Yesterday, I went to the movies with my wife and a friend to see An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. This new film differs from An Inconvenient Truth and serves as the previous documentary's compliment.
Gore's 2006 film, which was based on his climate change Powerpoint presentation, was filled with graphs, statistics, and explainers of some of the science of how our tailpipes and factories are making our world warmer. There were predictions as well, with images of stranded polar bears and floodwaters inundating New York City. Ten years later, we now live in the future of An Inconvenient Truth. The sequel shows us the storms, floods, and droughts that are exacerbated by climate change. The scenes of storm-destroyed cities in the Philippines and floodwaters inundating New York City's World Trade Center are powerful; yet the more subtle images of tide-flooded streets in Miami better conveyed the ramifications of climate change to me. Although global warming is most likely influencing the intensity of storms, floods, and heat waves, there is no way to judge if the floodwaters I see in the film are truly higher than they would normally be, and I can't feel the heat when I see the images of drought-striken farmland. But I know that cities don't plan on their streets being underwater at high tide. And it is not just some waves lapping alongside the roadway, Miami roads and sidewalks are shown to be submerged so much so that fish swim where people normally walk or take their cars. An Inconvenient Truth gave us the science; with this sequel we get the other aspect of climate change, politics. We see Gore in a contentious meeting with Indian government officials and visiting with executives of SolarCity, a solar panel manufacturer and installer. We are allowed to be privy to some negotiations and deal making, all leading up to the Paris Accord of last year. Gore shows us the exponential increase in renewable energy and takes us to Georgetown, Texas, whose GOP mayor is spearheading the city's move to 100 percent renewables despite being in the reddest county in the reddest state of the Union. The former vice president gives us much reason for hope, And yet, I was not as inspired as I was when I saw his first film. Perhaps there is the problem that almost no sequel adequately continues the narrative of the original movie. But I think my feelings of ho hum has to do more with Al Gore himself. I think that had he not been the son of a prominent politician, Al Gore would have gravitated to working in academia or another area in which numbers and charts are important. Great politicians live to make deals and twist arms. They love power. I've never sensed this from Gore. The movie has a film clip of Gore giving a Senate speech. He comes off like an actor acting the part of a senator. Go back and watch a portion of An Inconvenient Truth. Gore is giving his presentation and quoting statistics. He is in his element. So politics isn't easy for Al Gore. Much of the work he has given himself tires him. In more than one scene he lopes down a hallway or onto a stage. He has also given himself the daunting task of cleaning up our dirty energy addiction. I've admired him ever since I read his first book, Earth in the Balance, and credit him and that book for enhancing my interest in the environment. An Inconvenient Sequel continues and rounds out our understanding of his work battling climate change. Have you seen the movie? Please let me know what you think. Comments can be made below.
0 Comments
I listened to this interview on the radio yesterday. At WBUR in Boston Here and Now radio host Jeremy Hobson interviewed Gary Ferguson, award-winning author of Land On Fire: The New Reality of Wildfire in the West.
Ferguson confirmed what seems like an obvious trend, that we are experiencing more and more wildfires than in years before, saying, "Human-caused climate change is probably responsible for doubling the number of acres burned since 1985. So it's a very, very fast change, and it looks like from all the evidence out there that this is just simply going to be worse before it gets better." Thirty years. That is a big difference in a short amount of time. There are of course other factors that exacerbate wildfires and the problems we experience because of them. There is mismanaged fire suppression, and there are the increasing number of people choosing to live in and around forest and wildland areas. But it is things like this that really bring home what climate change is doing to our world and how important it is to reduce emissions. Climate change is not just a few warmer days in summer and snow melting earlier in springtime. Climate change more wildfires and more property damage from those fires. That is why it is important to lower emissions right now in any way we can. I'll be writing about other effects of climate change in future blogs. What are some things that are being affected by climate change that concern you? Please leave your comments below. I wish I heard more stories like this. Locally, outlets of the Starbuck's coffee chain have implemented a food recovery program. Every night, refrigerated trucks make the rounds of Starbuck's picking up soon-to-be expired foods. The food is inspected for spoilage, loaded up, then delivered to six different local food relief programs. It started with 30 Starbuck's and has expanded to 187.
So far, the program has distributed 320,000 pounds of Starbuck's food. The program has started to pick up food from other establishments besides Starbuck's, and there is talk of expanding the program beyond San Diego. One thing that this story omitted is that all this saved food reduces climate change. Every morsel of food has a carbon footprint; so every mushroom, barbecued chicken wing, or bean burrito that winds up in the landfill is carbon needlessly going up into the atmosphere. We are far from where we need to be on this, such as how the French have outlawed food waste at their supermarkets, but it is a great move forward. The Guardian has just highlighted four U.S. cities that are addressing climate change. All four of these municipalities have much at stake from a warming world. Rising seas could greatly affect the San Francisco Bay. New York has already experienced Hurricane Sandy, whose storm surge has been taken to be a harbinger of global warming and rising seas. King tides, exacerbated by rising seas, now regularly flood sections of Miami. Houston is having trouble with greater storms linked to climate change.
What about San Diego? Are we doing enough? Do you see evidence of climate change here? We see the images of coal powered power plants, with the smoke billowing from their smoke stacks. And we are aware of the exhaust from the tailpipes of our cars. Fossil fuels are obviously being burned and CO2 goes up in the atmosphere. So why is South Park Climate Solutions concentrating on Meatless Monday as a way to bring down our carbon emissions?
First off, it is easy and inexpensive. You don't have to buy a new car or invest in solar panels on your rooftop. It's simply the difference between ordering the veggie burger instead of the bacon cheeseburger or fixing up a pot of chili without the ground beef. You can also get creative with tofu and other meat substitutes, too. There are plenty of online resources for vegetarian and vegan recipes you can check out. The Meatless Monday website has some tasty recipes, and we're starting our own webpage for vegetarian recipes, too. Feel free to suggest your recipes. We need lots more! Second, we don't see the smoke stacks or tailpipes, but farm animals make a lot of greenhouse gasses; so reducing meat consumption is very effective in reducing carbon emissions. Using available data and some simple arithmetic this science website calculated that if every American went meatless for just one day out off the year it would amount to a carbon savings of 1.69 million tons of carbon dioxide (Hat tip to Tammy for finding this info). One day out of the year, 1.69 million tons of CO2. So adopting Meatless Monday can make a BIG difference. Please let us know if you're adopting Meatless Monday or reducing meat in your diet in some other way. We all can make a big difference one rutabaga at a time! We're slowly updating and improving our website. Today we added a page that concentrates on air conditioning. I don't see a lot of air conditioners around South Park. Even still, it comprises part of our carbon footprint, and considering the mild weather we experience in our neighborhood, it is possibly one of the easiest things we can work on to shrink our carbon footprint. You can read more here.
The city of San Diego is giving away free trees. It's a great idea, and I’m glad that mayor Falkner jumpstarted a program that has been languishing. Trees can take just about any urban or suburban street and make them more livable. People are more likely to walk down a street if it has trees on it. Trees buffer street noise and they give us shade. I encourage you to get your tree while they are still available. The city plans on planting 1000 trees, but they have already planted 750. So hurry up and get your tree before they are all gone. My one complaint is that, as part of the city of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan, not all the trees being offered are appropriate for the purpose of a climate response. Sure the trees store carbon, but the essential function of trees in an urban climate response is to mitigate the heat island effect. And the way they do that is by providing shade. Before I go on, here’s a brief primer on the heat island effect. Concrete and asphalt heat up more than areas covered by trees and shrubs, making cities hooter than the surrounding countryside. This raises the temperatures in cities, making summertime more unpleasant and also causing an increase in ozone and greater reliance on air conditioning. And as global warming increases, we will want to further mitigate the heat island effect. A lot of the trees offered by the city provide minimal shade. Many of the trees offered are palms, such as king palms and Mexican fan palms. Have you ever laid out a picnic under the shade of either? I didn’t think so. Compare the shade of the street on the left, which has shade trees, and the right, which is shaded by palms. Which one is going to be cooler? Providing cool streets makes them more pleasant and walkable. It also reduces or eliminates our reliance on air conditioning, something that uses a lot of energy.
Now don’t get me wrong. This is a good program. I’m just saying that it could be more helpful in reducing our heat island effect in San Diego. Have you received a tree from the city? What do you want, shade or a tropical palm? I've been checking social media, seeing what folks are saying about Trump's announcement that the U.S. is pulling out of the Paris Agreement. Most of what I've heard is condemnation of Trump and his announcement. And that is very appropriate. It is something that I can't describe as anything other than stupid.
Yet there is lots of hope and lots of opportunity. In an open letter to the president 61 mayors of U.S. cities pledged to meet the commitments of the Paris Accord. Admittedly, these are mayors, and what they can do in their municipalities is limited, but 61 is a lot of cities, and the political weight of what they are doing is significant, once you consider that among the 61 are Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, and New York. That's a big deal. And that's not all. The states of Washington, California, and New York say that they are remaining in the emissions reduction pact. Connecticut and Virginia may join as well. Needless to say, I am greatly disappointed with the president’s announcement today, that he is pulling out the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord. I must confess that I was unsurprised; after all, as a presidential candidate, Donald Trump called global warming a Chinese conspiracy.
I could argue that the president’s claims of lost jobs is baseless and that his claims that the agreement places our country in an economic disadvantage is equally unproven, but those issues lie outside the immediate concerns of this community organization. The word from climate policy insiders as long ago as ten years ago was that Washington DC had grown so dysfunctional and out of touch and that the power of certain corporate and right-wing ideological voices had grown so loud, that meaningful legislation and policy on climate change would prove to be an impossibility. No matter what the science says, no matter the concerns of the U.S. citizenry, no matter what good common sense tells us what to do, there are enough Senators and members of the House listening to King Coal or ideological lobbyists that our federal government will do nothing to keep the planet from warming up. Donald Trump as president merely puts that picture in stark relief. But those very same policy folks who said that the federal government will not help us address climate change said that this work would now be taken up by states and municipalities, and they have been proven right. California governor Jerry Brown has let Donald Trump know in no uncertain terms that California is going to fight climate change. The city of San Diego has drawn up an ambitious Climate Action Plan. Other states and cities are doing similar work. And that is why we are here. While our state and city work on major transportation issues and work on renewable energy projects, there is still much that we can do in our everyday lives—how we get around, how we warm and cool our homes, even the foods we eat and how we clothe ourselves—that can make a big difference in our emissions. South Park Climate Solutions is committed to finding ways that we as individuals and as a community can lower our emissions. We ask that you join us. There are great things we can do. |
Archives
December 2017
CategoriesAuthorPaul Hormick is the founder of South Park Climate Solutions. He sees climate change as one of our central concerns, for ecologies as well as societies. He holds a master's degree in Environmental Science and Policy from Johns Hopkins University |