I’m interested in your thoughts on Gore’s final presentation in “24 Hours of Reality.” For those who missed it, here it is:
I do think it is important to judge this as a communications effort aimed at three groups — activists, those who already are concerned about global warming, and the plausibly persuadable — the audience I aim for, but obviously a broader slice of the public than Climate Progress reaches.
The “24 hour long event had 8.6 million views,” writes Maggie L. Fox, President & CEO of the Climate Reality Project, which I would count as success. Fox has more to say that is worth reading, including, “important actions you can take today”:
I am incredibly proud that so many people around the world participated, but it’s also important to remember the individual actions it represents. There are countless stories of impressive grassroots mobilization. A company in Tel Aviv hosted a watch party at their headquarters. A group of graduate students in Athens, Georgia rented out a popular local movie theater. People across the world joined hands to say: Climate change is real, it’s happening now and the time to act is now.
But this is just the beginning. There are important actions you can take today:
- Request a presentation. There are more than 3,000 trained Climate Presenters around the globe. Organize an event and invite a Presenter to come to your community.
- Go local: Team up with our partners around the world and help solve the climate crisis. Visit our website to find a partner organization near you.
- Moving Planet: On Sept 24, hit the streets with http://350.org for a global day of action. Find an activity near you.
- Check our comprehensive video library to watch highlights from 24 Hours of Reality.
It is up to you to continue to stand up for reality and share the truth about the climate crisis. We will succeed because we must.
What do you think? As with your great comments on the overall telecast — and I’ll make sure Gore and his team see what you have to say.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Not really emphasized that there is no going back or even stasis and
#reality It will likely get much worse. To prevail we must act now at wartime speed
These are all great points, fj.
Cal Tech Chemist (working on finding less-rare materials to comprise solar panels) Nathan Lewis makes the point that to convert all fossil fuels to all renewables by 2040 will take (something like) building 1000 square feet of solar panels a second, building an Olympic-sized pool of algae a second, a wind turbine every five minutes, a nuclear power plant every 3 days, etc.
At first that seems utterly impossible until you compare to WWII total production statistics, which when adjusted for GDP then to now are amazingly comparable and doable – if we had the political will and the powers that be agreed to do it.
I saw Gore’s presentation live on Current TV with my wife and she said she didn’t learn anything new but then she hears more than she wants to from me and I get much of what I know from Climate Progress, so that’s a compliment to CP.
I thought the presentation was great and fully support everything Gore is doing. In fact probably coincidentally he took most of the suggestions I’d made in this same space after the previous post about the entire event.
As a filmmaker who made my first documentary including climate change with Warren Washington and Susan Solomon in 1992, I study this stuff as closely as anyone I know, and the genius of “An Inconvenient Truth” is that Gore made himself so vulnerable to us and we got to know him so well that his message really resonated with many, many millions.
That is because all media is primarily about character and story. It takes tremendous work, experience and skill to do this, but this is what needs to be done as much as anything – give the material Gore, Romm and many of the rest of us do here and elsewhere, and always use character, story and the most skillful rhetoric whenever we can.
I’ve had comical meetings with Al Franken since 1988 and he’s always said how funny Gore is and you can see it when he lets himself go from time to time. Also I loved Gore’s passion and candor on the radio a couple of months ago, making these same points more forcefully and to me more in his natural voice, which is absolutely brilliant. I’ve never so wanted to reach into the radio and somehow give the speaker a big hug.
All of us and most certainly every artist in every medium is trying to find their voice. When Gore uses his authentic voice it is passionate, smart and funny. If he’d spoken in that voice instead of the one his mind-numbingly timid handlers and pollsters had convinced him to use in 2000, we never would’ve needed to suffer the 8 years of Bush that have us racing on a bullet train at full speed in the wrong direction off a cliff and into an ocean of carbonic acid.
Obama needs that same advice now.
So I thought the presentation was about as good as it could be in the amount of time that he had, but we should always be thinking about ways to hit our talking points in ways that incorporate character, story and humor.
Oh, and Gore was bendingoverbackwardsly generous with Boehner and Beck, saying that they’re just getting bad advice. When that advice is literally from the Anti-Christ (promoting war, torture, violence and hating, abusing and oppressing the poor), I wouldn’t be so generous, I’d stand up to them and confront them in every nonviolent way possible.
Also, given his jack-o-lantern glow I’m wondering if Boehner could be tapped into as an energy source himself.
I thought it was excellent — complaints by Judith Curry and Watts et al that it would be “polarizing” I took as a good omen:
More here: http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2011/09/polarizing-debate-for-win.html
To be ‘polarised’ from the likes of Watts and Curry (by the by, what monumental and cynical hypocrisy, from those for whom ‘polarisation’ is their day-to-day employment)is not just demanded by a dedication to post-Enlightenment rationality and the pursuit of truth, but is morally compulsory. Anything but a 180 degree divergence from that Augean current is indefensible.
I was expecting more for so much preview advertising. For anybody keeping abreast of the issue there was nothing new. I’m glad the effort was made to broaden awareness around the globe. I hope the efforts of http://www.moving-planet.org/ generate as much interest.
To get to the skeptics, Gore is going to have to start speaking their language — like dropping any and all references to “reality”.
More words of one syllable would help, and more flags. Patriotism is the last refuge etc, of course, but it is also the first recourse for Rightwingers who wish to evoke the most atavistic instincts in their followers.
The first half–on weather events and food and water shortages was all anecdotal (and minimally persuasive). The second half–starting with the tobacco video, and rebutting video statements from Boehner, Rohrbacher, Bachman, Beck, etc. was done well. At the end, his ‘what to do’ summary was (especially for Gore) succinct and, IMO, on the mark.
I thought his words opening words this clip are great. I especially think the question “did you think all the scientists were wrong” is a great one. It’s a version of one I pose to my plausibly persuadable friends regularly–”what percentage chance would you accord the possibility that 98% of climate scientists are right on this one? Even my more skeptical friends, even those who think that there’s something possibly fishy within the scientific community, will admit some uncertainty. When the question isn’t framed as a dichotomy but as a percentage, you can open a door. And then remind them of Dick Cheney’s 1% doctrine.
Unfortunately, what follows Gore’s opening words in the clip you posted is essentially 4 minutes of dead air. Maybe I’m hyper sensitive ’cause my wife works in radio, but dang.
It was acceptable- but it needed more ‘live’ continuing coverage instead of ‘canned’ repetitiveness.
Needed more high power brokers. Micheal Oppenheimer was there- where was Mann,Hansen, Trenbeth—Romm?
Mr. Gore is doing a good job- lets learn and improve.
Gore is doing all he can.
Others should also be too…
I empathize with your feeling. There is a difference between criticism & critique. Rigorous critique is a tradition in design schools & those who participate are really on your team.
Philip K. Dick wrote that “Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” While Mr. Gore’s reality is a little closer to that which doesn’t go away, it was still devoid of any mention of the animals that we consume and how the enormous increase in human footprint due to animal consumption impacts the natural carbon sinks of the planet. Not to mention the sky high food prices that seem to have settled into a new normal.
Life can restore the carbon balance on the planet if we let it, but as Upton Sinclair wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
That Upton Sinclair quote was about ‘journalists’ who work for Rupert Murdoch, was it not?
Unfortunately, that Upton Sinclair quote is universally applicable.
I quite admire Al Gore’s efforts, overall. I’m glad that he’s shining a big light on the denial industry. My only regret is that it should’ve been front and center years ago when climate/energy legislation was struggling to emerge from Congress.
While there’s always hope that some combination of real world events and activism might inspire the kind of mass movement that could most swiftly address the complex web of problems associated with Global Warming, I think it would be foolish to bet the farm on that happening. Far too many people will find ways to talk themselves out of activism, or through learned helplessness remain convinced there’s nothing they can do.
But that doesn’t mean we should despair. Rather, those of us who do understand the full import of the situation we face should resolve to build a very serious resistance movement. I think Aric McBay, Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen have made an excellent case for such an approach in their recent book, “Deep Green Resistance.” I hope everyone reading my remarks reads this book.
I was part of the recent Tar Sands Action in DC, arrested on Day One with Bill McKibben. The medieval tour of DC’s jail while most unpleasant, only stiffened our resolve and inspired nearly 1200 others to follow us and make the case that the Keystone XL Pipeline must be stopped.
As George Monbiot observed, “Any change worth fighting for will be hard to achieve; indeed if the struggle in which you are engaged is not difficult, you may be confident that it is not worthwhile, for you can be assured by that measure that those from whom you need to wrest power are not threatened by your efforts. We will know that our approach is working only when it is violently opposed.”
The Pollutocracy gains far too much wealth and power from the social structure they maintain, often by force. And they will not give up their privilege without a fight. Non-violent direct action is a good beginning and I was proud to be part of the Tar Sands action. But if we are to significantly alter the omnicidal path our civilization is clearly vectoring along, much more will be required than slide shows, blogs, and direct action in front of the White House.
Monbiot is correct -pity he’s lost his marbles over nuclear. Still, I expect he’ll see the error of his ways. Changing the global system will, now, I believe, not be necessary. It is collapsing, rapidly, due to its internal contradictions and its basic incompatibility with the natural world. It’s what comes next that is vital. With luck we can pick up the pieces, bury the millions or billions of dead, then create a new, truly sustainable, humane and compassionate civilization. It shouldn’t take more than a few centuries. Or we can descend into a hell of ‘Might makes Right’ global warfare, as the rich parasites seek to hold on to their wealth to the detriment of the other 99% of humanity, ie business as usual, but in its terminal end-stage. What I do know, however, is that if humanity is to survive, we must perfect some social mechanism that ensures that the current ruling type, the psychopath, who cares nothing for others or for life, but is driven solely by egomania and the drive to dominate, never rules over humanity again.
The sane option is perfectly possible Mulga but it is important that as many people as possible understand it now so there is a better chance that some of those will survive the crash, ME
I thought it was great in most ways. I applaud Al Gore and the whole team. That said, I have a few thoughts …
First, why can’t we get some super-credible and super-sincere scientists to present portions of the material? Let’s get the Nobel Prize winners and etc. As much as I admire Gore’s deep concern, hard work, and skills, there are inherent limitations in having him do all of the talking, as he did in the finale. Get more scientists.
Second, it is a downright shame, and deeply irresponsible, that the mainstream media (including The New York Times, for goodness sake!) have not covered and trumpeted, repeatedly, the fact that ALL of the national academies of science of all of the major countries, as well as all of the other relevant bona fide scientific organizations, have agreed that climate change is real and mainly caused by human activity. Has The New York Times covered that point clearly, under a big headline, listing all of those organizations for all to see? No! And that is a deep shame and deeply, deeply irresponsible. We (Joe, Al Gore, Bill McKibben, James Hansen, and all of us) should not rest or take “no” for an answer until we pressure and insist that the media point that out clearly to the American people. Period. It is simply not acceptable that the Times has not covered that point clearly and repeatedly. And it’s not acceptable that we’re letting them get away with that.
Third, on the version of “Hour 24: New York” (i.e., the last episode) that is on the actual Climate Reality Project website, beginning at 1:04:45 on that video, Mr. Gore conveys quite clearly the stance that must be taken with politicians. He’s clear about it. Watch the several minutes beginning at that point — i.e., at 1:04:45. And that leads me to this…
I think we should all consider, and adopt, the stance that I communicate, explain, and defend in my proposed guest post (sent to you, Joe, yesterday). I call the post “Game Over?”, and it conveys a stance that’s very important to consider and, indeed, is the stance that Gore seems to suggest, at least generically, in his finale. (I’m hoping that CP will want to run the post, and please let me know if you have any questions about it, Joe. It should be in your in-box. Thanks.)
We have a long, long way to go. I applaud Mr. Gore and the Climate Reality Project. I’m looking forward to Moving Planet. But we need much, much, much more.
Be Well,
Jeff
Jeff, the MSM is a propaganda system, whose prime business is defending the market capitalist system that enriches and empowers its owners. The fossil fuel industry is the richest in history, with moneyed tentacles everywhere throughout the system. In the MSM Rightwing groupthink is compulsory. Serial inability to remain ‘on message’ is hardly career-enhancing behaviour. You know that this internalised censorship is true not just from reading the MSM’s ‘product’ but from the overblown vehemence with which they deny it all.
Jeff,
I agree: we need to do much more. In fact Matthew Yglesias said much the same thing on Think Progress in response to the tar sands: http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/09/08/315106/climate-civil-disobedience-has-a-long-way-to-go/
That is why GWEN has also submitted a draft guest post to Joe, outlining a new strategy that would allow climate activists to get much more leverage from their work. A very brief description of one part of this new strategy was posted on Think Progress a few days ago: http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/09/16/320646/clever-climate-civil-obedience-strategy%E2%80%94drive-the-speed-limit/
Some additional details can be found at http://www.gothelimit.info. Send a SESE to get a free bumper sticker (while supplies last).
Warm regards,
Roger
I felt let down by the experience. Given the hype I was hoping for more ideas, different ideas, solutions, inspiration. Instead, it was basically the same material done over and over again. For many of us, it was preaching to the choir, with no new information. I can only hope that a few new people were influenced by it but feel pretty depressed that the event wasn’t really noted by the major MSM. It is that lack of recognition, of existence of the event, while at the same time, other news is given such attention: “a new planet with two suns!” “Texas has now exceptional drought — due to a continuing La Nina- (!)” etc.etc. that leaves me feeling really ill.
Very, very nicely done for the general audience.
I give it two thumbs up!
What I enjoyed most was how Boehner, Rohrabacher, Bachmann, Beck were made look stupid. No more mercy on these clowns!
Since “Limits to Growth” in 1972, Al Gore’s work is first confrontation with environmental reality which is powerful enough perhaps to waken an apathetic electorate. THANK YOU for impeccable data, compelling graphics, and a global consciousness. Truly, runaway climate change is the most overwhelming challenge humanity has known since the Toba eruption 75,000 years ago wiped out 90% of human race [DNA evidence]. Only this time, we’re doing it to ourselves.
I showed one of the the hours to my university students. They are writing their major research papers on how their discipline/major will be affected by climate change 20-30 years from now. The most common response: shock that it’s this bad, and that no one ever told them about it before.
Good point. Wait until the broadly and deeply confused, misinformed American public finds out how bad it could get if we don’t act soon. They will be livid. That is why President Obama should, as soon as possible, give a prime-time “State of the Climate” address to clear up the confusion.
What a great assignment. I’m writing a peice on librarianship and climate change and people regularly look at me like I’ve lost my mind. I also have my own students comment that since they aren’t in the sciences climate change doesn’t matter to them. Ouch.
My main comment is that Gore should have left out that business at the beginning about linking climate denial and tobacco obfuscation. He starts it by saying “Climate change is not a political problem, it is a human problem.” Then he goes into politics, connecting the two episodes of denial. At the end of his presentation, this works well, because he names the arguments (“red herrings”) not the people behind them.
After that first segment, it got good. But Gore seemed a little tentative. Maybe he was just tired. And I kept wanting a smoother presentation, but maybe tentative is better, in that it avoids melodrama and makes the truth easier to accept.
A few notes on production, FWIW:
In the preamble, there’s a succession of three images while the narration says “fire in Russia, floods in Pakistan, drought in Texas” — the third image does not match Texas.
At a number of places, I felt there were too many irrelevant images, changing too fast.
The graphs of CO2, temperature and rainfall were effective. Also the link between temperature and wildfires. But the narrative should have been tuned to leave them on screen a little longer. And, in connection with the wildfires, Gore should have mentioned pine bark beetles.
After the clip with Glenn Beck, Gore apparently had a one-liner that brought a laugh from the audience. That was missing when I watched. Maybe it just got dropped from the stream.
Overall, I judge it a good presentation.
Gore’s performance suggests Paul Nurse’s has identified a problem wider in scope than he may have surmised:
“One problem is treating scientific discussion as if it were political debate.
When some politicians try to sway public opinion, they employ the tricks of the debating chamber: cherry-picking data, ignoring the consensus opinions of experts, adept use of a sneer or a misplaced comparison, reliance on the power of rhetoric rather than argument.
They can often get away with this because the media rely too much on confrontational debate in place of reasoned discussion.”
At the other extreme are politicians loath to admit that there is anything to discuss, and cloning them three thousand times over merely amplifies the supply of cant in the world.
Unfortunately, in the corrupted sham ‘democracies’ of the capitalist world, you get the same vote regardless of whether you are a climate scientist or a ‘downright moron’. The latter category outnumber the former, and despise them as ‘smart-arses’, ‘know-it-alls’ and ‘geeks’. The weight of money determines almost all political contests, so the increasingly reckless rich prevail, surfing to power on a wave of Dunning-Krugerite agitation. In China, in contrast, the leaders, whether or not they have nice hair and shining teeth, can at least read and understand scientific reports.
Something troubling about the whole production, the whole event. I signed up to be involved from the beginning but never could get traction – the feel of this effort was very different from the 350, Peaceful Uprising, Tar Sands Action movements – they all have a grass roots, inclusive feel. But this feels produced from the top down, and very proprietary.
At least they finally broke out some highlights to YouTube so they could be shared – but delays and walls in media sharing here show the limits of this action rather than many possibilities.
On the other hand, while we’ve all been focused on activism in the last year or two, Al Gore did come out from the side and say the mainstream conversation was worth winning – the messaging was worth working on. And that’s what this is, his first attempt to engage with the main message. As such I really do applaud it. I was excited to watch it, but I don’t call it grass roots and I don’t look to it for the necessary revolution.
That will come from the people, through people like Bill McKibben. All parties can, should and will work together because the solution to climate change, as somebody said, is everything. We throw everything we have at it.
Gore’s movement will learn and get better as it goes. This was a promising start, I’d put it on the scale of a school project, but not an award-winning independent product.
Meanwhile action is greatly required, and 2012 approaches. Personally I look to the number 350 more than 24 for my preferred involvement.
I think this comment captures my feeling too. It felt over produced and not grass roots. It felt like watching one of those really annoying media events I hate. It also felt disempowering because of that. It felt too big and too overwhelming to me. It was so, ummm, fancy, so expensive looking.
When Bill McKibben sent me ( and whole bunch of people) an email asking me to go to the White House and get arrests, I was happy to do it. I trust Bill and I trust that he is an actual person whose ideas I agree with. I don’t respond the same way to Gore. The media people seem to have eaten his authenticity and that creeps me out. I wouldn’t get arrested if he asked me to, because I don’t feel like I know the authentic Gore. The trust that comes from genuine communication has been lost for me.
yes, and I think if you look at this little clip made by some as-yet unknown contributor to the Moving Planet event this weekend, and compare it to the proprietary nature of the Gore productions, you see the difference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ-vjuYhfK4
The voluntarism and crowd-sourcing of 350 versus the control of Gore’s group.
Nobel Laureate Al Gore is doing excellent job on Environment, Energy and Climate Change. Gore’s Climate Reality Finale was indeed a great effort to reach millions with the message. I salute you Al Gore.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore (AP), India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
I am grateful that climate change is back in the mainstream media. Recent editorials in the NYT, the pipeline action at the White House, and the Climate Reality Project are necessary and very welcome steps forward. I invited students over to my residence to watch the finale of Climate Reality, and the discussion was lively http://tinyurl.com/42fxzos. Most effective was Gore’s review of extreme weather from around the globe. It was clear that many students had not appreciated the extent to which extreme weather has become the new norm.
I call on all academic leaders to end their reticence. It is my opinion that academic leaders have an ethical obligation to their faculty and students to lead by example on this most critical issue. I challenge my colleagues to step forward and make their voices heard. When I make a public stand on this, I take the position that the reality of human-caused climate change is not a matter of politics or policy, but rather a scientific fact. http://tinyurl.com/43y8t97
Given that essentially every National Academy of Sciences on the planet has endorsed the reality of human-caused climate change, it is high time for college and university presidents nationwide to speak out. Indeed, I think that given the urgency of this issue, continued silence is deeply troubling and speaks loudly about their willingness to be an advocate for current and future students. Moreover, I encourage administrations of publicly funded institutions to be bold and vocal. The budgets of these institutions will likely be held hostage as a routine matter during the new normal of this extended recession. The simple fact is that higher education has been broadly devalued by state legislatures nationwide. In my view, there is little to be gained by continued reticence on climate change, regardless of its political palatability. Simply put, it is time to tell the truth.
Dear President Mulkey, You are so right!
Kudos to you for speaking out about this.
Given what is at stake for young people of college age, I call on every college to give students time and/or credit to lobby or demonstrate against fossil-fueled global warming. This will hugely impact their futures. How about spring break in DC?
Unity also deserves credit for challenging President Obama to set an example by putting solar panels back on the White House? How’s that coming? Seems as if you and the brave students need to put some heat on the man.
Again, thank you for your example to others.
Warm regards,
Roger Shamel
Thank you for standing up and leading your campus on this. Academics sometimes are hesitant to get out in front of issues, but I will say, on my campus at least, faculty and administrators are coming together to provide the education and infrastructure our students need to become climate leaders themselves. I was one of the arrestees and when I said I wanted to do an event about the experience and about climate change I was swimming in money and support. So, we’re getting there.
Thank you for speaking up, President Mulkey. Bravo! Please, please try to get other university and college Presidents and Provosts to speak up, and loudly. I went to Berkeley and to Harvard, long ago, and I’m deeply disappointed and frustrated that their leaders have not spoken up enough to force their messages into the media. They may be speaking, but not loudly enough, and very few are hearing. All in all, I think the leaders of higher education are letting us down big-time, and I expect more from them and urge them to do more — MUCH more. So bravo to you, President Mulkey. Keep it up. We need more like you!!
Jeff Huggins
Gores passion can be seen. We need more like him. Thus far he is the only well known climate advocate the public recognizes.
We need scientists to step up.
Hansen- who has become a strong advocate is not well known- nor are Mann and others.
Stress droughts and floods.
Floods and droughts.
I commend everyone that worked on this project but what will be needed to effect change in this country is 300,000 people on the Washington Mall calling for climate action.
When are we going to see somebody starting to organize that? I’m ready to be there.
I agree with you. The idea that the continued use of carbon based fossil fuels can be solved anyway other than through a seriously committed mass social movement using traditional techniques of social organizing and new technology based techniques is naive.
I also think that the reluctance of those who understand the problem and have audiences large enough to matter to admit this and begin genuinely leading is frustrating. Getting off coal and off oil isn’t primarily a technological problem and it isn’t primarily a policy problem. It is a power problem. Talking about climate in starkly moral terms and calling on people to reform their own hearts and their political system is the only way that I know of to motivate people to overcome the powerful and change the system.
I’ve also noticed a tendency of climate leaders to claim that the changes are simple or easy and I think this is a problem because it’s obviously dishonest. The changes are not simple, they won’t be easy and people know this. So, claiming otherwise hurts credibility. I honestly believe that treating people as adult citizens in a democracy is going to be more successful than treating them like consumers or like children. Tell the truth, the whole truth, call on them to take political action, and lead the way by organizing a movement.
It was great. Gore was one of the main forces that brought the threat of climate destabilization to the general public. He worked incredibly hard for years to make that happen while few others were doing that level of work on the issue. He is still an essential voice. I particularly liked three things he did:
1) brought the rapid rise in extreme weather events to millions who probably weren’t aware of the scale of the problem
2) brought the “merchants of doubt” reality to millions who probably haven’t tuned into the shocking deceit
3) hammered away at the reality that 98% of climate scientist and all those academies are saying climate change is real and we are causing it.
Those are the three winning points right now in my view and he did a great job highlighting them. If only we had more people working as hard as Gore, Romm and McKibben at trying to get the the message across. Kudos all around
In keeping with your genuine appreciations, I am impressed that the Climate Reality Project includes 3000 trained, climate reality presenters who can be scheduled for local presentations.
Overall, I was pleased; some compelling images, generally accessible material, and several important notes struck. A nicely human narrative, with strong memes. I’m pleased how many viewed, and continue to do so. On the other hand, I was disappointed – from the way it was advertised, I expected 24 hours of different presentations, not essentially a single presentation repeated hourly. I recently wrote and performed seven different hour long musical documentary shows on different overshoot and sustainability themes single handedly, so I expected that with the resources at his command he might have been more ambitious.
On the plus side: dice analogy with weather severity is highly graspable (hardly original, but well worth repeating and sharing), drawing the correlation between extreme weather events and climatic forcing seemed to be handled nicely, and the smoking denial=climate denial segment (a nod to Naomi Oreskes wouldn’t have gone amiss for that) and debunking some of the more obvious and egregious denialist arguments are both highly valuable. Permeating the fog of misinformation with fact and encouraging public discussion are good.
Missed opportunities: No significant mention or explanation of tipping points, little in the way of specific suggestions for action and making a difference (yes, we need to talk about it, but far more than that, we need to DO). I would also have drawn a closer parallel between climate and food production; universal impacts like that will be more widely felt than even extreme weather events, as skyrocketing food prices will impact us all at once.
A heartfelt effort by many people to spread an urgent message more widely is heroic and needs to be applauded. Unlike most human activity in our culture, the overall impact is clearly to cause more good than harm. Kudos for working to improve the future. BUT. It needs to be the first volley of many, one of the early pebbles in an avalanche, and cause not to pat ourselves on the back, but to redouble our efforts. It’s a step in the right direction, but the road is long.
I think that every time I go to that link, it kills my browser. Anybody else have that problem?
Some of the video presentations are VIMEO, which uses Flash & can’t be played by older computers without an Intel chip. In addition, Steve Jobs was very public about his decision that Apple would not support Flash. Over at photo.net, where they have 600k photographer members globally, they noted how many of their members log in on old equipment & program new features to include everybody. The founder of photo.net is a pioneer of open-source software for community websites. For a global outreach, matching the tech to the average low of global hardware would be a good idea. The tech adjustment needn’t affect visual design.
Here’s another inspiration for people interested in DOING something during this transition to a far more extreme “normal” going forward:
http://www.correntewire.com/maine_once_the_breadbasket_of_new_england
If we split the audience into those who 1) “already get it” 2) “will never get it” and 3) “not sure if they get it yet” and need more convincing… then my comment is that the video has too much Al Gore in it, it’s too AlGore-centric. I like Senator-Almost-Prez-Gore, love him really, respect and adore him. But, a lot of people don’t. And this is more about the issue than the man, and here, the man is too visible, too present, too much the center of attention than his own presentation. The effect of this is to potentially “turn off” the undecideds who, for one reason or another, aren’t big fans of Al Gore and/or his politics and will either remain on the fence or just watch something else, flip the channel.
I think this effort is fantastic, and we should bog in the details but we should preach the message every day and every hour. I have not, politically, been a fan of Al Gore, but I have become a fan of this effort and it deserves our support
Thought this was an excellent presentation but fear that those who most need to watch it never will.
Hi Joe,
As I have argued in previous comments on your excellent blog, I am concerned that Al Gore and other prominent climate activists continue to focus on a contraction of CO2 fossil fuel emissions at the seeming expense of attention to the multiple systems benefits to be gained from plant-based nutrition and livestock reduction.
I can best express this concern in terms of seven intellectual operations that I believe, in sequence, are original in publication to me and this comment. What I don’t know – because I am a generalist and have been working at this issue from a number of different angles – is how reliable these steps are. I know there must be an error in my thinking, but I am not sure where. I have earlier today submitted these steps for review by a few international experts, but Joe, if you or anyone else can identify and refute my errors it would be a great relief to me. Here are the steps.
1. Given a current forcing of 1.5 w/m2 for CO2 and 0.5 w/m2 for CH4 (accepted approximations based on a GWP of about 25 for CH4), it looks like CO2 is now responsible for 3x as much warming as CH4.
2. But this is clearly not correct from a policy perspective, because when we talk about “global warming,” we are not interested in total warming, we are interested in the margin of forcing that exceeds a desirable steady-state “greenhouse” baseline, such as the 350 ppm CO2 target established by Dr. Hansen and his team.
3. An increase from preindustrial CO2 of 280 to 350 ppm is an increase of 25%. If we increase a preindustrial level of CH4 from 650 ppb by a proportional 25%, we get a CH4 target of 815 ppb CH4. It seems reasonable to assume a proportional increase in CH4 if our goal is temperature stability, since temperature in the Vostok ice core record tracks almost perfectly with the curve of all GHGs in the aggregate.
4. If we now restrict our attention to current CO2 versus CH4 warming in relation to these steady-state greenhouse levels, we get an “excess forcing” of ~0.15 w/m2 for CO2, and an “excess forcing” of ~0.30 w/m2 for CH4. In other words, the current CH4 warming is double the CO2 warming in terms of a steady-state greenhouse baseline.
5. But it does not stop here. See also the April 2011 paper by Dr. Isaksen, et al.: (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2011Q2/558/IsaksenGB2011.pdf). According to this paper and its references, the indirect CH4 radiative forcing is equal to its direct forcing when effects on O3, H2O and CH4 half-life are taken into account. On top of point #4, this would give current CH4 a 4x more powerful forcing effect than current CO2.
6. This is still with a 100-year time horizon for GWP, which seems uniquely and profoundly biased against CH4. If we reduce the GWP time horizon to a range of 20-40 years, and include both direct and indirect forcing in our model, we may obtain as much as an 8x warming effect for CH4 over CO2 relative to steady-state climate targets.
7. Finally, we have to consider the indirect CO2 radiative forcing associated with aerosol reflectivity in the case of fossil fuel CO2 emissions. These could reduce the CO2 warming effect by 1/2 or more, thereby again doubling the relative CH4 effect to as much as 16x greater.
Where have I gone wrong?
Or why isn’t Al Gore also (in addition to CO2 and in addition to Bill Clinton) talking about the critical importance of plant-based nutrition?
Al Gore would be the perfect person to enlist/sponsor Frances Moore Lappe to issue an updated climate-reality-verson of her brilliant book, Diet for a Small Planet. When it was first published in the 1970s, it charted how to combine incomplete plant proteins to achieve complete-protein in any meal & was an invaluable resource for delicious & diverse food. A more recent copy seemed to me to have been simplified, for whatever reason & I want another 70s copy.
Also, Al Gore & the CRP would be the perfect brand to put out RFP specs for an online personal carbon footprint calculator that takes into account whether meat is grain-fed in CAFOs or grass-fed. There are organizations that have made those distinctions. The best CF calculator I’ve seen, from Nature Conservancy, does not.
* make that Climate Reality edition …
That is a great book idea, Edith. Actually, you call to mind a book recently out by Anna Lappe called “Diet for a Hot Planet:”
http://www.amazon.com/Diet-Hot-Planet-Climate-Crisis/dp/1596916591
In terms of grass-fed versus CAFO, we can sequester a lot more carbon with forest than we can with pasture, and biofuels put to good use are more important to economic recovery than grain or hay fed to cattle. But these are complicated trade-offs that vary by region and scale, and don’t show up well on a carbon calculator.
At this point, I think we need to be clear on just how much CO2 and CH4 we need to get out of the atmosphere; how fast we need to do it; and what America’s fair share of the global reduction burden is really going to look like. Once we do our part to secure a post-Kyoto global New Deal, our EPA and state environmental protection departments will be able to produce footprint calculators that are consistent with our obligations under international law.
Good question. Mr. Gore’s inattention to food prompted me to quote Upton Sinclair above, as he’s also displaying a selective perception of reality. Actually, it is food, not fuel that has the maximum embodiment of energy in what humans consume. By an order of magnitude, when we include the phytomass energy of the food consumed by livestock.
Thank you. I am still earnestly looking for correction and have just published a tighter version of the argument here.
Okay, I found the flaw. The forcing values for carbon 1.5 w/m2 and 0.5 w/m2 methane HAVE to be the forcings just from the preindustrial baseline to present. That’s my mistake, in the very first step. Of course that has already been thought of. I couldn’t possibly feel more relieved and humiliated at the same time! At most, considering direct and indirect effects, a shorter time horizon, and CO2 reflective aerosol offsets, the methane impact is perhaps 2-3x greater than CO2. Is that correct?
Nope (he answers in perverse public dialogue with himself). Even this major adjustment to my premise yields a CH4:CO2 forcing at the end of the series between 4:1 and 12:1 over a practical steady-state baseline.
I have just watched Al Gore’s Climate Reality Finale and believe that’s its combined focus on extreme weather events and the techniques of propaganda used by the climate denier industry is a brilliant way o communicate to the uninformed and misinformed among us. Even the hardcore FOX News viewer would be hard put not to question the how and why and frequency of these extreme events. A crucial part of changing public opinion is to show people just how much they are being bullsh*ted, something the MSM clearly refuses to do. Since virtually all of us now accept that smoking is bad for health, the example of cigarette industry propaganda to the contrary, while hardly new, is particularly effective. While I wish that all of the public was capable of reaching a reasoned opinion based on an understanding of the science, it is sadly clear that something else is necessary. By hitting hard on the visual reality that climate change brings extreme devastation and that this devastation is occurring all around us now, rather than being a theoretical concern for the future or a prediction in a computer model, Gore’s presentation shows how to cut to the chase in getting the attention of an apathetic public. The challenge, of course, is getting them to watch it. Since many unfortunately would refuse to watch anything with Al Gore in it, I hope that others pick up and hammer hard on the his dual themes: 1) that climate devastation is occurring now and will become immeasurably worse,and 2) that climate denial is a well funded industry using age old propaganda techniques for the same age old reason, money.
There is one other thing I should say, because as it stands right now my prior comment reads much more disrespectfully of Al Gore than I intended to communicate. On the contrary, it was my great privilege to shake Vice President Gore’s hand once back in the 1990s, when I was working on environmental projects as an AmeriCorps Member in Albany, New York. Vice President Gore was an inspiration to me then, and still is. I applaud him and all climate scientists and climate activists for keeping up the fight, pressing forward against sometimes seemingly insurmountable obstacles to secure a living and livable planet for the future.
I just think we may need to talk more about methane.
Thanks Joe and Al for all you do.
Excellent presentation! I saw then Senator Gore give a similar presentation in Moscow two decades ago. He hasn’t lost a beat.
I also think comparing the fossil fuel industry’s dishonest manipulation of public opinion to what the tobacco industry did to promote smoking is absolutely brilliant.
Thanks for providing the finale – I’d missed it, when it aired.
FYI fellow watchers, Gore (& final hour) doesn’t show up until 8:25 into the video.
In this finale Gore gave a variant of the basic talk that was given by speakers each hour.
+1 Michael Nabert #26
Quibble and other minor feedback:
Avoid “significant”, say “substantial”. If the bathtub metaphor was used, I didn’t hear it. “Open sewer”, “CSI Climate”, “tempted to push it away”, tobacco resonance theme good.
My big Q – of those who did bring their less on-board friends to watch, how did these newcomers receive it?
Al Gore is the most courageous man of our time.
I found out about the project here at Climate Progress. I donated 300 dollars (which is a lot of money for me) as well as my Facebook-account.
I am proud to have supported it but some things could be improved next time:
1. Outreach – If I write “Check out the Climate Reality Project!” on Facebook the message can only be read by the 100 people in my friends list. But by changing a setting it is possible to reach the friends of my friends as well. Instead of reaching 100 people I reach 10,000. For a project like the Climate Reality Project it is important to remind its supporters about that.
2. Communication – During the event very many questions were unanswered on the projects Facebook page. “When will the event start?”, “Can I watch the videos after the event?”, ”Why don’t you use the donated Facebook accounts?”, “Will you use the donated Facebook accounts, or should I promote the project myself?”, etc. Not getting any answers is frustrating and cannot be good for the project.
More afterthoughts -
“Win the conversation” is *jarring*, in a synecdoche kind of way – we win debates, not conversations. And it’s hard to hold your own if you don’t have a resource at your fingertips, yet…
…I don’t recall them offering any pointers to good & reliable info sources online – particularly SkepticalScience.com (which should be in *everyone’s* informational toolbox) for Dalek debunkings, RealClimate.org for science, Climate Science Rapid Response Team for journalists…
I actually think it would have been better to do a documentary on the effects of climate change globally with us actually seeing testimonials from people experiencing its effects (like the Inuit in Alaska) then have Al with the help of the scientists tie it all together along with the information on the well funded denier movement and a special segment on solutions and their availability to us right now.
Also, this event was seen on the Internet globally and in all honesty I think it was a mistake to ask people to donate every hour especially considering that there may well have been people globally watching this on any type of connection they could get who live on less than a dollar a day in a place where people standing at a podium in high heel Gucci shoes and fancy dresses does not resonate. It didn’t with me. I think in order to get the message across effectively you also have to be aware of your entire audience and that many of the people watching this who are already experiencing the effects of biodistress/climate change are poor. As it is in the US the unemployment rate is over 9% and the poverty rate is increasing. The world economy teters on a precipice. It might just be to their advantage if pushing the donation wasn’t the primary focus because frankly out here on the Internet as well, people think this was done just for the money. I know that isn’t true but others don’t.
I also think it would have been noble of them to state that half of the donations would be donated to Somalia to help the famine victims since their drought is a classic case of climate change. Their droughts which used to come every ten years now come every two to five years with more severity. The Indian Ocean is also warming and changing rainfall patterns. This is a classic scenario of climate change now causing mass famine and migration in a place where war has been going on for over twenty years. A look at the future if we don’t get our act together, but not one mention of this though in you presentation. However, the bottomline to this is that as long as pipelines continue to be built as we as a species continue to deny our addiction and truly fail to hold politicians accountable the solutions will continue to elude us.
Oh, and good to see the video of his presentation here. I placed it on my blog and got a message that it was made ‘private by the owner.’
Thanks.
I had the same problem sharing this video also. And I find aspects of the Al Gore failings in common with Climate Progress, I reluctantly have to say.
My complete respect for Joe Romm and all the commenters here keeps me returning to this site when I can spare time, but it’s no longer linked with Facebook the way it was. I’m afraid this makes it a bit of a walled garden.
I copy my comments here and when useful paste them into my threads on Facebook, because this is where the activism lives and shares.
I was overjoyed to find Climate Progress on Facebook finally and to reconnect, and I’m deeply sad to see the site put the separation back in. Maybe it’s worth it to keep the discussion pure. But I think Climate Progress has lost more than it’s gained.
No. Activism lives all over the web and many, many readers and commenters were not participating in the dialogue in the old system.
There is no “separation” from FB. You can “Like” a post and comment on it there. You can also go over to our Facebook page. Perhaps we should repost more pieces there.
The old comment system was only drawing short comments from about half the readers I did before.
The “old system” meaning Facebook?
(thanks for getting rid of it!)
Hm. Perhaps there’s an ERROR in the slide show. Isn’t Mohenjo Daro medunno no longer a city? So, no urban heat island effect?