Violent Climate Change Film Lands 10:10 Campaign in Trouble
by SAMI GROVER
!Alert! Video graphically shows people being blown up (its not real though), do not watch if you can't stomach graphic violence.
At times it's seemed like the 10:10 Campaign has got the whole of Britain cutting its carbon. From football teams to corporations to schools, individuals and organizations have committed to 10% CO2 cuts in just one year. Even the new UK Government pledged to cut its own emissions 10% in 2010. But 10:10 hasn't been free of controversy—most notably facing accusations of eco-snobbery for turning down an airport wanting to cut its emissions. Now 10:10 has caused a stir again, releasing and then promptly withdrawing a film in which school children, corporate workers and even a famous footballer are blown up for not taking part in cutting their emissions. So what's up? Is this a clever use of dark and self-deprecating humor to capture attention and hit the headlines, or a disastrous, inappropriate and violent own-goal for the environmental movement?
According to The Guardian, the 10:10 campaign short film No Pressure—written by Four Weddings and a Funeral screenwriter Richard Curtis—was intended to be an edgy and attention-grabbing piece that would put climate change back in the headlines. It has certainly done that—but the question is whether it will alienate more people than it will engage.
Featuring film star Gillian Anderson, England footballer Peter Crouch, and music from Radiohead, the film was shot by a 40-strong professional film crew led by director Dougal Wilson—in other words, this was clearly a major undertaking for the campaign. With those kind of resources being directed at this piece, it seems strange to think that the campaign would be unaware that there may be some controversy—in fact many folks have suggested that releasing then withdrawing the film may have been the intention all along.
The plot—which involves school kids, office workers and soccer stars unwilling to join the campaign being blown up by their peers—is undoubtedly a provocative one. Even the reaction to the movie by Fanny Armstrong, 10:10 founder and director of the Age of Stupid, was clearly meant to provoke a reaction:
"What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody's existence on this planet? Clearly we don't really think they should be blown up, that's just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?"
I have to say I found the whole thing kind of funny. And while some people will doubtless paint the film as one more example of zealous environmentalists advocating a "go green or else" approach—I actually took it as a self-parody of such a dictatorial approach. But then again, I have been known to have a pretty inappropriate sense of humor. Certainly some major funders to the campaign were less than amused, with charity Action Aid arguing that "the moment this film was seen it was clear it was inappropriate."
Even many of my fellow TreeHuggers, while not exactly shocked by the film, were unimpressed. Reactions like "one big meh", "pretty poor", and "a bit lame" were commonplace in our internal discussions. And there was definitely a general agreement that for a campaign that is seeking to unify a broad swathe of the public, this was an unlikely and probably counterproductive way to do it.
Posts
3 comments:
I actually found this rather lovely to be honest.
Clearly the Mann-made global warming agenda is on life support when one has to resort to graphically blowing up children to make a point. In football this is called a hail Mary pass with 2 seconds left in the game.
How devastating it must be for these lunatics who utterly FAILED to further their Totalitarian agenda through 'saving the environment' propaganda after years and years of effort.
I am pretty sure there is nothing I will be able to say to make you change your mind that climate change is real, nevertheless I feel a responsibility to respond.
The science and proof that climate change exists is sound and in case you think "climate-gate" poked any holes in the validity of any of the results consistent with human-caused climate change please see this article, as those scientists have been 100% vindicated: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/climategate-scientists-cleared-yet-again-story-ignored-media-again.php
I would encourage you also to read any of the posts here marked "climated change" http://dnapes.blogspot.com/search/label/climate%20change
I understand usually that propaganda is pushed on people to make them buy things or vote in one way or another. The people that push "save the environment" propaganda, what are they gaining exactly? The vast majority of people who work for environmental NGOs and the scientists that are studying climate change are not living in gold towers sipping champagne and eating caviar. If they were really power or money hunger they could have picked virtually any other cause and they would have done better. They are battling everyday, sacrificing everyday, so that next generations of people who refuse to battle can live on this planet. Sure doesn't sound like propaganda to me.
Shameless liars with an agenda clearing another shameless liar with the same agenda means absolutely nothing.
I also painfully read Penn State's report clearing Mr. Hockey Stick boy. We're not even talking about anything complex that would require a Richard Lindzen analysis. Mann simply mixed measured data with proxy data (and hid the medieval period proxy data) to come up with his bogus hockey stick. Keep in mind too we're only dealing with shifts in temperatures of 1/10th of degrees. Also, the statistical error renders the data inconclusive unless of course one is a shameless agenda driven liar.
Failing to properly deal with Mann because of the amount of grant $$$ he acquired will hurt Penn State's long term credibility.
The right thing would have been for Michael Mann to be stripped of his PhD and for all the grant $$$ to have been returned.
Again, I find myself enjoying these wacko's last futile attempts to save their religion. This would be equivalent to archeologists finding the grave of Jesus Christ with his remains inside.
Post a Comment