portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

arts and culture | environment

Hollywood Global Warming Film Set To Turn Heat On Bush

May 28 sees the worldwide release of The Day After Tomorrow, the eco-armageddon story to beat all others. The studio behind the movie: 20th Century Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch. The director: Roland Emmerich; no Martin Sheen-style bleeding heart Democrat but the brawn behind Independence Day.
The Day After Tomorrow
The Day After Tomorrow
Hollywood disaster film set to turn heat on Bush

Movie depicting horrors of global warming could boost votes for Democrat challenger

Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Saturday March 13, 2004
The Guardian

Here's the pitch: a dullish candidate, outflanked by his opponent's serious money, attacked for his liberal leanings, is swept to an unlikely victory thanks to a blockbuster movie that focuses on the effects of big business and the agro-industrial complex.

Audiences throw their popcorn aside, pick up their ballot papers and realise that they too can make a difference. The studio behind the movie: 20th Century Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch. The director: Roland Emmerich; no Martin Sheen-style bleeding heart Democrat but the brawn behind Independence Day.

It sounds unlikely, but this summer might just see an alliance of commerce, populist entertainment and feel-good concern combine to weaken President George Bush and hand votes to his expected Democrat rival John Kerry.

On the other hand, the film could tank, like one of its director's other monster-budget summer openings, Godzilla.

May 28 sees the worldwide release of The Day After Tomorrow, the eco-armageddon story to beat all others.

The first trailers for the film, released on the internet last week, give a taste of the scale of the eco-horrors to come. Filmed in a combination of slick computer generated special effects and faux newscast verité, tidal waves sweep across cities and snow piles halfway up the towers of Manhattan as disjointed voices articulate the chaos around them.

"What you are seeing is happening now," says a breathless newsreader. "Look over behind me," shouts a TV reporter, "that's a tornado, yes, a twister." The film cuts to a volcano erupting next to the Hollywood sign in Los Angeles. A huge flock of birds flies across the sky, a mass of people is seen crossing the Rio Grande between Mexico and the United States.

Filmed with a budget of more than $100m (£55.6m) and special effects said to be the greatest thing since, well, since the last big budget movie, the film has one other difference from other Hollywood blockbusters: it has a conscience.

"At some point during the filming we looked around at all the lights, generators and trucks and we realised the very process of making this picture is contributing to the problem of global warming," the director and producers say in a statement on the film's official website. "We couldn't avoid putting CO2 into the atmosphere during the shoot, but we discovered we could do something to make up for it; we could make the film carbonneutral." By planting trees they will take out the CO2 the production put in.

The film's website includes a lengthy list of internet links to organisations that have researched the effects of global warming. During filming last year, Emmerich described the film as "a popcorn movie that's actually a little subversive".

Whether this is the typical hype that surrounds a Hollywood blockbuster or the heartfelt statement of a tortured artist does not really matter. What seems certain is that the film will help to propel global warming and the environment high up the political agenda.

President Bush is known to be sceptical about the possibility of global warming, while the environment is a traditional strong card for the Democrats. With issues such as oil drilling rights in Alaska playing strongly among some voters, the president's opponents have regularly attacked him for the favouritism he is perceived to have shown to the fossil fuel giants that dominate the US economy.

Unrest

The Pentagon even got in on the act, releasing a study last month that suggested that one outcome of global warming could be the rise of mass civil unrest. In one scenario, drought, famine and rioting erupt across the world, spurred on by climate change. As countries face dwindling food supplies and scarce natural resources, conflict becomes the norm.

"Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life," says the Pentagon study. "Once again, warfare would define human life."

"The climate is going to play a significant role in the campaign," said Luke Breit, chairman of the Democrat's environmental caucus in California, where the environment is traditionally a key political issue. "John Kerry is mentioning clean air and water at every opportunity. It's going to be on the first tier of issues. Our job is to make clear how anti-environment the government has been."

But while it can be fortuitous for an event such as a mass appeal movie to come along and propel an issue to the forefront of voters' consciousness, there are also pitfalls. "The danger is it could make it look more trivial," said Mr Breit. "My guess is that people in the environmental leadership around the country are holding their breath. I'm hoping that it's going to be very good and that we have great entertainment value but that at the same time it treats the science seriously."

One US environmental pressure group has already enlisted the help of one of the film's stars, Jake Gyllenhaal, to help promote its agenda while promoting the film.

The Day After Tomorrow's advance publicity suggests a typical Hollywood mix of fact, fantasy and hype: fake weather reports and testimonies from fans about where they would like to be the day the world dies are mixed with earnest exhortations to help avert global warming.

And Hollywood has been here before. The Perfect Storm, Armageddon and Twister all combined Hollywood's love of little people battling insurmountable natural - and unnatural - powers while giving great special effects.

"In Independence Day Roland Emmerich brought you the near destruction of the earth by aliens," says the website. "Now, in The Day After Tomorrow, the enemy is an even more devastating force: nature itself." It'll have them voting in the aisles.

homepage: homepage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1168456,00.html
address: address: The Guardian

We Need Carbon Taxes! 14.Mar.2004 08:30

Eco-nomix

These are Kerry's major positions and deadlines to reduce global warming:
Creation of hydrogen based energy economy throughout nation by 2020.
Assure that 20 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020.
CAFE standards=36 miles per gallon by 2015.

But John Kerry won't sign the Kyoto Protocol because he says that Bush did too much to make it feasible now.
Scientists and the insurance industry (in Europe at least) have
said the Kyoto Protocol is useless. They all agree we need 50-70% reduction in fossil fuel burning, to start now and be accomplished by no later than 2030.

We need costs to reflect their global warming costs. I don't think Kerry's plans will reduce greenhouse gases enough. And we need to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. That is not mentioned in his plans either. We just might need Bush to drag the economy down further to reduce the greenhouse gases that way if no one is going to do what it takes to reduce it from the major catatrophe levels. I'm not saying that its gonna create an ice age or what the Pentagon said because those are unlikely scenarios, but even without that, this is a major problem that could mean life and death for millions if it is not stopped.

Whaaaa? 14.Mar.2004 10:19

Huh?

OK I totally don't get this.RUPERT MURDOCH of Fox "News"?HE wants to make a pro-environment,anti-bush movie?Since when did he change his mind about Bush?Has Fox stopped kissing George's ass suddenly?This just makes no sense to me. Please,somebody explain it to me.

dubious... 14.Mar.2004 11:42

this thing here

>The first trailers for the film, released on the internet last week, give a taste of the scale of the eco-horrors to come. Filmed in a combination of slick computer generated special effects and faux newscast verité, tidal waves sweep across cities and snow piles halfway up the towers of Manhattan as disjointed voices articulate the chaos around them.

"What you are seeing is happening now," says a breathless newsreader. "Look over behind me," shouts a TV reporter, "that's a tornado, yes, a twister." The film cuts to a volcano erupting next to the Hollywood sign in Los Angeles. A huge flock of birds flies across the sky, a mass of people is seen crossing the Rio Grande between Mexico and the United States.<

i find this to be stupid hollywood bullshit. volcanoes? volcanoes? how the fuck do rising global temperatures lead to tectonic plate shifting and volcanoes?

to date, in my opinion, the most accurate portrayal of catastrophic climate change came at the end of spielberg's/kubrick's "AI". early in the film, we see that new york city is underwater. this might actually happen. and then, at the end, after thousands of years have gone by (an accurate time scale i might ad), we see new york city buried under an ice age. this in my opinion is a realistic portryal of what will happen.

but tidal waves and volcanoes and new york buried under snow, all happening "suddenly" at the same time while "breathless" newscasters can describe it, is complete bullshit. particularly the image of new york buried under snow. sorry folks, but when that happens, it's going to take a long long long long time. i really don't think some newscaster is going to sit in the studio for hundreds or thousands of years describing new york city getting buried under an advancing ice age. volcanoes? please. doesn't have SHIT to do with global warming. tornadoes? can already see them with your very own eyes! WOW!

i worry that this film, by portraying events in a completely unscientific way, will turn concern about global climate change into some kind of a joke. "climate change? ha! did you see that stupid movie about it? that'll never happen. it's just a movie..." and perhap's that's why mr. murdoch's studio is undertaking this project. when they get their paws on something, they fuck it up by taking all the earnestness and accuracy out of it...

re: dubious 14.Mar.2004 13:04

that thing there

300 years ago: "Round? what do you mean the world is ROUND? How the fuck can the world be round if it looks so flat?"

Today: "Volcanoes? How the fuck do rising global temperatures lead to...volcanoes?"


14,000 years ago there was a dramatic pole shift that took place. Surprisingly, when the equator is suddenly horizontal, it causes abrupt climate changes, earthquakes and yes, even - OH MY GOD - volcanoes!!!!

For example, there have been questions surrounding the cause of the quick-freezing of mammoths, whose remains have been periodically found in Alaska and Siberia, often with still undigested food in their mouths and stomachs.

And recently, the discovery of quick-frozen plants embedded in glaciers in Peru has revealed the fact that very extreme weather changes to take place on this earth, and result in long-term effects. For example, plants that froze in the Peruvian Andes in a matter of minutes ten thousand years ago are only just now being disgorged by glaciers. In other words, plants that were living in a moderate climate were plunged, over what appears to have been the course of just a few hours or even minutes, into extreme cold that held them in its grip for ten thousand years.

click around a little, there's a lot more where that came from

umm... 14.Mar.2004 14:16

this thing here

yeah, i have heard of the poles shifting. that too is a real, actual problem, which scientists and geologists have conclusively documented. they do this by studying when the a rock was formed, and where it's magentic particles point towards. when rocks form, they encapsulate and crystalize any magentic particles. and the magentic particles point towards where ever the pole is at the time the rock formed. rocks of a certian age have particles pointing one way, others of another age have particles pointing a different direction. magnetic poles of the earth do shift around, approximately every hundred of thousands of years. in fact, we're due. just we're due for an ice age...

but guess what problem pole shifting leads to? volcanoes? nope. it leads to a weakening magentic shield around the earth. what does a weakening magentic shield lead to? volcanoes? no. it leads to large increases in solar radiation penetrating the earth's atmosphere. this may have dire consequences on life that has adapted to being protected from a solar radiation bombardment.

yes, ice ages do happen rapidly. they can get rolling in a matter of a few hundred years. perhaps even during the lifetime of a human being, 80-100 years, the beginning of a full fledged ice age could be witnessed. this, on the time scale of the earth, which has been around for 4 billion years, is faster than instantaneous.

but the notion that, suddenly one monday morning, an ice age will just, "poof", appear in a matter of hours, is total bullshit. all of sudden, advancing glaciers appear instantly, a snow pack of thousands of feet suddenly comes from out of nowhere while people are reading the morning paper. c'mon, give me a freakin' break! glaciers don't appear in a matter of hours. all the glaciers that covered canada and most of america down to iowa during the last age did NOT appear in a matter of hours.

and about your suddenly frozen plants. ever been in a snow squall? sunny one minute, roaring wind, plunging temps, and heavy snow the next minute. hell, YOU would freeze pretty quickly in one if you weren't prepared. and if you were buried in an avalanche during this snow squall, there's every reason to think that your body wouldn't be found for tens of thousands of years. but to say that some plants were found suddenly frozen means entire ice ages happen in a matter of hours, and not years and centuries, is bollocks. and how can you claim that an entire ice age froze the plants and not a severe, sudden snow storm?

What about planet X? 14.Mar.2004 17:25

does anybody know anything about this?

Could it just be that this huge Planet X discovered sometime in the 80's is on its way?
Does any starwatcher or astronomer know anything about the sudden silence on this one? If...(just IF...) the hush on this planet means that the small elite that governs the planet knows that this planet X can cause the cataclysmic changes just as it supposedly did some three thousand years ago this would explain many things : the sudden climate change... the grass suddenly frozen... and also it would explain the disregard for international law on the part of the US. The ruling elite would go for all it could grab now (for tomorrow we all may die) ... What about the money unaccounted for at the Pentagon? Could it be going to build underground shelters for the elite...the top army brass...????
Or was this discovery just another hoax and scare tactic?