By Jim Seymour
For Variety

THOUGH there are many fine new releases this first month of January 2007, I find it impossible to ignore the very disturbing signs from various places around the world indicating the effects of global warming may be more imminent than previously thought. While I do not wish to be just another doomsayer, the more I learn about some of the real science, the more alarmed I become. So it seems entirely appropriate to make some remarks about the much discussed documentary film of Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, directed by Davis Guggenheim and released in May 2006.
I imagine nearly everyone reading these words has heard much about this very disturbing and surprisingly entertaining film, but I would bet very few of you on Guam have actually seen it. My viewing was accompanied by certain anxieties, as I’d already recognized many of the dangers we face. But I wasn’t really prepared for such a totally engrossing lesson in climatology, so engaging and logical in its presentation; unassuming in its purely rational thesis. Al Gore has obviously discovered his greatest calling in life, that of a father (albeit an unelected one) reminding his son to be responsible. In fact, one of the reasons for the success of this film lies in its ability to make Gore’s role so prescient. The trials of both his sister and son give the film a compelling immediacy that few documentaries can claim.
The fact that climate is changing—not just the weather in its natural cycles—has been recognized by a vast majority of scientists for many years now. Al Gore has been dedicated for several decades to educating the global population (not just Washington) about the alarming facts predicting an aggregate upsurge in greenhouse gases that will likely have a devastating effect on the global infrastructure and world economy. Though it may not mean the end of the world, it may mean the end of the world as we know it.
The answers are not simple, but there is a growing consensus that time is extremely limited. And there are those who believe “the window of opportunity is short, and closing.” A few would disagree that Gore has made a valuable attempt to put the issue on the front burner, but others, such as George Monbiot, author of Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning (Doubleday, 2006), believes “we wish our governments to pretend to act. We get the moral satisfaction of saying what we know to be right, without the discomfort of doing it.” The loss of major sections of ice on both our poles, as well as the repeating El Niño that has tempered the weather worldwide, cannot be ignored, nor is it enough to state the facts and then bemoan the loss of target dates. Monbiot’s claim asserts that the government knows that “nobody ever rioted for austerity.” So the question arises of whether the will of the people will ever be strong enough to empower its governments to change.
One can’t claim anything minutely upbeat, or even particularly hopeful, about the conclusions of our man “who used to be the next President of the United States.” But according to Monbiot, many environmentalists “offer generalized, almost blithe assurances about how we can avoid these dire consequences without great sacrifice. We are horrified and soothed at the same time.” Imagine Gore and his production team winning the Academy Award for Documentaries and the world cheering because the cause is recognized. Herein lies the danger of Gore’s argument becoming merely another chapter in the ceaseless cascade of newsworthy and award-winning issues, thereby losing the urgency of its message. Will the issue matter this time next year?
Do your part. See the film. Ask yourself how much you care.