Environmental Politics: It's All in the Verbiage

When Al Gore first spoke out on behalf of global warming do to greenhouse gases which largely is a result of urbanization he was ridiculed. The information Gore presented in his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was viewed as a mix between conspiracy theory and a wasted rental fee. The critics blasted him by saying irrelevant comments like;

NEW YORK— The Al Gore-produced global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth is being panned by critics nationwide who claim the 90-plus minute environmental film is "too disturbingly realistic and well-researched to enjoy." "I found it difficult to suspend my disbelief in man-made climate change for the first half-hour—and utterly impossible after that—which makes for a movie-going experience that's far more educational than it is enjoyable," said New York Post film critic Skip Hack. "Gore's film overwhelms viewers with staggering amounts of scientific information until nothing about global warming is left to the imagination, and that's just not good entertainment. Two stars." Some critics have called the film's claims that sea levels could rise 20 feet somewhat sensationalistic, although most agree that this is not enough to save the film from being unwatchably factual.

The research and the potential ugly truth to his documentary was reduced to nothing more than an unsatisfactory movie experience. Due to Al's blemished social and political status after the election the environmental issue he was trying to expose took a non-existent backseat, and when it was acknowledged it became a ridiculed piece up for debate.

While in 2000 this debate created extreme controversy and sidetracked the intention of the documentary to images like the above cartoon. Now in 2012 there is a visible attempt to create awareness around polar bears and their disappearing homes they have made on glacial ice barriers. How is it that their homes are disappearing?...they ice sheets are melting due to polar warming. Is Gore right and is urbanization to blame with greenhouse gases, I'm not entirely sure I am qualified to say, but the National Wildlife Federation is on board with Gore claiming a trend of global warming. What the comparison of these two scenarios gives us is a highly problematic situation where politics destroys and creates images for political rallying points. It is obvious that the National Wildlife Federation isn't receiving the brutal ridiculing remarks that Gore did, nor is anyone laughing at images of polar bears stranded on floating ice sheets stranding them in freezing ocean waters. I imagine that it would be hard to maintain a likable political facade if you were opening expressing a lack of concern or care for this majestic animals existence.

The problem is that politicians work in coalition with the media, and issues of the enviornment are tools. These tools can destroy another political candidates image and make a mockery of them or in the case of polar bears it is an opportunity to be viewed as a humanitarian regardless of their legitimate feelings or action. When educated leaders of our country express opinions on topics there tends to be a bandwagon affect regardless of the public's initial perspective, and therefore environmental decisions are made by the people strategically creating its image.

-Jordan (I have no opinion about Gore it was just a great example of a scenario where politicians chose to tarnish the reputation of one of their own with environmental exposure)