An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power

Positive growth.

Sustained undaunted environmental activism.

Mr. Al Gore and his inspiring message of hope, brilliantly documented in An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, invigoratingly offers contemporary scientific fact to fight the baseless rhetoric of the Trump administration, with both compelling truths and constructive consensus.

According to Dune, "fear is the mind killer."

Gore casts it as despair, and rationally comments upon how crushing blows to a movement, in this case Trump's ignorant decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord, for starters, can lead members/supporters/leaders/partners to be overwhelmed by grief and hopelessness, even though the movement still exists, even though hope is still flourishing.

His unwavering commitment provides those who believe that climate change can be reversed, that citizens of dynamic metropolises can stop breathing in a pack of cigarettes a day, that economies which no longer rely on mass fossil fuel consumption can be created, that rivers, lakes, and oceans can stop being experimental dumping grounds for toxic pollutants, destroyed by unethical businesses who won't bear the costs of conducting their affairs responsibly, with a shining flame which will not be extinguished, no matter how obstinate, well-financed, destructive, and dismissive the opposition, launching attack after attack on one's personal credibility, their well-oiled obsessions with everlastingly increasing profits driving thousands of species to extinction, while continuing to recklessly contaminate inhabitable symbiotic environments.

Politics can achieve these ends if people continue to lobby politicians to produce effective change.

The Democrats may be in a bit of a tailspin, but they'll soon be back and ready to govern.

Gore points out how markets for wind and solar are rapidly expanding throughout the world and that some cities within the United States (Texas included) now meet all of their energy demands with renewable resources.

Not bad.

How does the old argument work?

Yes, if 99% of a group believes in something and 1% challenges this belief, it's the 1% who may see things more clearly.

This argument can be effective, and if Copernicus hadn't challenged religious viewpoints that the world was flat we may still be living in a much less imaginative globe.

But professional scientists are a highly independent well-educated group, and around 99% of them maintain climate change is real.

That's a high percentage for independent thinkers.

Getting highly independent well-educated people to agree about anything is next to impossible, yet here we have 99% of a highly independent well-educated group agreeing that climate change is real, and 1% of them possibly earning mad profits to spurn them.

Such challenges are highly suspect.

Getting sick from swimming in a river or walking to a store in extreme heat or having your town destroyed by a hurricane isn't.

As Gore points out, mass destructive weather events are increasing worldwide.

Climate change is real and alternative energy sources can produce mass wealth.

Adopting renewable energy sources to supply your municipality with power isn't a socialist plot, it's capitalism, plain and simple.

The title of the film is misleading.

Alternative energy sources couldn't be more relevant.

R/evolution

The evidence seems clear to me.

Even if the earth's oceans are acidifying at a slower pace than that suggested in Rob Stewart's documentary R/evolution, they're still acidifying at an alarming rate, the impacts of which, if ignored, could significantly threaten future generations, and are significantly threatening ours.

The impulse to receive immediate gratification theoretically drives a lot of decision making.

Some of these systemic problems require 400 as opposed to 5 year plans, however.

But if such plans are not universally agreed to, soon, as the vast majority of climate change scientists contend, polar bears aren't the only ones who'll be having trouble surviving the upcoming centuries.

Climate change scientists equal Copernicus.

Big business's voracious desire for continuously increasing profits, not just profits, they have to be continuously increasing, equals the religious pricks who killed Copernicus.

Thankfully there are currently millions of logical Copernicans who have evidence to clearly state their convincing case.

It's not a socialist plot, it's coherent global strategic planning.

Disastrously, influential global warming denying charlatans have deep pockets, well-financed lobbyists, and, perhaps, an obsession with tricking people into believing in nonsense like the rapture.

Taking on the coal industry isn't easy (don't know if the coal industry [or if anyone] has an obsession with tricking people into believing in nonsense like the rapture, but the coal industry and the tar sands are examined in R/evolution).

What happens to all the people it currently employs if coal is eliminated as a source of energy?

Well, if alternatives to coal can be integrated, why not set up industries to replace it in the effected towns and train the employees to work within them.

Everyone keeps their jobs and no one has to move.

R/evolution points out that if we change the way we do business by adopting environmentally friendly models, the resultant decrease in profits will be insignificant and the über-capitalists can continue to make massive profits, which makes this situation all the more exasperating since it's obvious that it's an ideological battle, one side willing to risk existence to prove that the untethered pursuit of wealth is the best possible socioeconomic matrix, the other, armed with close to unanimous erudite scientific evidence-based support, not fantastic castles in the sky, suggesting that a slight decrease in profits will save existence, labelled fools, extremists, and crackpots consequently, because they know God's not going to clean-up this mess.

Science has solutions to these problems.

If God exists, he or she could be counting on us to use science to take care of the planet.

If we can't take care of our planet, how can he or she expect us to manage our environments in the afterlife?

Canada's conservative government won't even let scientists discuss their research in public.

Thomas Mulcair risked everything when he quit Québec's Provincial Liberal Party because of a matter of environmental principle.

Frustrated with politics? Jaded? Unconcerned?

I bet he was too.

But he kept going, kept fighting, and found a New Democratic model.

Which works. Is working. And will continue to work.

For a more just society.

Yogi Bear

Jellystone Park is in dire straits. Wicked politician Mayor Brown (Andrew Daly) has decided that its trees must be harvested in order to raise enough capital to keep his bureaucracy functioning. He supports his decision through recourse to a bylaw which states that government supported organizations must earn enough money to cover their operating costs each year, and Jellystone is tens of thousands in the hole with less than three weeks to come up with the cash. Ranger Smith (Tom Cavanagh), documentary filmmaker Rachel (Anna Faris), Yogi (Dan Aykroyd) and Boo Boo (Justin Timberlake) are none to impressed and immediately launch a campaign to sustain their way of life. But subterfuge and treachery are afoot and due to the fact that they don't coordinate their fundraising efforts, Jellystone is threatened with annihilation.

Eric Brevig's Yogi Bear amusingly examines the dynamics of federal and provincial politics. As the right uses local laws to attempt to destroy a public resource, only a national regulation can be applied to thwart it. The left is divided and it isn't until they learn to collaborate that a successful counterattack is launched. The idea that government supported organizations must cover their operating costs is clearly embedded in the script, a fiscal challenge to the sacred cultural essence of parks such as Algonquin. Do logging companies want to cut down the trees and exploit the resources within these Parks? I'm sure some of them do. Do they have deep pockets and lobbyists who are consistently trying to find ways to break down the legal protections preventing them from doing so? Methinks it's most likely. Is it a good idea to promote a fiscally responsible environment wherein such parks cover their operating costs? Sounds like prudent planning to me. But should said parks be commercialized in order to achieve such goals at the expense of the endemic wildlife etc. whose proliferation reflects the purpose of such parks? Definitely not, and for a good example of the negative impact on protected wildlife within commercialized parks see The Grizzly Manifesto by Jeff Gailus. He's smarter than the average bear!

Furry Vengeance

Roger Kumble's Furry Vengeance is actually a lot more than an annoying comedy with poor bear representation and far to many repetitive scenes. It's also an attempt to indoctrinate children with an eco-friendly racist attitude regarding globalization (I suppose this is about as progressive as Republicans get). As the film unreels, real-estate developer Brendan Fraser (Dan Sanders) plans to turn a forest into a subdivision and cash-in both professionally and economically. But the forest's residents are aware of his ambitions and set out to annihilate them. As time passes, Fraser realizes that the animals are simply trying to protect their families in the same way that he is trying to protect his, and he consequently takes their side in the order of things. But his change of mind angers his Asian American boss who was trying to raise the related development capital from a group of East-Indian industrialists and all hell breaks loose at the annual town festival. And the reconstituted American champions the rights of his community and India and China are prevented from ruining the American landscape. Children should be spared the ways in which films like Furry Vengeance attempt to xenophobically and racistly indoctrinate them, and it's a shame trash like this received a widespread mainstream distribution.

Crude

An oil company moves into your jungle home, sets up shop for 26 years, leaves, and your environment's polluted to hell. You dig beneath the ground and instead of soil you find toxic sludge. Your iridescent drinking water stinks like petrol and tastes rancid. Cancer rates in your village are through the roof and you can't afford medical treatment. Your culture and associated way of life has been drastically destabilized by industrial runoff and you've been seeking financial retribution from a dismissive multinational for a seemingly endless period of time. Joe Berlinger's well-rounded documentary Crude provides an intricate examination of the infamous Amazon Chernobyl case, wherein 30,000 Indigenous inhabitants of Ecuador have taken Chevron to court. Berlinger presents viewpoints from both sides, the Chevron reps claiming they cleaned up their mess (to the tune of 40 million) and that PetroEcuador (the company who took over production in the 90s) is to blame. The Indigenous plaintiffs recognize PetroEcuador's crimes and have a separate lawsuit on the back burner quietly steeping. But for now it's Chevron on the hook, sued for 27 billion, trying to justify their position by blaming the sharp increase in cancer rates on poor sewage treatment, claiming there are acceptable levels of hydrocarbons in the water, and boasting that their environmental record is spic and span. If you ask me, based upon Berlinger's filmic evidence as well as the testimony of Steve Donziger, Pablo Fajardo, and several local residents, Chevron must think we're drinking volcanic glasses of idiot juice if we're to believe their side of the story. They definitely cleaned up something, and drawing the line where Chevron's guilt ends and PetroEcuador's begins is complicated to say the least. But these people are suffering, they weren't suffering before Chevron (or Texaco) showed up, and they're living and breathing the effects of Chevron's environmental degradation day in and day out, period. Hopefully the international attention surrounding the case will help speed up the legal process so that these people can be justly compensated for the scurrilous and foul way they've been treated.