Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Leo DiCaprio Takes Up Where Al Gore Left Off in New '11th Hour' Environmental Documentary

By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted August 19, 2007.


DiCaprio's 11th Hour is a powerful documentary that makes the case that our way of life is totally at odds with the sustainability of our planet. But the film needs the Hollywood star to draw a lot more publicity to it.
stampedearthposterthumb
Advertisement

Three-time Academy Award-nominated movie star Leonardo DiCaprio and his filmmaking partners, Nadia Conners and Leila Conners Petersen, have done us a great favor. They have assembled an incredible array of passion and brainpower in their stirring documentary, The 11th Hour, to teach us just about every thing we need to know about the fate of planet Earth -- how bad things are, and what we can do to reverse the effects of humanity's rapid devastation of this planet.

The filmmakers have culled 90 minutes of brilliance from approximately 150 hours of interviews of the best of the best -- the rock stars of ecology, public policy, social critique and visionary philosophy. They have done a magnificent job. The 11th Hour is a first-class overview of the technology, the politics, the consequences of corporate and consumer behavior, and the aspirations and means to fix the mess we humans have created. As DiCaprio says, "We wanted to present the experts and have them carry the narrative of the film ..." which they do extraordinarily well. The film is great-looking as well, as the interviews are interspersed with scenes of contrasting beauty and environmental victimization -- dizzying montages, barren forests, beautiful seas, mudslides and clubbed baby seals, all set against a vast array of consumer images.

Are we at the 11th hour?

The "11th hour," of course, refers to the last moment when change is possible before it's too late to do anything. And the obvious message of DiCaprio's film is that we residents of planet Earth have reached a tipping point in terms of how we live and the impact we impose on our ecosystems. And for this reason, The 11th Hour is at times not easy to watch or come to terms with. It is a challenging, sometimes overwhelming experience that explores both millions of years of the Earth's existence in all its complexity, and the immediate present and the enormous impact human behavior is having not just on the planet's climate systems, but on our oceans, our air quality, our forests and the communities we live in.

Green Day Rock Star Billie Joe Armstrong captures the importance of the film nicely:

"The 11th Hour is intense. It tells us the truth that nobody wants to hear: that human beings, especially greedy corporate executives and their politician cronies, are responsible for putting our planet in serious danger. If things don't change soon, life on Earth may not survive. It has to be this generation that breaks the chain between the polluting corporations and the crooked politicians, this generation that changes its habits so there's something left for other species and the people who come after us.

"There is hope. We can make changes in our everyday lives, and most of the technology we need to move forward, we already have today. What we really need is the leadership, and the will, to change."

What shines through 11th Hour overwhelmingly is the warmth, charisma, caring and unbelievable wisdom of the diverse collection of talking heads in the film, and that goes for DiCaprio as well. Leo plays a key role of intermediary in the film, stepping in to summarize and clarify, and he even occasionally holds corporate America's feet to the fire. He does a convincing job, even though he appears far less harrowed than he was in his brilliant role as an undercover cop barely surviving in Boston's criminal underground in Martin Scorsese's recent Academy Award-winning film The Departed.

I wondered whether DiCaprio would hold the worst of the environmental offenders accountable. DiCaprio was a little reticent at a press conference before the film's opening in Los Angeles on Aug. 10, where he stated flat out, "It is not the point of the film to make people stop consuming." DiCaprio's hope for 11th Hour was that it would make people to vote with their dollars and push corporate behavior to become more environmentally responsible.

Our wasteful consumption

But it seems clear from the film that if we just started "buying green," behavior that DiCaprio hopes that 11th Hour will promote, we are not going to make the difference necessary to save the planet for the coming generations. We've got to tackle the issue of consumption head on. Betsy Taylor, founder of the organization Center for the New American Dream, says in her appearance in 11th Hour basically that the American way of life is about working really hard for long hours, making money and going out and buying things, and then starting over and repeating -- a system totally at odds with the sustainability of our planet.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: leonardo dicaprio, the 11th hour, environment, 11th hour action, documentary

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Consumption and systemic change
Posted by: jr4868 on Aug 19, 2007 12:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's good to know that Leo and his cohorts are focusing on consumption and the systemic problems of the American Way of Life in the destruction of the planet (or, as the author points out, the human race). Looking forward to this film.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So - what's really stopping progress?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 19, 2007 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More and more people understand that you can replace all fossil fuels with true renewables - wind and solar electricity, primarily. We can also get agriculture off of fossil fuels. You can have farms that are entirely self-reliant, as well as homes that are off-the-grid, as well as communities that run entirely on renewables - they're building them in Germany as we speak.

In the US, the entrenched fossil fuel interests have their heels dug in - and they have huge influence over corporate media and US politicians.

On the political front: Democrat John Dingell's sabotage of Nancy Pelosi's promise to put renewables on the front burner. His top donor? General Motors. That's why the recent House bill had no CAFE standards.

On the corporate front: two-faced public relation campaigns run by electic utilities. Here's an example: "Americans want Clean and Renewable Energy". This is a front site run by Edison Electric Institute. Up front, this looks like an environmental group - a cute child on the front, etc. They claim that the following sources should be used: "Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Hydropower, Non-Hydro Renewables, and Fuel Oil"

Who is Edison Electric Institute? "A collection of shareholder-owned electric utilities".

Make no mistake - these corporations are among the biggest climate polluters on the face of the planet. - Southern, Duke etc. For an overview see Will the South ever rise against global warming?.

So, who's at fault? The electric-coal corporations? But who controls the corporation? Here is #1 coal polluter Southern: major holders.

Compare this list to that other great global warming denier, ExxonMobile. See the same names, don't you?

Let's now get back to the massive PR effort carried out by these corporate interests. Sourcewatch has the goods on the Global Climate Coalition, which was dissolved and covertly reformed in 2002 - and Edison Electric was a player in that as well.

A similar organization is the American Petroleum Institute, which recently handed over $100 million or more to Edelman PR services to run an image touchup campaign. That's chump change compared to Exxon's recent $40 billion profit margin, isn't it? Edelman is a big fan of covert online blogging to get the message out.

(There is no better sourceon fossil fuel PR than De-Smog-Blog)

Let's look at how the corporate US media plays along with this. Here are the major holders for TimeWarner(CNN) and Disney(ABC)... familiar names? All this PR BS may very well put all of these corporations in the hot seat for global warming liability lawsuits, however.

Finally, the US government relies on petrodollar hegemony (oil sales denominated in dollars) and is trying to control global oil supplies via invading Iraq... but what if noone wants or needs to buy oil?

Remember: Germany is going renewable - so there are no technological barriers, just political ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So - what's really stopping progress? Posted by: nonprofitwatch.org
» Right – and wrong (maybe) Posted by: themotie
As NASA's Astrobiology zine said it:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 19, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NASA [government] document = not copyrighted
Thursday, August 16, 2007
When Carbon Caused Extinction
Summary (Aug 16, 2007): Researchers are studying a 250-
million-year-old extinction event in order to learn more about the
carbon cycle on Earth today. Their findings may help scientists
understand the future of Earth’s climate and, ultimately, life on
our planet.

Based on a Stanford news release
What a 250-Million-Year-Old Extinction Event Can Tell Us
About the Earth Today
In south China, Jonathan Payne searched for clues to the recovery
from a 250-year-old extinction event.
Credit: Stanford University Approximately 250 million years ago,
vast numbers of species disappeared from Earth. This mass-
extinction event may hold clues to current global carbon cycle
changes, according to Jonathan Payne, assistant professor of
geological and environmental sciences. Payne, a paleobiologist
who joined the Stanford faculty in 2005, studies the Permian-
Triassic extinction and the following 4 million years of instability
in the global carbon cycle. In the July issue of the Geological
Society of America Bulletin, Payne presented evidence that a
massive, rapid release of carbon may have triggered this
extinction.
"People point to the fossil record as a place where we can learn
about how our actions today may affect the future course of
evolution," Payne said. "That's certainly true: The deep geologic
record provides context for modern events. We may miss very
important processes or underestimate the magnitude of changes in
the future by using only the past couple thousand years as a
baseline."
Great Bank of Guizhou
Payne has spent the past five years unearthing the deep geologic
record in south China. The kilometer-thick, limestone fossil beds
at the Great Bank of Guizhou formed in shallow ocean waters
during the late Permian and early Triassic periods. As the ocean
floor sank, new, younger layers of limestone formed on top of
deeper, older ones. Since then, plate tectonics have turned these
rocks on their side. Now, Payne and his colleagues can walk back
in time across the formerly horizontal layers.
Marine fossil beds such as these offer two advantages for
someone studying broad patterns in the history of life, according
to Payne. Because ocean waters cover large areas for long periods
of time and somewhat protect the underlying rocks from erosion,
marine fossil beds tend to be physically larger and cover a longer
period of time with finer temporal resolution.
More than 90 percent of all marine species disappeared from the
Great Bank of Guizhou and other end-Permian fossil formations
250 million years ago. Land plants and animals suffered similar
losses. Douglas Erwin, curator of the Paleozoic invertebrates
collection at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural
History, has dubbed this event "the greatest biodiversity crisis in
the history of life." An unusually long period of time passed
before biological diversity began to reappear. Scientists disagree
on the causes of this extinction. However, nearly all explanations
cite the high levels of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide,
low levels of oxygen in the oceans and high levels of toxic gases.
To read the rest of the article, go to
http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News
&file=article&sid=2429&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How many reactors in CA? Posted by: ahmlco
The immediate solution
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 19, 2007 2:01 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The #1 carbon dioxide emitter is coal fired power plants. And,
the emitters of the most toxins are: coal fired power plants, leaf
fires, roses, lilacs and other pollinators, molds...........

How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air.

The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2
parts per million. Illinois coal contains up to 103 parts per
million uranium. A 1 billion watt coal fired power plant
burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of
uranium. Most of that is U238. About .7% is U235. 4
tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds
of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant
puts out 56 to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are
only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or into the
cinders.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear. So get over
your paranoid fears of all things nuclear and get it done. I have
no connection with the nuclear power industry. They are not
paying me. I do not own nuclear industry stock, and neither do
any of my relatives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Absolutely untrue. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Actually, you can. Posted by: ahmlco
» RE: Absolutely untrue. Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Absolutely untrue. Posted by: bcain
» RE: Absolutely untrue. Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» wrong, they are both scalar AND modular Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Yes and no Posted by: themotie
Oops, I forgot to include the nuclear power industry's PR push...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 19, 2007 2:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's the site that covers this PR effort in some detail:
Center for Media and Democracy on nuclear power PR

More specifically, in 2006 the Nuclear Energy Institute (a mimic of the American Petroleum Institute and the Edison Electric Institute, see above) hired the PR firm Hill and Knowlton to start spinning the issue in all available forums. The details are at Nuclear Greenwashing, Amanda Witherell, San Francisco Bay Guardian, May 29 2007

"Patrick Moore's presentation isn't as slick as Al Gore's. The slides he shows lack a certain visual panache and don't compare to the ones in An Inconvenient Truth. Moore himself seems a little frumpy, particularly as he peers out across the audience recently gathered in the Warnors Theatre in Fresno.

But attendees paid $20 to hear the former Greenpeace leader extol the benefits of nuclear energy as a clean, safe, reliable, economic, and — perhaps most important to the current political and media focus on global warming — emissions-free source of power."


Now, that's PR genius - talk about "third party credibility" - but it doesn't change the facts that nuclear is neither clean nor safe!

"Maybe you've seen the headlines touting the new nuclear push, running in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and all the daily syndicates. They all claim the same questionable facts: Nuclear power is clean and emissions free. It's safe, reliable, and cost-effective. It isn't contributing to global warming — and these days even the environmentalists like it."

That's a dirty little PR technique known as astro-turfing (after grassroots). Look at the names that are promoting this:
"Lovelock, the renowned Gaia theorist, thinks nuclear energy will be essential to power the developing world. On a Sept. 13, 2006, airing of KQED's Forum, he told host Michael Krasny, "I would welcome high-level nuclear waste in my backyard."

Huh? How about this one:

"Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, thinks nothing is more doomsday than global warming and told the Guardian he advised Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to start touting nuclear power as a solution."

This is such a shady practice, and it doesn't end there:
"The bio for the Post piece identifies Moore as cochair of "a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports the use of nuclear energy."

It's one of the few articles that make such a disclosure, although more probably should. A survey by Diane Farsetta, a senior researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy, came across 302 recent articles mentioning Moore and nuclear power as a possible option for mitigating the effects of global warming.

Only 37 — a mere 12 percent — said he's being paid to support nuclear power by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a national organization of pro-nuke industries that's hired Moore to front its nuclear renaissance.


Where does all this come from? Here you go: H&K

"Only the Columbia Journalism Review has drawn the further connection that Hill and Knowlton has been paid $8 million to help the NEI spread the word that the nukies have the silver bullet for solving global warming.

Hill and Knowlton knows a little something about pushing dangerous products. The company created the tobacco industry's decades-long disinformation campaign about the effects of smoking. Veterans of that campaign then helped ExxonMobil try to bury the truth about global warming.


I wonder what AsteroidMiner thinks about all this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here's a bright idea for you: Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Nuclear: who needs it? Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Ken B
Posted by: Fahrion on Aug 19, 2007 6:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article seems to be more about Leo's capitalist quest to
make more money than to really help the planet. First
any discussion of saving ourselves has to start with how
we slow down the spread of our species e.g. birth control.
If that is to remain off the table then there is no hope and
all this banter and blogging and talking is just so much a
waste of time. Personally I'm giving up hope. I'm going to
drink bottled water, eat steak, drive my truck as much as
I want while laughing at all the fake caring that is going on.
The US is a leader in the destruction of this world. We talk
about how great our country is. Its not great. Its greedy.
Always has been, will be till we take the planet down. We
are a nation of liars and hypocrites all. I for one am going
to stop worrying about it and live with it, getting fat, old and
happy along the way. If I have to live with Republican
morals, I'm going to eat, drink and be merry with the
bastards and bitches and not get ulcers caring anymore.
Don't tell ME about problems I have no way of fixing. Serves
no purpose to be telling me over and over year after year
the same tired story while the people that could make a
difference, don't and keep making it worse. Tell them, not
ME.
Yours truly from one fed up American.
P.S. To reiterate: Birth Control and abortion, should be
PLAN A to save this world. Until this is done all the rest
seems to be moot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ken B Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Ken B Posted by: richholland
» Who is really overpopulated? Posted by: DivaDeb
» RE: Ken B Posted by: MT512
» RE: Ken B Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Ken B Posted by: Candleinheart
arranging the deck chairs on the euro/north american SS..'I think you know'
Posted by: ekipnrut on Aug 19, 2007 8:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[From www.sustainablescale.org]:
13. Use of energy in the 20th century has been concentrated in a few nations, representing a small portion of the earth’s population. The seven largest economies at the end of the 20th century (with 10% of the global population) used about 45% of the total primary energy supply. Approximately 2 billion people worldwide do not have access to electricity.
===============
14. Per capita energy consumption is approximately 1300% higher in North America than in Southeast Asia. The average North American’s annual energy consumption is equivalent to having 75 human slaves. Oh and BTW.....As for DiCaprio...
The Perils of Celebrity Environmentalism
Leonardo DiCaprio's Baggage BILL DAY
[Counterpunch]
The dangers of “celebrity environmentalism” became abundantly clear this past weekend when the sister team who produced Leonardo DiCaprio’s new eco-scare movie “11th Hour “sat down for a Fox News TV interview. Nadia and Leila Conners, looking well heeled and 30 something as they sat down with none other than Sean Hannity – the conservative side of the Hanity & Colmes show on Fox News Channel. After some agreement on the state of the planet, Hannity got down to business and said, “I want to talk about hypocrisy.” And it was all downhill from there...and downhill it did in fact go:
[excerpt from Day's comments on interview]
....But somehow you can’t see the fundamental flaw in using a superstar celebrity to promote your message. Using Leonardo DiCaprio to tell people to ‘recycle, reduce and re-use’ is kind of like asking a crack- head to promote cocaine abstinence. In doing this, you do disservice to the serious ecologists out there who spend their lives living as they preach. Sure, the converted will support you all the way, but the people you are trying to reach after they finish watching the Simpsons Movie only become cynical and less open to your message. Following is a somewhat roundabout link to the Day article published online August 8 in Counterpunch. Another interesting Day piece on DiCaprio appears in Counterpunch on July 27.
LDC
More broadly a meaningful discussion of the energy environment matrix must include thorough ,systematic and OBVIOUS consideration of the economic, demographic and geopolitical dynamics governing the subcontinent ,china, subsaharan africa , indonesia, central asia and all of central and south america.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

priorities
Posted by: richholland on Aug 20, 2007 2:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a sane pace and time to communicate with other human beeings make time more worth living than constantly stressing for an extra bit of PROFIT>

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Co-opted 'rock stars'
Posted by: Davidco on Aug 20, 2007 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reluctance of Gore, DiCaprio et al. to target grassroots modification of consumption patterns is the tip-off to the establishment origins of their perspectives. A flack for this movie was laughed off the screen when some shill at FOX started totaling-up poor Leonardo's 'carbon footprint' (with his private jet etc.).

These 'rock stars' are the products of public relations machinery which is accorded access to the MSN only in the measure they do not challenge the consumerist assumptions of the capitalist model of eternal 'growth' as measure of economic success. True reform will come from below and not rely on the insights of a sick society's embedded entertainers and media made dizzy (as here) by celebrity star power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Co-opted 'rock stars' Posted by: Beagle17
» RE: Co-opted 'rock stars' Posted by: MT512
Environmental Bill of Rights
Posted by: ritadona69 on Aug 20, 2007 5:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps Mr. DiCaprio and others could push hard to get an Environmental Bill of Rights drafted for the United States. It might help Americans fight the powers that be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Caprio---what about your "footprint"?
Posted by: zooeyhall on Aug 20, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That great expert in Climatology dynamics, and so-so actor Leonardo DiCaprio scolding the hoi-polloi for their wasteful ways.

With his private jet and Hollywood star lifestyle, with tofu flown in from China, he probably produces the same amount of carbon as 50 working-class schmucks like me.

The hypocrisy of this guy goes well with Al Gore's own $30,000 "inconvienient truth".

I would like Mr. DiCaprio to start riding a bike to his movie gigs. And heating only one room in his mansion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» DiCaprio's Guccis Posted by: zooeyhall
Francis
Posted by: Francis on Aug 20, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not understand the process by which the popular mind is influenced in it's world view to the point where mass behavior is modified. But if celebrity influence can give it an assist in the right direction, then it should be encouraged. It is about time right-thinking people stopped being so afraid of the right-wing smear machine that they allow it to interfere with their desire to act out their conscience. It is bad enough that our representatives in Washington are cowed by these media bullies, but citizens of a once free country should be better and stronger than that. After all, does any educated person really care what Sean Hannity says or thinks about ANYTHING?

On the chance that Mr. DiCaprio can be of service in saving this planet I would suggest to those who like-mindedly believe the planet should be saved (non-republicans), that they store their animus toward Hollywood and focus on the potentially higher good. After all, no one complains when Hollywood people engage in commercial promotion. How ridiculous to fault them for their social conscience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mainstream America
Posted by: lynned2002 on Aug 20, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a reason that the environment ranks 9th among political issues. Americans are for the most part totally oblivious. They have no basic understanding of science, and therefore global warming is nothing but a vague concept. No one gets it. Just take a little trip through Anytown, USA. The houses in new developments are huge and getting huger. SUV's and big trucks continue to dominate the roadways. As for consumption, going to big box stores and outlet malls is the great American past time. I hate to be cynical, but it's hard not to throw in the towel and keep on merrily consuming right along with everyone else. Any change at the corporate and governmental level is going to have to be effected by the American public. And until they stop living in their La La Land Consumer Bubble this won't happen. I'm afraid that 50 years down the road everyone will look back and say "What the heck happened?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mainstream America Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Mainstream America Posted by: lynned2002
Only celebrities can save us now - Yes!
Posted by: Beagle17 on Aug 20, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess I agree with the thesis of this review. Leonardo is missing the point if he doesn't see his own importance to all of this. It's going to be just like in the movies, as reality often is. That is, if we're gonna be saved, it's gonna take a gang of heroes. Pathetic, I know, but probably true in my opinion.


I just can't see it any other way. Average humans seem to be wired to worship leaders whom they exalt and long to follow. This wouldn't be so bad, except we've got gross civilization now and a massive political system which is open to being subverted by non-cooperative people.

So, Leonardo, Bono, and Al need some more celebs to wake up and smell the duty. Imagine the possibilities if Oprah, David Beckham, Dalai Lama, Stephen Colbert, Clint Eastwood, Robert Redford, Madonna, etc. teamed up with them to DEMAND that their fans DEMAND the changes that are needed. I don't care what the blueprint is. I'm sure there are countless good scientists ready and waiting to save us if the political potential exists.

It's gonna take more than a decent president, even if we get one of those, and even if it it is Al Gore.

What I would LOVE to see is Al Gore and a bunch of incredibly famous people with "nice reputations" (see above link) join forces to launch a third political party, telling their audiences (almost everybody) that this political mission CANNOT FAIL. They could threaten to stop entertaining people even. A Hollywood boycott to save the world.

My point is, it could be done. And celebrity is just as much an issue as is extreme wealth. It's two sides of the same coin. If the necessary movement ever got underway, perhaps because of some celebrity action, I'm sure MicroBill and lots of other billionaires and multi-millionaires would join in (but surely not all of them!).

What can the little guy do? Not so much. Phone calls. Emails. Letters to the editor. Skip work on 9/11. Yada, yada...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Artificial Boycotts
Posted by: aonghus36 on Aug 20, 2007 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the movie theaters refuses to show the 11th Hour, like they apparently are in my area, it will be kind of, sort of like a boycott. It is a shame, I was looking forward to seeing it.
Oh, by the way, for some you people who think entertainers should shut up and just entertain us; if they did that, then you'd be mad at them for being superficial and uncaring of what goes on around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Artificial Boycotts Posted by: MT512
Hypocracy
Posted by: vertical on Aug 20, 2007 2:56 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I bet Leonardo has an environmental footprint that is probably ten times that of the average American. Hay Leanordo, if you drive around in a Prius and fly in a Gulfstream you are not an environmentalist. You are just a greenwashing shithead!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It dosen't matter if renewables can totally replace fossil fuels
Posted by: alibaba on Aug 20, 2007 2:59 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What matters is that a major committment to renewables on the part of government and business is the right consiousness raising message that needs to be sent.
It is obvoius to me at any rate that there will be no overnight switch to any one renewable source. Individuals and communities will have to work with what works best in their locations. Any methods that increase efficiency and reduce carbon emission will be a step in the right direction. Most forms of renewable energy are location specific.
I don't have the expertise to say for sure whether or not the energy to produce solar panels exceeds the output in a given number of years, but I haven't seen a "burned out/used up" solar panel yet. I do know that properly designed solar systems are very reliable.
The fact that renewables are location specific is at the heart of the resistance that has come from corporate interests. They can't continue to bill you monthly if you can provide your own energy. And if you only provide part of it from renewables that represents a reduction in revenue for what are now monopolies. As soon as they figure out how to own the sun and the wind their arguments will disappear. A lot of different providers will supply different types of energy, but they may not be the "Humunguses" of today. This is why the foot draging, not whether any one source can replace fossil fuel.
In any case conservation, efficiency and technologies that are available NOW can greatly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and the ONLY reason that we are not on that fast track is that capital will have to shift away from the people who are making money from our current energy system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

5% use 25% of resources
Posted by: vertical on Aug 20, 2007 2:59 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They say that America is 5% of the Earth's human population, but we use 25% of its resources. I bet if we got ride of our A-listers we could cut that in half.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Use less
Posted by: Jeanne on Aug 20, 2007 5:39 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And buy less. If the industrialized world's middle class masses weren't hopelessly mired in debt from overconsumption, we might be willing to alter our ways. As it is, it seems we simply won't stop the stupid behavior of buying too much, eating food that's unhealthy, driving gas hogs everywhere, building McMansions to house three people, and looking to others to fix the problem. Our economy is based on this insane behavior, and if suddenly masses of us became immune to the advertising, woke up, and decided not to spend one damn dime today (there is a "holiday" the day after Thanksgiving dedicated to this idea), the ripple effect in the economy could be upsetting to the owners of our world. They would in turn, lay off employees so as to not have their dividend stream interrupted, and there you go. Square one. The masses: financially as over-a-barrel as ever; just the squeeze would be applied from a different direction. Solution? None that don't hurt like hell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think China has the right idea.
Posted by: Ellie1 on Aug 20, 2007 6:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Limit family size by law. I know the born-again and religious a-holes will have a fit over this, but no one needs to have a family of more than 2 kids. I taught for 30 years, and the more kids in the family the more attention that kid needed and craved. I always get angry when I see stories on tv about large families, like it is something great. It is a selfish act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You MUST all Rent the movie... Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal
It will be hotter and the environment ruined.
Posted by: MobileSucks on Aug 20, 2007 6:20 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have nothing to say that has not been said a million times by people that are really serious about global warming and seem to have real knowledge about this nightmare.

It is too late.

Even if we right now at this very moment -like today- quit polluting and lived in perfect harmony with the planet, it's going to keep getting hotter and hotter. And it's going to be a lot more hot for a really long time.

I hope this is wrong.

I also hope the corporations turn into radical ecologists and we ditched this wicked, idiotic consumer culture and I can keep on hoping but that wont make any difference and how the hell would that happen anyway!?

Of coarse big business is not going to really change to any significant extent anytime soon, if ever, and people would rather die than give up all their material stuff they have been programed to feel in their hearts they need in order to be happy and have a meaningful life.

Also, the "developing world" isnt going to say "well you westerners have obviously messed things up so we are going to just live like we have for thousands of years and skip out on that industrial revolution thing you did because it's getting hotter now." So, when you take into account how much more pollution will be created, well damn.. Even if industry got a helluva lot more clean, and didnt pump out so much poison into the air, the exponentially exploding human population across the planet and industrial development occurring on this enormous, unprecedented scale will mean way more green house gas and catastrophic destruction of the environment.

Anyway. But we should do our best right? And maybe the pessimists are wrong after all. "Full effort is full victory" said the man. But who is really doing all they can to stop the part they play in destroying the planet? How much do people really care? Really care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Climate Dodos
Posted by: BadgerSouth on Aug 20, 2007 6:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Climate Deniers = Climate Dodos

“The Dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird that lived on the islands of Mauritius. Related to pigeons and doves, it stood about a meter tall (three feet), lived on fruit and nested on the ground.

“The dodo has been extinct since the mid-to-late 17th century. It is commonly used as the archetype of an extinct species because its extinction occurred during recorded human history, and was directly attributable to human activity. The phrase "as dead as a dodo" means undoubtedly and unquestionably dead.” -- Wikepedia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

organic
Posted by: organic on Aug 21, 2007 12:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who gives a crap about what a "rock star" has to say! good people, real people, quietly industrious and humble people have been beavering away for decades telling the story about all of this. This is old news for all those intelligent, awake, alert, responsible, moral people who actually THINK about what they do and choose to tread lightly on this planet.
I don't care about the bono's of the world. Their forte is playing guitar and singing. I care about the people who have battled for years being labeled "greenies: or treehuggers" who have actually done the hard yards and stood at the front line and eaten crap from the media for what they have believed to be true. But for them we would all be living in a chemicalised, barren wasteland.
To them, I say; thank you. My children will thank you. I thank you. History will thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: organic Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: organic Posted by: richholland
Leo- GO BLOW GORE!
Posted by: vomeggido on Aug 21, 2007 11:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyone who supports or thinks Al Gore is a good man- needs to put their head in a bear trap and snap it off.

I just wish that these imbeciles, because of their celebrity would finally realize that just because they are successful and have Academy Awards doesn't necessarily mean they have anything relevant to say.

Let's see, Ronald Regan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson... Yeah that's enough to prove a point.

Shut the fuck up and go read a script!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tHE 600 POUND GORILLA
Posted by: crazy carlos on Aug 21, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until the issue of the "hereafter, the naturalization of sex, and is there a GOD and all those mythologial edicts are changed and resolved in some manner we as a species will always be at the beck and call of nature and the finality of its decisions. Until we resolve these man made problems we will never be able to come to grips with the ones our stupidities have placed on Mother Nature. ALL our overriding problems go back to POPULLTION. Global warming, Oil depletion, water shortages and wars. If we do not come to some sort of devine awaking soon, Mother Nature will take care of it for us by terminating the experment. Crazy carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Think (only) locally...you are wasting your time....
Posted by: ekipnrut on Aug 21, 2007 5:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BI
is link to World's Worst Polluted Places
Published by Blacksmith Institute online
[excerpt] : potentially affected people: 300,000
Type of pollutants: Chemicals and toxic byproducts from Cold War-era chemical weapons manufacturing, including Sarin, VX gas, lewisite - the poisonous effect of which is owed to its arsenic trioxide content, yperite (mustard gas), prussic acid, phosgene, dioxins and other persistent organic chemicals. Lead, from an additives manufacturer, now closed.
Site description: In Dzerzhinsk, a significant center of the Russian chemical manufacturing, the average life expectancy is 42 years for men and 47 for women. Until the end of the Cold War, the city was among Russia's principal production sites of chemical weapons. According to figures from Dzerzhinsk's environmental agency, from 1930-1998, almost 300,000 tons of chemical waste were improperly disposed of. Of this waste, around 190 separate chemicals were released into the groundwater. These chemicals have turned the water into a white sludge containing dioxins and high levels of phenol - an industrial chemical which can lead to acute poisoning and death. These levels are reportedly 17 million times the safe limit.
..You need not be a world traveller to grasp the
growing enormity of the ENTIRETY of the problem as it roils in
the squalor of Mumbai..Beijing..Sao Paulo..Mexico City.
Preserving the viable integrity of the biosphere is energy dependent, restoring critically damaged components of nature's infrastructure is all the more so ; my point is that pollution is very wasteful and models that conceive (posit) europe/NA as forming an energy conserving estuary-sort of an ecological isolationism-minimizing energy production methods generating byproducts of combustion that contribute to 'global
warming' are short sighted..essentially doomed from the start.
For one thing ,people who sense that there is a better, cleaner
way to live-quality of life- will want to bring about that concre- te reality as quickly as possible,which may well entail methods and means of the production of goods and services and allied transportation venues that are highly at odds with energy saving/nonpolluting concerns. Global warming may be one manifestation of the problem...but the solution is global, requiring a consideration of ALL (principal) linked factors.IMHO
Seems to me that : 1) population dynamics 2) energy consumption/generation 3) pollution 4)economic parameters are so bound up with one another that trying to approach them
in isolation either conceptually or geographically is well...a
waste of time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cfluz7
Posted by: cfuz7 on Aug 21, 2007 9:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me it is so simple and has always been. Stop having so many babies! I was so fertile that a man could smile at me across a crowded room and I might catch! I had two children by the age of 23 (with my husband). Both were birth control failures(though I love my spawn) and yes, young lust was involved. The sexual need is life affirmation and the need of species to keep on going. (Oh, yeah, there is love and all that, I'm not an insect). I had a tubal ligation right after the birth of my daughter, at age 23 (in 1975) and I have never regretted it. Some I knew kept saying to me, "What if something happens to your kids?" and I would answer, "I'll give my love somewhere else, other kids, animals, some folks already here who need some of it!".
I ended up being a single Mum by the age of 24. Muddled through it all. My adult son and daughter still like me with all the mistakes I made and yeah, the muddling. I'm not a grandma, although my kids are prime young 30ish intelligent and attractive specimens, they have chosen so far not to reproduce. That's fine with me. Ah so it all gets down to reproduction. There are too damn many of us sorta hairless bipeds. Quit breeding so much and take good care of the one's about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Simple Life
Posted by: Candleinheart on Aug 26, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bravo!Great comment! Will you run for president? My sentiments to a "T'. Tired of talk.
I've been environmentally aware for years. The simple life best, and yes, we know longer are aware of our connection to the Universe. the Bible and Christians have condemned Astrology for years, I have watched the lives of people for 45 years, and been a professional Astrologer same number. We ARE part and parcel of this Universe. The rhythms of the Universe DO affect our lives and bring change. Because astrology recognizes a feminine principle in the Universe equal to the male principle, that both energies reside in all things, the male dominated mentality that rules ignores, abuses, the feminine. A whole new spiritual attitude must be presented; that is, we are stewards of this planets not to be destroyers. Maurice Maeterlink, philospher in the nineteenth century, expressed the idea that Earth is a living, breathing being (Native Americans have ALWAYS known this) and now she is sick. And he predicted that we abuse her enough, pollute her enough, she will seek to destroy the virus (us) that harms her. Just as a virus invades our bodies it is destroyed, many times not. Native Americans have been telling us since the 1800's that "if we continue to contaminate our bed, we will awake suffocating in our own waste." it's happening. Gore, diCaprio, Moore are trying to tell us!!
I stayed on an reservation in 1984. A very simple, poverty ridden (to American standards) place, but there was a rhythm and a beauty and something sacred and pure there. The Indian men were sweet, kind, unlike most American men, protective, non-threatening in any way. I had an experience that reconnected me powerfully to Earth. All tension, fear, nerves left my body. The leader, Rolling Thunder, stated all who love Mother Earth are Indian in spirit. cherish the earth Mother. Stop littering. Pick up litter. Stop plastic. Use glass. Stop waste. Earth changes to occur and a great cleansing to begin. Teach your kids respect of the land. Every paper thrown out the window, cigarette butt is harming Earth but what is lost is you harm yourself. Stop sodas, not good for you anyway. Eat right. Simply. demand pure foods. the writer Tolstoy abandoned his mansions, jewels, lands to live the simple life. He was content and stated he had found God. Do we just judge people by the money they make? People have lost discerment, seeing heart in one another; seeing sincerity. We MUST CHANGE!
An earth prayer as stated at the UN Environmental Program:
We have forgotten who we are
We have alienated ourselves from the unfolding of the Cosmos
We have become estranged from the movements of the earth
We have turned our backs on the cycles of life
We have forgotton who we are.
We have sought only our own security
We have exploited simply for our own ends
We have distorted our knowledge
We have abused our power
We have forgotten who we are
Now the land is barren
And the waters are poisoned
And the air polluted
Now the forests are dying
And the creatures are disappearing
And humans are despairing
We have forgotten who we are
We ask forgiveness
We ask for the gift of remembering
We ask for strength to change
We have forgotton who we are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I propose...
[