducing the power of party donors. He also suggests in the film that educating both politicians and the electorate on the damages of climate change will make a significant difference. But this is the same rhetoric we here from intellectuals all the time – if the poor people were properly educated they would make the <a href="https://theconversation.com/anglophone-political-populism-and-the-cultural-rejection-of-climate-change-68694">correct political decisions</a>. </p>
<p>In the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-surprising-origins-of-post-truth-and-how-it-was-spawned-by-the-liberal-left-68929">post-truth era</a> this neatly sidesteps issues of growing inequality, poverty and a general feeling of disenfranchisement.</p>
<p>In this way, An Inconvenient Truth was the right movie at the right time and An Inconvenient Sequel is the wrong movie at the wrong time. At the end of the film, Gore makes an impassioned rally speech – part Winston Churchill and part Martin Luther King – which even the hardened sceptic couldn’t help but admire. He finishes by declaring the tag line of the film: “It’s time to fight like your world depends on it.” </p>
<p>Given the forces of big business and Trumpism aligned against climate action, we all need to be as passionate, optimistic and committed to a new safer cleaner future as Gore – because he is right, the world does depend on us acting now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82426/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Maslin is a Professor at University College London, Founding Director of Rezatec Ltd, Director of The London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and a member of Cheltenham Science Festival Advisory Committee. He is an unpaid member of the Sopra-Steria CSR Board. He has received funding in the past from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, Royal Society, DIFD, DECC, BIS, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Leverhulme Trust, WWF, JLT Re, Channel 4, RICS, British Council, and CAFOD. Prof. Maslin's third edition of his book 'Climate Change: A Very Short Introduction' is published by Oxford University Press and is out now.</span></em></p>Climate scientist Mark Maslin interviewed the former US vice-president about his new film, An Inconvenient Sequel.Mark Maslin, Professor of Palaeoclimatology, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.