In 2006 a controversial documentary about climate change caught the world’s attention. An Inconvenient Truth follows Al Gore as he campaigns to raise awareness about man-made global warming. Backed with scientific evidence, the documentary explores the destructive effects of climate change and the steps we can take to reduce them.
While at the time many viewed the documentary as radical, today its predictions about global warming are becoming a reality. For example, Gore predicted that human activity would lead to rising sea levels, storm surges, and the flooding of coastal cities. One of the film’s most controversial scenes even predicts the flooding of the 9/11 memorial site, which was believed to be a “terrible exaggeration”. Just six years later this prediction actually happened, proving that the science behind climate change is credible.
With all of the evidence surrounding man-made global warming, you would think that Americans would finally understand that it’s more than a hoax. Alas, it’s not quite so simple. According to a 2016 survey, only 48% of Americans believe that global warming is caused by human activity. The statistics surrounding scientific studies are even more shocking – only 19% of American adults believe that climate scientists know the best ways to address the issue.
Today, the world needs to be informed more than ever. Lucky for us, the hero we need (but definitely don’t deserve) is trying to spread both hope and understanding with a highly anticipated sequel. Set to come out on July 28th, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel will explore the changes that have happened since the release of An Inconvenient Truth. The documentary will mainly focus on the natural disasters that have occurred as a result of global warming, and their impact on various communities. Gore will also explore the correlation between climate change and American politics, delving into the Paris Agreement and Donald Drumpf’s policies. In the trailer, Gore explains that the need for action is pressing: “The next generation would be justified in looking back at us and asking ‘What were you thinking? Couldn’t you hear what the scientists were saying?’ ”
Couldn’t you hear what the scientists were saying?