Imagine a world where the very air we breathe is at stake, and yet, the path we've taken seems so baffling. This is the story of a pivotal moment in time, a moment that could have changed the course of our planet's future.
The Climate Conundrum: A Tale of Missed Opportunities
In the scorching summer of 1988, the United States faced its worst drought since the infamous Dust Bowl era. Crops withered, cities imposed water restrictions, and tragically, thousands lost their lives to relentless heatwaves. Amidst this disaster, George HW Bush, then Vice President under Ronald Reagan, made a promise to farmers reeling from losses. He vowed to be the 'environmental president', acknowledging the harsh reality of global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions. Bush's words were a stark contrast to the Republican Party's later stance on climate change.
A Promise Unfulfilled: The White House Effect
The documentary 'The White House Effect' delves into this intriguing evolution, exploring how a non-partisan environmental issue became a deeply divisive political battle. The film's title is a nod to Bush's unfulfilled pledge, a missed opportunity for bipartisan leadership on climate action. Director Pedro Kos highlights this moment as a critical juncture, a time when scientific consensus and public support aligned, only to be fractured later.
The film takes us back to the 1970s, when the greenhouse effect first entered public discourse. Ordinary Americans, inspired by President Jimmy Carter's call to action, were ready to make sacrifices. However, by the 1980s, faced with gas shortages and long lines at the pump, this enthusiasm began to wane. This discontent provided an opening for Republican candidate Ronald Reagan, who blamed the government and called for a shift of power to the private sector, setting the stage for a symbiotic relationship with oil companies.
The Political Forces at Play
Bush, despite his blue-blooded background and oil industry ties, started his presidency determined to break from his predecessor on environmental issues. He appointed an environmental activist, William Reilly, to head the EPA, and urged Congress for immediate action. However, the film reveals the political forces that undermined this purpose. It showcases the tactics of corporations, who sought to discredit scientific evidence to protect profits, and the power plays of White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, who encouraged climate skepticism and undermined Reilly's efforts.
The documentary relies solely on meticulously edited archival footage, including rare VHS tapes and confidential memos. This approach, according to Kos, aims to immerse viewers in a time when climate change wasn't a political battleground, allowing them to experience the issue's politicization firsthand.
A Different Approach to Climate Documentaries
Directors Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk, veterans of climate change films, wanted to take a unique approach with 'The White House Effect'. They aimed to drop a 'truth bomb' of historical facts, believing that in an era of hyper-partisanship and absurd natural disasters, the truth is what we need most. Cohen adds that the archival footage expands the conversation, allowing viewers from all walks of life to see themselves in the film and feel included in the dialogue.
The Impact of Climate Skepticism
The influence of climate skeptics in the media, encouraged by Sununu, seemed to sway Bush's initial firm stance. By 1990, he was equivocating on the issue, citing opposing scientific viewpoints. This political division left the US unable to commit to international emissions reduction targets at the 1992 Rio 'Earth Summit'. Reilly, reflecting on this missed opportunity, believes it could have removed the partisan nature of climate dialogue in the US.
The Rage and the Hope
Cohen argues that climate change films often end with a 'hope bucket', offering a sense of relief after presenting the crisis. However, with 'The White House Effect', they wanted to create rage, to confront viewers with the anger and frustration that comes with the denial of truth. The hope, according to Kos, is that this rage will inspire action at the ballot box, empowering voters to make a difference.
As we face unprecedented natural disasters, Kos encourages us to look at the bigger picture of history. The truth of political power is right before our eyes, and the choice is ours. We are in another 'what-if' moment, just like in 1988. Will we learn from history, or continue down a path of denial and division?
