![an inconvenient truth (2006) an inconvenient truth (2006)](http://www.simbasible.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/3-1.png)
![an inconvenient truth (2006) an inconvenient truth (2006)](https://i1.wp.com/blog.michael-martinez.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/an-inconvenient-truth.jpg)
Whatever the reality of the Indian negotiations before and during COP 21, the film ends up highlighting, if inadvertently, why Gore’s PowerPoint and An Inconvenient Truth had little lasting behavioral impact. Secretary of State, John Kerry and his team meet with India’s Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar at COP21 in Paris. Directors Shenk and Cohen counter that the discussion at the time included only Environment Minister Javadekar and Energy Minister Goyal, so Mathur may have been unaware of elements of the deal. For instance, the principal Indian negotiator, Mathur, said that he recalled no such deal. Of course, because Gore has been a favorite whipping boy for the right, the directors’ version of the narrative has been called into question. In response, Gore’s back-door connections yield a commitment to private investment in solar power, and, voilà, the deal is sealed. Gore attempts to work out a deal with World Bank officials, but they insist the bureaucracy will be far too slow to reach a deal during the Paris negotiations. India does not lack all access to credit, but World Bank interest rates are painfully high. Of course, the details of the blockage are interesting. One reason might be that at the root Gore is merely calling for the creation of a new set of businesses-calling for more of the same, but powered by solar panels. One wonders why no one in Gore’s team suggested these as possible barriers. Among the most important barriers are access to credit and the bureaucratic tangle required to start a business. But he reminds us, through his omissions, that we must listen first and then work to understand each other’s barriers, needs, and fears.Īnyone who has worked in the Global South knows how difficult starting a business can be compared to similar processes in the Global North. Modi insists, “anything else would be morally wrong.” But, as Indian negotiators point out repeatedly, the country’s development must come first. In the run-up to the Paris Conference, Indian leaders like Prime Minister Modi and Minister of Environment Javadekar are not averse to environmental action. Gore counters with facts on the high proportion of new electric capacity coming from renewables (75%), and points to the Indian smog entirely obscuring the sun. to embrace climate change action on a national level. In the pre-conference negotiations, Indian representatives resent Gore’s insistence that India must embrace renewable energy. They point out the continued refusal of the U.S. Paramount Pictures, 2017.īoth his passion and his connections inform a central narrative of the film: the former Vice President’s role in critical negotiations with India before and during the Paris Conference. India stands out in the Global South as one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases-although the Global North’s historical emissions dwarf those of India. Apparent, too, is Gore’s extensive network of connections to business people and politicians.Īn Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power. In all, Gore’s passion for change is clear. The new film focuses on Gore’s story since 2006: he speaks to his Climate Reality Project trainees travels to the melting glaciers of Greenland visits Tacloban, the Philippines, a city devastated by Typhoon Haiyan and works behind the scenes at the Paris Conference of Parties (COP) in 2015. What is Gore’s goal with An Inconvenient Sequel? But did it translate into action? Only temporarily.įast forward to 2017. Clearly, the film increased knowledge and awareness of climate change. By mid-2007, major media outlets like NPR and NBC were regularly discussing climate change.
![an inconvenient truth (2006) an inconvenient truth (2006)](https://images.theconversation.com/files/182130/original/file-20170815-27845-90sduq.jpg)
Before I left, climate change conversations were confined to environmental groups and academia. after more than three years abroad, I found that Al Gore’s 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth, seemed to be succeeding at instilling a new narrative where piles of scientific evidence had not. Does Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power provide us a tale that galvanizes us to build positive futures? It helps to start by looking back at what its precursor, An Inconvenient Truth, accomplished. Paramount Classics, 2006.īecause stories are so powerful, we need to dissect high-profile narratives of our future we need to understand the work they do for change.