Political Science

The An Inconvenient Truth (Guggenheim, 2006) film by the former U.S vice president Al Gore received a lot of support and criticism various from people, organizations, and governments. However, the film was a revelation to the public with regards to the disaster facing them because of environmental pollution. There was a feeling that the film was biased since it only showed humans as the main contributors to environmental pollution. As the effects of global warming become evident, everyone is realizing the possible disaster at hand. The problem is the balance between development and environmental conservation, which is the main issue that should be addressed.  Basing from the movie created by Al Gore, it is evident that the issue at hand is with regards to the climate change which is resulting to massive changes in the environment, climate, and natural resource. Through the continuous development of different nations, it is the environment that is being abused and sacrificed in order to compensate the needs of different entities such as the business community and food industries and the likes. Hence, due to the continuous use of the environment, growth of different industries as well as the demand of the people it has become inevitable for humans to experience climate change.

The An Inconvenient Truth by Gore is a film aimed at educating the public on the severe impacts of global warming. The film is more of a personal story of how Gores life has been negatively impacted by global warming by bringing out personal experiences in his life. These ranges from his sisters death from cancer to a fatal car crash involving his brother. Interestingly, the film brings out a strange point of evaluation by explaining why earth is the only inhabitable planet compared to other planets. At the end of the film, one is left thinking of the things life encounters that are usually ignored such as devastating effect of the waste and pollution done by humanity and the supposed impact it has on the environment.

Discussion
Do you believe An Inconvenient Truth is exaggerated or erroneous representing the global interests of one country versus another Or perhaps the political interests of one country versus another
The An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore (Guggenheim, 2006) though giving a warning of the disaster facing the continent is somehow exaggerated. The conclusion taken by Gore in the film is somehow biased and subjective.  As mentioned by Professor Clark (2007), Warmer periods of the Earths history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels (Wheldon, 2007). This means that rising carbon dioxide levels follow a rise in average temperatures globally. Mr. Gore assertion is that rise in carbon dioxide levels is followed by a high rise in temperatures. On the other hand Mr. Gore researched on ice samples derived from Antarctica and concluded that the rise in carbon dioxide levels is the cause of high-rise in temperatures. The conclusion that humans are the only ones responsible for the global warming is thus not objective and it vilifies humans (Guggenheim, 2006).

Gore at the end of the film stresses the countries responsible for the global warming impact by stating all the cities, which follow the Kyoto protocol regulations. In addition, he stresses that U.S and Australia are the only parties outside the protocol. There is no effort to give credit for the measures taken by the U.S government in reducing pollution. Some of which are programs which are often for the protection of different natural resources such as forests, rivers, seas and the likes. Moreover, the Clean Air Act of 1990 became stronger than ever. Furthermore, the United States had greatly and strongly implemented to reduce the pollution which is being emitted in the atmosphere. Through the Clean Air Act of 1990 the government is able to monitor different activities of different entities which highly contribute to pollution in different parts of the countries. Therefore the film is more a political tool against the regime in the U.S to discredit it or to show the insensitivity of the regime towards environmental issues (United States Environment Protection Agency, 2008).

Do you believe that government and industry leaders are being honest with its citizens when they make statements about the amount of pollution their industry or country creates

The government and industries are not giving the public the real picture about the actual effect of the emissions. There is a game of passing the blame of global warming from one country to the other instead of giving the facts. An example is the U.S explanation on the rejection of Kyoto protocol. The U.S -Milan consulate when taken to task on the issue of pollution said, We also did not sign because the convention excluded the industrializing nations of the third world  India, China, and Brazil being the best-known exclusions (Bustamante, 2007). The U.S government instead of tackling the real issues on pollution and its implication taking into account their role in global warming they passed the buck to the developing countries and hence refused to sign the protocol. The consulate further asserted that U.S government was the leading nation in constituting the Kyoto meeting on environment as a way of showing the countrys concern towards environment. In addition Bustamante stated that, We estimate that, in order to meet Kyoto greenhouse gas goals, we would have had to cut our energy economy by one-third, costing us an average of 400 billion annually and involving the loss of 4.9 million jobs (2007).

This is the explanation given about reducing the intended emissions by the U.S government. It is becoming difficult and complex to establish who the main culprits in global pollution are because the developed nations do not want to take the full blame and the developing nations still are not committed. Industries still do not want to commit themselves although they are the principal root cause of the global warming problem. It would be difficult for people to get facts.

It appears global warming is clearly an international problem. Should an organization such as the United Nations address this worldwide issue to make sure all nations adhere to standardized pollution regulations

The united Nation has put up some measures to be adopted globally to reduce environmental pollution. The UN body advocates for Cleaner Production (C.P) in industries for all countries. According to U.N, cleaner production is defined as the continuous application of an integrated prevention strategy to processes, products, and services to increase the efficiencies and reduce risks to environment and humans (Elwan, Ahmad  Hamed, 2010, p. 419). The UN advocates for the improvement of sustainable development to cleaner production in reducing pollution for all countries. In sustainable development policy of 1987, countries were required to adopt a balance between production and environmental pollution. The clean production is a mechanism, of achieving more production and development at lower pollution levels. United Nations bodies on environmental protection have really shown their commitment but it will take more than the United Nation enforcement to practical implement protective measures as it requires political will from the member nations to implement those policies.

Developing nations are just beginning to feel the positive impact of economic growth and development often at the cost of the environment. What international public policies should be in place to prevent revolutionary and economic uprisings in those countries

The Kyoto and Montreal Protocols clearly lay down the effective measures to prevent industrial and public crisis in developing countries as well as protecting the environment. According to the protocols, MacWhinney (2007) stated that, developing countries should strive to reduce to emission of fluorocarbons by 2013 and complete elimination of the carbons by 2030. Carbon credits incentives are given for industries achieving the clean development mechanism. In this case, any company adopting CDM will be liable for funding through credit points from developed countries.

The aim of these incentives is to encourage adoption of environmental friendly production methods as well as the materials used. Fluorocarbons are known to be among the worst green house gases and this was the main concern behind the carbon credit move. This will encourage more industrialization at the same time protecting the environment. It solves both industrial and public crisis through more production, and employment opportunities.

What options do you see presently for world enforcement of pollution control, economic growth, and political stability while still maintaining world peace In the case of oil for example, it is predicted as oil shortages increase world instability will increase.

The only available option for the world to reduce pollution, enhances development, and maintains peace as the fuel reserves decrease is adoption of green technologies.  In an article   it is stated that, Consumers and investors are increasingly taking account of organizations approach to corporate social responsibility, with the result that an organizations green reputation and environmental programs can directly impact its bottom line(Green Technology in Regulatory Climate, 2010). The consumers are aware of products that require less power consumption, gadgets that can switch off when not in use and the companies that are strict in environmental policies. Bio fuels are another alternative that may be used to reduce the over-reliance on fossil fuels. Although not many countries have adopted this type of fuel, further modification may make bio fuels an alternative source of energy in the near future. This way the oil reserves will not be depleted and the environment will be cleaner and safer. Energy is the main concern currently with several options being used in different countries but still there is over-reliance and dependency on oil because it is currently the only source of energy (Almost 90 of energy is from fossil fuels or oil). It is true oil shortages can accelerate instability in the world as the more the reserves decrease countries become insecure and will need to obtain it at any cost. This may result political and even military conflict in trying to protect the future of their countries. Hydro-power the oldest energy source is becoming more unreliable and has a negative impact to the environment. Adoption of nuclear energy, wind and solar energy sources might give the best solution to the current energy problem and at the same time providing an alternative greener energy source to use.

Conclusion
Green technology is the only alternative that has to be adopted to ensure both sustainable future production and environmental protection. Green technologies involve there steps these are,  self regulation, government regulation and indirect regulation Non-legislative certification and reporting programs, developed or endorsed by non-profit, private or quasi-government organizations (Green Technology in Regulatory Climate, 2010). In this method, all sectors are represented and more harmony in global markets is stabilized due to the standardization of quality products. In the Inconvenient Truth, Mr. Gore ends by giving hope that not all is lost and if correct measures are taken, we may redeem our environment. Greener technology might be the best way to reclaim the environment. Failure to this, the continent might face massive flooding, desertification and unimaginable catastrophes all of which have long-term serious and devastating effects on survival of humankind.
 Hence, the film of Al Gore is a representation of what is needed by the peopleto understand the current situation of the earth. In a way, the film is a media which shakes the minds of people while encouraging the actions which different individuals must take in order to take responsibility of the situation. In the course of the movie, it seems bias for Al Gore did not provide the actions which had been taken by the United States to reduce its emissions. However, in reality it is the United States that lastly ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Compared to other developing and developed nations which are actively participating in the protocol, it is the United States that brought a haul to asserting the need of the whole world in lessening pollution. In the end, Al Gore may have political interests at hand but climate change is a reality which is brought about by abuse of the environment and anger of Mother Nature.