[See below for a film review by a volunteer with the Bush Crimes Commission.]
The following is from two World Can’t Wait organizers in San Francisco:
Many of you already know about “An Inconvenient Truth,”
the full-length documentary of Al Gore’s slide show on global warming. Two of us in San Francisco just saw it and we’re not sure what
other cities it’s showing in (yet) but this movie is quickly becoming a big deal throughout society. It’s
going to be much-talked about, among many people who are thinking the Bush
regime has to go, comparable to the effect of ‘Fahrenheit 911’ in 2004. (We
hear it was Number One at the box office on Memorial Day weekend.) We’re writing hastily but want to get word out
fast, to urge everybody to:
(1) see the film, so you can engage and discuss with people
why global warming means even more that the Bush Regime has to be driven
out — as well as everything we say about why “politics as usual cannot meet
the enormity of the challenge”, etc.
(2) set up WCW shop in front of the theaters with leaflets,
posters, clipboards, etc. to connect with the hundreds coming out as other
hundreds are lining up to go in.
By the end of the film you are feeling so deeply outraged
at “whoever” has gotten the planet and the people into such a mess,
and you are thinking ‘I need to do something about this! This is urgent!’
After hitting you upside the head with the horror of the
likely future of our planet– the film finishes with the audience’s heartfelt
question: OK what can we DO about this horrible situation? Answers? Drive a hybrid car if you can,
remember to recycle, teach your kids to love the environment, and oh yes: vote
for the Democrats.
Instead,
people need a way to act that can make a difference. While stopping
global warming is an enormous challenge that humanity will have to
figure out together, it will be impossible to make any real progress
unless the Bush regime is driven from power and their attacks on and
suppression of science repudiated. And that will take a powerful
movement that mobilizes all those walking of the theatres after seeing
“An Inconvenient Truth” and agonizing over what can be done to stop
global warming.
Film Review by a volunteer with the Bush Crimes Commission
I am a volunteer with the International Commission of
Inquiry On Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration. One of
the indictments, as stated in the Charter is, ‘Destruction of the Global Environment,
with particular reference to systematic policies contributing to the
catastrophic effects of global warming.’
So it is with great curiosity and enthusiasm that I went to
see An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s documentary on global warming. As an
introduction to the science of global warming ( what is it, what causes it, how
can scientists be so sure, what are the potential impacts ( this movie,
including Gore’s presentation and David Guggenheim’s direction, is persuasive,
captivating and compelling, and constitutes âmust-see’ viewing. What comes
through clearly as Gore presents evidence after evidence of global warming (
from the receding snowcap of Mt. Kilimanjaro to the shrinking glaciers in Glacier National Park to the increasing ocean
temperature – is the solidity of the science, of the indisputable proof that global
warming is real. He then goes on to conclusively demonstrate what is sweeping
scientific consensus around the world ( that global warming is caused primarily
by massive increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from the
burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
This is especially needed in society now because, ‘The Bush
administration has consistently denied the scientific consensus around global
warming and its causes. Administration officials have misrepresented,
distorted, and suppressed scientific information on the subject, especially as
it would impact public opinion.’ (Bush Crimes Commission global warming
indictment) As a leaked memo from Frank Luntz (a strategist/lobbyist for the
Republicans) made clear a while ago: “the scientific debate is closing
against us) Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are
settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore,
you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary
issue.” This of course is within a broader context of widespread and
systematic attacks on science by this administration – as the World Can’t Wait
call to Drive Out the Bush Regime says, ‘YOUR GOVERNMENT suppresses the science
that doesn’t fit its religious, political and economic agenda, forcing present
and future generations to pay a terrible price.’
As Gore demonstrates in the movie, the impact of global
warming is planetary in scope and potentially catastrophic for humanity ( with
disproportionate impact on the Third World, especially Africa.
Entire populations will be forced to relocate as coastlines get flooded.
Availability of fresh drinking water in large parts of the Third
World will be threatened, and the intensity of extreme weather
events like hurricanes, floods and droughts will continue to increase.
Scientists broadly concur that the window to ‘the point of no return’ ( beyond
which human intervention to prevent a vicious cycle and tail-spin of extreme
climate change will be ineffective – is rapidly shrinking and we need a radical
course alteration from the current trajectory of ‘business as usual’. The movie
is good at conveying a real sense of urgency – and the fact that the US, with about
5% of the world’s population and about a fourth of the global greenhouse gas
emissions, has an immensely disproportionate responsibility in this crisis.
Wielding the language of morality and conscience, Gore
identifies the challenge of restraining and eventually reversing global warming
as the moral imperative of our times, but does not clearly identify ( and
instead does an end-run around ( the grotesque barrier that stands in the way
of fulfilling this historical and moral charge. There is NO ringing condemnation
of the Bush regime for its policies on global warming that, as the Bush Crimes Commission’s
indictment states ‘involve foreseen risk of catastrophic proportions, putting
millions around the world at risk, and are predictable consequences of policies
guided by their ideological and political goals, including energy industry
interests, rather than scientific consensus.’ It is only within the context of
removing this barrier ( politically driving out this regime – that everything
else Gore recommends and suggests in the movie ( the whole panoply of measures
to curb energy consumption – makes sense, and will have any impact whatsoever.
Nevertheless, this movie is ‘must-see’ viewing for the
science of global warming. And if you are convinced by the science of global
warming, and care enough about the planetary and catastrophic consequences for
humanity and the ecosystem, and are scientific in your approach to the problem
and the solution ( then your attention will be redirected back to this very
website for there is nothing more urgent and critical than the historical,
moral and political responsibility of Driving Out the Bush Regime! Why? Let’s
look at some concrete examples from the Commission global warming indictment of
Bush policy in this area.
First, the evidence for the Bush administration’s
suppression and distortion of global warming science is substantial and
substantive ( and has set us back by many years in thoroughly inquiring into
and researching the causes and solutions to this crisis. For example, in 2003,
President Bush ordered the EPA to remove an assessment of the impacts of
climate change in the United
States from the agency’s website. He dismissed the thoroughly researched,
scientifically peer-reviewed document as a mere “product of the
bureaucracy.” In an incident portrayed in the movie, an official in the
White House’s environmental office was found to have altered a scientific
report on the dangers of global warming.
The report, compiled by Rick Piltz, an official of the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program, was covered with hand-written notes and deletions which
substantially altered the tone of the report.
The alterations were made by Philip Cooney, a former official of the
American Petroleum Industry who was appointed to the environmental office of
the Bush White House. Cooney subsequently resigned from the White House and
joined ExxonMobil.
Scientists whose findings conflict with Bush policies and
corporate interests have received subpoenas from Bush-allied congressional
committee chairman to produce the location of their scientific data, computer
codes, responses to critical reviews of their work, and all grants and all
other funding awards given for research in the area of climate or paleoclimate
research, including the identity of the recipients, principal investigators,
and whoever is contractually obligated to ensure provisions of the awards are
met. Andrew Revkin, a science reporter for the NY Times has done a series of
articles exposing the blatant muzzling of government scientists, which reached
a high point
with Jim Hansen of the NASA Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen has
courageously stood firm in the face of harassment and continued to speak out
and publicize scientific findings on the issue because he firmly believes that
the public ought to know ( and ought to act.
Second, despite the catastrophic implications of global
warming and a shrinking window before we reach the point of no return, the Bush
administration has been utterly obstructionist on all international and
multilateral efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. As the second count of
the indictment states, ‘The Bush administration has refused to take any
measures to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases, guided by narrow corporate
interests. It has withdrawn from any international efforts that would impose
binding restrictions, however minimal. It has done this with full knowledge of
the catastrophic effects of global warming and the disproportionate U.S. share of
world greenhouse gas emissions, the leading cause of global warming.’
For example, in early 2001, shortly after taking office,
President Bush withdrew the U.S.
support for Dr. Robert Watson, chief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, a panel of climate scientists reporting to the United Nations. The Bush Administration acted to remove Watson
following on a memo sent by an ExxonMobil official, stating the company was
displeased with Watson’s criticism of U.S. climate policies. During the
2000 Presidential campaign, George W. Bush pledged to reduce emissions from
coal-fired power plants — one of the largest contributors to global
warming. But just two months into his
administration in 2001, President Bush announced he was reversing that pledge
and imposing no caps on coal emissions. In 2001, President Bush withdrew the U.S.
from the U.N.-sponsored Kyoto Protocol — an international agreement signed or
ratified by more than 150 nations to reduce the coal and oil emissions that are
fuelling global warming. At the recommendation of ExxonMobil, Bush appointed a
conservative Congressional staffer as the chief U.S. diplomatic climate
negotiator. The appointee, Harlan
Watson, promptly announced that the U.S.
would not rejoin the Kyoto
process for at least 10 years.
In March, 2001, Vice President Cheney released the first
draft of the Bush Administration’s energy plan.
The plan, that was largely shaped by coal and oil company officials,
notably the CEO of Peabody Energy, the country’s largest coal company, called
for the construction of 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants, most of them coal
fired. In December 2004, the delegates to Kyoto,
aware of the escalating pace of climate change, prepared to dramatically
increase the goals and shorten the timetables of the Kyoto Protocol. The
urgency of the situation was underscored by the head of the IPCC who declared
that climate change was approaching a “point of no return.’ In response, the Bush administration used its
diplomatic leverage to limit the following round of Kyoto talks to an “informational
seminar” and prohibited it from formulating any plan of action. In July,
2005, following a pledge by the mayors of 132 U.S.
cities to meet the Kyoto emission-reduction goals,
President Bush, following a year of secret negotiations, signed a treaty with Australia (the world’s
largest coal exporter) and several other nations. The treaty set voluntary goals
which were far less stringent than the binding requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Bush Crimes Commission has charged that the ‘Bush
administration’s actions and policies on global warming, with their
catastrophic planetary impact, constitute crimes against humanity, as popularly
understood and conceived, that is, acts that, by their scale or nature, shock
the conscience of humankind. They include inhumane acts perpetrated against a
population, conducted in wartime or not.’
[Please go to the Bush Crimes Commission website to hear testimony
on this indictment. In a preliminary ruling, the jurors of conscience have
found this administration guilty of crimes against humanity for this indictment
( and we await the final verdict.]