Comic Book Environmentalism
On the surface, conservatives are right, this is really goofy :
“The Day After Tomorrow” transforms the worst-case scenarios of climate change into the apocalypse.First the polar ice sheets melt instantaneously, raising the sea level hundreds of feet and inundating coastal cities, including New York. Then an equally instantaneous ice age descends, flash freezing New York and other northern latitudes. All of this is blamed on a Dick Cheney look-alike who refused to stop exhaling carbon dioxide.
This is beyond ludicrous. While the melting of ice sheets and the disruption of ocean currents leading to colder temperatures in the northern latitudes are plausible theories of possible climate futures, neither could possibly happen instantly or to the extent depicted in the movie. It wouldn’t even happen fast enough for a miniseries. It probably won’t happen at all.
Does a cartoon version of a serious issue help or hurt public awareness?
Some environmentalists and activists, including former Vice President Al Gore and MoveOn.org, think it will, going as far as to suggest that this is “the movie the White House doesn’t want you to see.”
Serious environmentalists have reason to be worried. Public concern for global warming has been dropping for several years now in polls on the issue. A year ago a Gallup Poll on global warming found that the issue was “a bit of a yawn” to most Americans. A follow-up Gallup Poll on global warming taken last month found that “the public is practically dozing.”
To use this as a way to seriously debate the environment is like using Dawn of the Dead as a tool to discuss Bush underfunding the Centers for Disease Control. These worst-case scenarios are so ridiculous and hyperbolic that nobody should really take them seriously. Or should they??
Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let’s face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon’s strategic planners are grappling with it.The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world’s climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade?like a canoe that’s gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over. Scientists don’t know how close the system is to a critical threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societies?thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.
Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes. Picture last fall’s California wildfires as a regular thing. Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russia?it’s easy to see why the Pentagon has become interested in abrupt climate change.
Yeah, the Pentagon scenario doesn’t include woolly mammoths or Dennis Quaid, but it’s still worth keeping in mind that the potential for global disaster due to the destruction of the environment is very real. That said, I’d suggest being very careful about hyping the events in The Day After Tomorrow as a possible future if Bush gets reelected. Even if there’s a grain of truth in there, it just sounds stupid.
8 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
i was really bothered by Moveon’s support of this movie. think of if the case were reversed and say the Right Wing used a movie like “Godsend”
http://imdb.com/title/tt0335121/
to promote their anti-cloning theories.
some of the best science-fiction stories have their roots in real scientific data, but that doesn’t mean that we should start banning the development of robots because of what Isaac Azimov has warned.
i think it’s a bad idea for environmentalists to use The Day After Tommorroww to promote their causes. the people on the opposite side of the issue already argue that global Warming is Science Fiction- so why should you hold up a sci-fi movie as an example of why we should be worried about it? a really bad idea.
maybe Moveon and Al Gore should spend more time trying to get Farrenheit 911 released in the US.
Comment by tom — May 27, 2004 @ 5:03 pm
Good point, but slight bone of contention -
Isaac Asimov didn’t actually warn against Robots - His stories enthusiastically supported human intellect and the idea that machines and especially scientific progress is good for Mankind.
The book I, Robot isn’t about robots destroying mankind for fascist reasons, it’s a series of short stories which contain interesting problems all solved intellectually. That movie will suck ass.
Comment by the eligible Ross Lincoln — May 27, 2004 @ 5:29 pm
ross- i know all this about Isaac Asimov… i was just making an exagerated point that his books (or the ass-movie this summer) could be used as a warning against robots but some people who misinterpret them.
Comment by tom — May 27, 2004 @ 6:23 pm
“by” not “but”
Comment by tom — May 27, 2004 @ 6:24 pm
I don’t think you should tell people to go see the movie and be afraid. But, if you use the movie as a springboard for logical and sane discussion about the topic, I think it can be benificial. The problem I see is that most enviornmentalists are actually religious zealots. They may be willing to turn this into their The Passion of the Christ or Left Behind.
If you were to have a conversation with me about the movie, I would gladly and calmly tell you where it was wrong and where it was right. From everything I’ve seen most of it is pretty plausible. The only things that are outright science fiction would be the flash freezing and the fact that it happend all in a week (the most drastic simulations I’ve seen give a floor of about 50 years).
Of course enviornmental zealots will start talking about how we need solar power and electic cars and fuel cells and hybrids. Of course, just manufactering a new car causes as much pollution as driving a regular for 8-12 years, so ditching regular cars for hybrids and electric cars is really not a good idea. Not to mention that the lead acid batteries in those vehicles are beyond toxic, and they wear out. And then there are solar panels which also cause tons of enviornmental impact to make and don’t even become energy positive until they’ve been in use for 15 years.
I believe the reason most enviornmentalists are so wacky is that they’re more anit-corporate then they are pro-enviornment. The two best solutions to our energy and pollution crisis are biodiesel and nuclear fission power plants. We have the technology to start implementing these today and it would solve 90% of our problems. The downside is that people like exxon and shell would still be in charge of the biodiesel (they are the only ones who have the infastructure to do something like that) and you need big business and the government to build nuclear power. Of course, that’s never the excuses you hear. It’s always biodiesel is still polluting (which is true, although the net CO2 emission is zero, there is still a little NO2) and nuclear reactors have the radioactive waste problem. Of course neither of the problems they site are actually really bad, and they basically the same problems we have now only orders of magnitude smaller.
Comment by Andrew — May 28, 2004 @ 8:32 am
i dont know… i’ve always sighted captain america when debating the merrits of experimenting on soldiers, the bruce banners increased strength when debating nuclear energy, and daredevil when debating the merits of transporting toxic waste through low income neighborhoods.
Comment by josh — May 28, 2004 @ 8:36 am
Damn good point Andrew. There have been a few good episodes of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit that touch on the topics you’ve mentioned. Probably the biggest problem with the environmental movement today is that many seem to loathe the idea of doing a cost-benefit analysis. The fact is, protecting our environment makes sense economically for a variety of reasons, but the key is to come up with good solutions and not just throw money at problems.
Also, I just heard a review of The Day After Tomorrow and that there’s a scene in which Americans are fleeing to Mexico to avoid the “angry weather” and the influx of people becomes so great that Mexico closes their border. Apparently it got a pretty hearty laugh from the audience in L.A.
Comment by greg — May 28, 2004 @ 11:20 am
i’ve heard a few decent reviews of this movie so far… my curiosity is up… but i’ll probably wait till it makes it to t.v. or something before i see it.
Comment by tom — May 28, 2004 @ 12:42 pm