Gore and "Free" Trade

From Joel Kovel's critique of Al Gore:
Gore did nothing to stand against the ruinous trade agreements, such as NAFTA, and the emergence of the WTO. Very modest efforts to improve fuel economy for American cars were shot down by the oil industry without a peep from the White House.

Gore and Garbage

Gore doesn't adequately address the issue of solid waste.
Joel Kovel in a critique of An Inconvenient Truth.

A word about solid waste. There is no doubt that the crisis would be worse if we did nothing about garbage, just as it would be worse if lead were still in gasoline. But the crisis already factors in these palliations, which set certain rates of ecosystem decay, slowing it to the extent we now see without altering the dynamics an iota. In the case of waste management, the large corporations who run the show provide another source of accumulation, exploitation of labour, criminality, and concentration--and another kind of industrial setting, the recycling plant.

Gore Works Within the System

Incinerator in Ohio which local environmentalists are trying to close.

From Joel Kovel's critique of An inconvenient Truth:
Working within the system. The "system" here means various arms of the state, including regulatory agencies and the judiciary, as well as the extensive and varied set of established non-governmental organizations, and elements of capital itself. Obviously, it is a life's work to keep track of so large and complicated an apparatus, and we can do no more than set forth certain underlying principles in discussing it here.

It is unnecessary to detail once more how corporations and politicians are in bed with each other, and just how inadequately the state takes care of ecosystems. But these facts say nothing about whether or not it is desirable to work within them to make a change. After all, everything in capitalist society is conditioned by capital, from the EPA to the raising of children and the writing of this book. Similarly, degrees of resistance to capital can be found in the strangest places. While it is a safe bet to conclude that the legal system is stacked to benefit the rich and powerful, it is not true that the Law is reducible to economic interest, nor that it is impossible to secure real gains through the courts. By the same reasoning, corporate executives and other personifications of capital are only relatively consumed by it. In each of them, therefore, there may be glimmers of conscience, or if not that, at least common sense.

Gore's Technological Determinism

From Joel Kovel's critique of Al Gore's thesis:

....An Inconvenient Truth fails to mention the word, capitalism, that it oozes with technological determinism, does not take into sufficient account the global South, never questions the industrial model, promises that his approach will generate a lot of wealth, and offers no real way out beyond voting the proper people, ie, people like himself, into office. Thus neither capital, nor the capitalist state, is at all questioned, nor is any authentic democratisation offered. Salvation for the troubled bourgeois masses will come through choosing the best representatives among liberal politicians and technocrats, then letting them guide the people to the ecological Promised Land.

Gore and Volunteerism

This is a demonstration against the Clinton-Gore proposal for an incinerator in Ohio.

From Joel Kovel's critique of Al Gore in "A Really Inconvenient Truth"

While there is nothing wrong with any ecologically voluntarist act so long as it is done with a good heart and a mind toward restoring the earth, there is nothing inherent to it, either, that leads anywhere. Moral exhortations may feel as though they generate larger purposes, but this is an illusion. There is no solidarity inherent to the moral impulse; and unless that which makes for solidarity is added, voluntarism will stop at its own border.

Gore's Illusion

From the critique of Gore by Joel Kovel:
It is certainly the case that all measures of increasing the renewability and efficiency, and decreasing the pollution of energy sources--that is, all "soft-energy paths"--are to be endorsed, and for the same reason one endorses recycling. What cannot be supported is the illusion that these measures of themselves can do more than retard the slide toward ecocatastrophe under conditions of capitalist growth--a fall that may become precipitous once fossil fuels become uneconomical to extract, or the greenhouse effect becomes too catastrophic. Only a basic change in patterns of production and use can allow ecologically appropriate technologies to have their beneficial effect.

Gore Reduced by 30%

The Justice Department under Clinton/Gore reduced by some 30% effective prosecution of environmental crime compared to that of the first Bush administration. And Dr Sidney Wolfe, perhaps the most knowledgeable individual on the subject, reported that the FDA and OSHA, chief watchdogs protecting the health of the American citizenry, sank under Clinton to the lowest level of morale and competency that he had witnessed in his 29 years of studying these agencies.

Gore took charge of environmental policy

From Joel Kovel's critique of Al Gore:
As Vice-President, Gore took charge of environmental policy and for all the fluffy rhetoric, was spineless when it came to standing up to big business. His tenure in office, a time of resurgent economic expansion, witnessed the highest rates of growth of CO2 emissions in history. He did nothing to stand against the ruinous trade agreements, such as NAFTA, and the emergence of the WTO. Very modest efforts to improve fuel economy for American cars were shot down by the oil industry without a peep from the White House.

Gore has never ceased

For throughout this whole process of awakening and evangelism Gore has never ceased carrying water for global capital. As valuable as his advocacy of serious change to combat global warming undoubtedly is, by setting the logic of that change within the dominant system Gore commits an error of literally fatal proportions.

Gore has gone as far as anyone in the system

Joel Kovel wrote:
Gore has gone as far as anyone in the system to challenge its ecological implications. He is the first—and still the only—instance of a kind of ecocentrism breaking into the consciousness of an official in capital’s stronghold. For whatever reasons—he himself emphasizes the shock of his sister’s death from lung cancer induced by the consumption of tobacco, a crop from which his family had grown wealthy—Gore became sensitized to the large-scale environmental effects of the economic system. He began to see these in ecological terms, and to focus on the overarching menace of global warming.

He bashed Gore tastefully

I thought for the most part that the film was actually very good. I enjoyed the in depth analysis of Al Gore's movie and the way that Joel Kovel explained his many ideas. It was excellent the way that he bashed Gore tastefully. Although Kovel was agreeing with Gore to some extent it was great to see how he showed the increase in CO2 emissions and how it directly correlated to the years that Gore was in office. I could not believe that Al Gore was the head of environmental regulations and he did nothing when he had power.

Gore Left Out Some Things

Cambiz Khosravi shooting the film with Joel Kovel.

Comment from student on the film, A REALLY Inconvenient Truth:
It seems that Al Gore made his movie just to make people aware of global warming as a major problem, but didn’t explain what caused it, why it wasn’t stopped, and a realistic solution to the problem.

Volunteerism vs Radical Change

Ken Krayeske commented:
My affinity for veggies and velos are “voluntarism,” according to Joel Kovel, in his 2002 book “The Enemy of Nature.” These actions, “arise from good intention,” he says, and are “taken primarily on moral or aesthetic grounds.” But, “Such actions, lists of which can be found in mass-marketed literature of the ‘xx things you can do to save the planet’ type, stand as much chance of overcoming the ecological crisis as handing out spare change on the subway does of overcoming poverty.”

What ecological crisis? The one spurred by capitalism’s never satiated desire for growth. Hartford’s brownfields, high asthma rate and landfills play minor roles in capital’s global tragedy.

Kovel argues not only the standard Marxist grounds that capital separates us from our labor, as we see in Hartford’s miserable poverty. But capitalism is the efficient cause of global warming and the destruction of the world.

Bluntly, it’s either capitalism or us, Kovel says

Gore's Morality

Comments from a student on A REALLY Inconvenient Truth:
What exactly is Gore's morality based upon? God? Mom? Apple pie? Baseball? .....You introduced the movie as a companion, an addendum to 'An Inconvient Truth' and that is great. This movie has the potential to lead one from moderate individual action to radical social change.However, I feel like it came off a good deal harsher than that. The point by point break down left it feeling more like a slam piece...Having said all this, great work so far. I really enjoyed the film and I have sent the trailer to a few friends who are big Convenient Truth fans already. Cheers!

Gore Can Help

Joel Kovel, whose comments form the basis of the film, A Really Inconvenient Truth.

Comment on the film A REALLY Inconvenient Truth from student at SUNY, Purchase:

How does one continue to exist in a system that one knows is wrong and is harming them and everyone around them? Certainly one must continue to strive to agitate, to work against this mechanism but as one does this, one must keep in mind that their actions no matter how small still matter. This is maybe where Gore can help to some degree and this is why I dont think a complete and total write off of Gore is a good idea (Gore is still an asshole). Gore stresses individual action however filthily moderate his ideas are. Gore makes a step but is afraid to take the leap. However, if these individual actions are connected to a overarching critical view of where the problems are indeed coming from, one can begin to make enormous progress toward ending capitalism in the longer term without ignoring personal responsibility for the environment in the short term.

What Gore Leaves Out

Gore's Band-aids

Comments from a student at SUNY Purchase:
I thought the concept of the movie (A REALLY Inconvenient Truth) was great. I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" with a bunch of friends over the summer and struggled to explain to them why the solutions Gore gives are no more than band-aids. Environmental issues are political issues, are social issues, are economic issues and Gore simply fails to address this by putting up a facade of 'going green' as a moral imperative. That is a really interesting assumption that opens a lot of doors of discussion. Is the continued survival of the human race (which is really what Gore is talking about more than the survival of the planet) a moral imperative then? What exactly is Gore's morality based upon? God? Mom? Apple pie? Baseball?

Gore Gave a Lot of Facts

Willow, New York

Comment from student after viewing A REALLY Inconvenient Truth:
I thought the movie was informative and communicated its ideas. It made me realize how Gore was capitalizing, basically, off of making this movie. One of the central ideas to this movie is how Gore gave a lot of facts about global-warming and displayed the problem like it was societies faults; when in fact the ‘system’ and institutions that make up society should be looked at how they contribute to the problem. The dispersed car commercials were an interesting touch because they were really invasive and obnoxious, and we are bombarded with them when watching television. Having it set up like a debate made it easy to follow the points that were being put-forth. I am anxious to see what the movie suggests we do to make a difference. It was very informative and gave a different and mind-opening perspective on the world-and America’s destructive capitalistic traits.

Gore is Disappointed

Snow on Mount Tremper, Willow, NY

This is a comment made by a student about a new film, A REALLY Inconvenient Truth, which looks at Global Warming as a problem of capitalist production.

I enjoyed " A Really Inconvenient Truth" very much. It manages to give a critical evaluation of another critical evaluation. It reminds us that we should take every opinion with a grain of salt because even an opinion that seems to be somewhat revolutionary can be driven by Capitalist motives.
My one critique of the views presented on the movie is that Al Gore is not anti-Capitalism and i don't think he ever claims to be. He instead seems to be simply disappointed with the Capitalist decision to value money OVER the well being of our planet.
Still, I agree with the fact that if he wanted to make a real difference he would have done more about the issue during his term in office

Gore's Mission to Heal the World

Cambiz Khosravi, director of A REALLY Inconvenient Truth films Joel Kovel in Willow, New York.

Student comment about the film which critique's Gore's position. It's hard enough to get people to sit down and watch a movie about global warming (which directly affects them), let alone a movie trying to explain the real motives behind it. I feel as though the power of his message will be pending on the person who watches it, and how much they are truly willing to believe that things aren't really as they seem (alienation, etc etc.) I personally loved the film, but I hate to trust (rich,white) people, so exploiting An Inconvenient Truth for what it really is, business propaganda (??) rather than Gore's mission to heal the world, is exactly what I wanted to see after hearing him speak for 90 minutes. Fight the Power

Critique of Gore

Joel Kovel on Eco-Socialism

Raw Cinematography

Comment from student:
I found the film to be informative and interesting. I liked the rawness of cinematography when the camera wasn't completely still during certain interviews. It added to the character of the film. The one thing I didn't like was that it seemed to be more of a bashing against Al Gore with little information of how the problem can be solved. Although maybe the solution comes at the end of the film. I agreed with another girl's comment in class about how the comparing of the two movies seems almost irrelevant as they seem to be talking about two different things, Granted the two are similar problems but I feel its more cause and effect against the reason why.
All in all I found it to be a good film and am very interested to see some of the solutions to this problem.

Defamation of Celebrity Politicians

First and for most, I fully support the metaphor of capitalism as cancer, capcerism as it were. Also I enjoy defamation of celebrity politicians. But as an attempt to incite any kind of anti capitalist ideation, or spark any change in lifestyle the movie fails entirely. First off, the screenwipes and showing of too many images on the screen at once doesn't help convey a message, it makes the movie less enjoyable to watch. Secondly, having been to Bard campus, met Bard students, and knowing that Bard tuition costs over thirty thousand a year, I find hearing from Bard students about the cancerous evil of capitalism to be just as hypocritical as Al Gore making a movie about global warming. Thirdly, and this is the most important criticism I have, a failed politician, especially one that failed to inspire the green party of all people and lost to RALPH NADER, especially one who is an ugly old man WILL NOT inspire ANYONE at all to try to change the system, that man couldn't keep the kid's of today away from thiner PSPs and Iphones for more than a minute, let alone keep them in a movie theater for the length of the documentary. So in summation, while the message is accurate, and one that needs to be spread, this film's attempt to distribute it is in my mind unquestionably doomed to complete failure. if you want to catch the attention of todays capitalist youth, you will need to use the same tactics as their bourgeoisie overlords, entice them to your cause with sexual imagery, threaten them with their inevitable anialation, do something, anything to trigger a greater emotional response. The crying fat kid in front of the super dome after Katrina, and the teddy bear insurance company were a good start, but if this film is going to compete of a free market for a share of viewer ship, it will need at least one big explosion, and a whole lot more material designed to satisfy the viewers collective id.
I wish the makers of the film the best of luck in spreading their message, and hope my advice is taken seriously.

Strapped Financial Situation

It is commendable that (Gore) is doing something now but he is not giving answers, he is just giving a platform from which capitalism can grow and flourish. I am excited to get to watch the end of this film and see what happens. I really enjoyed A Really Inconvenient Truth and thought that it was done much better than An Inconvenient Truth, especially with what im sure was a much more strapped financial situation. great job with the movie and i hope to see more movies like this in the future.

Gore Did NOTHING When He Had Power

Photo of Joel Kovel, whose critique of Gore is the basis for A Really Inconvenient Truth.

Comment from student:
I thought for the most part that the film was actually very good. I enjoyed the in depth analysis of Al Gore's movie and the way that Joel Kovel explained his many ideas. It was excellent the way that he bashed Gore tastefully. Although Kovel was agreeing with Gore to some extent it was great to see how he showed the increase in CO2 emissions and how it directly correlated to the years that Gore was in office. I could not believe that Al Gore was the head of environmental regulations and he did nothing when he had power.

The World Has Cancer

Comment from student after viewing Joel Kovel in the video A Really Inconvenient Truth:
I remember the speaker was talking about how the world in a sense has a cancer and that we need to get rid of it in some way and not just go home and do little things. But i wonder if really, in a sense, humans Are the cancer, and if we are indeed getting rid of cancer, are we not really getting rid of ourselves? He explains that the growth of capital is the death of nature but nature lives and dies and eventually all things have to die, humans are just advancing it and capital is probably not the only reason for nature dying.

Gore's Disconnect

A comment from SUNY Purchase:
An Inconvenient Truth presents scientific concepts and evidence about global warming in a really clear and entertaining way. I do commend Al Gore and his crew on their efforts. That aside, I see a profound disconnect between Gore's analysis of the global warming issue and the political program that he advocates for dealing with it. First he speaks of the severity of the situation, the 'magnitude of the crisis', but he then suggests that the problem of global warming could be solved fairly easily by producing (and using) more energy-efficient cars or by individuals turning down thermostats and shutting off lights.

I think it should be clear that Gore himself is representative of the capitalist and imperialist class in the US and can only approach global warming with the perspective he holds. There may be a question of whether Gore really cares about global warming or is using the issue for political purposes. My point, and I think your's, as evident in A Really Inconvenient Truth, is that Gore's class position and perspective blind him from being able to assess the real causes and solutions to the global warming crisis.

I commend you on your efforts in properly addressing the issue. Gore's analysis suggests three issues, rapid population growth, increased technology, and not thinking about the environment as root causes of the crisis. While important, I agree with you that they are not key; global warming and the destruction of the environment is rooted in a global system of capitalism, where production is determined not by social needs or environmental sustainability but by profitability and where a few countries dominate the global economy.

NOTE: Gore mentions that nearly 30% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year is the result of burning brushland for subsistence agriculture and wood fires for cooking. I don't think he mentions, though, that the burning of forests is not being done by 'peasants' in the third world without reason. I believe it's occurring because perhaps globalization is forcing people off of lands where their families have farmed for quite some time – and in order to survive, people are driven by necessity to burn down forests for farmland. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.

An Inconvenient Truth was a success in increasing awareness of a pressing issue, but the proposed solutions are unsuitable. If your target audience is receptive to the message of your film we may eventually have some sort of major organized effort.

I'm not sure of what Marx was saying the following in regards to, or if it is really inline with your film, but maybe you can throw it in somewhere. It is from Capital. "From the standpoint of higher economic forms of society [socialism and communism], private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the globe. They are only its possessors…they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition."

I found the following to sum up my thoughts aptly. "While we need to fight every possible battle to force companies and especially governments to implement measures that can make a big difference, nothing short of making revolution in every country when the opportunity arises and overthrowing the global imperialist system can fully unleash the powers of humanity to face this problem. The magnitude of global warming crosses all geographic, national, cultural and social boundaries, and the solution lies in a radical political and social rupture…". I think your film has great potential. I'm sure it will be well received. ---M.I. SUNY Purchase

Welcome to A Really Inconvenient Truth

We encourage you to critically engage with the issues raised by A Really Inconvenient Truth and the comments made by other visitors to this site.