‘The White House Effect’ Review: How the U.S. Government’s Global Warming Fight Went Cold

As someone who has seen the effects of climate change unfold over the past few decades, I can’t help but feel a profound sense of regret and frustration when watching “The White House Effect.” It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion – you know it’s coming, but you can’t do anything to stop it.

It’s likely that many people haven’t given much thought to “global warming” or similar terms as a major concern, let alone a controversial topic in politics, until the recent past. However, as the concept of “The White House Effect” highlights, around 35 years ago, it was a notable issue in public discourse and not yet deeply divided along political lines. A time came when decisive action could have been taken earlier, but that opportunity seems to have been missed.

Captivating yet critical, the documentary set to premiere at Telluride Film Festival is meticulously crafted by directors Bonnie Cohen, Pedro Kos, and Jon Shenk from archival footage. The narrative predominantly unfolds during the first Bush presidency, a term that started with lofty environmentalist promises but ended with missed opportunities and the deliberate sowing of seeds for an anti-science movement that persists today, obstructing progress despite overwhelming evidence of global warming. Although it may not garner as much attention or have the same impact as “An Inconvenient Truth,” this film is still a crucial watch for anyone concerned about our planet’s future, especially given the increasing frequency of heatwaves, wildfires, hurricanes, and other weather-related crises.

The main feature of “Effect” resembles a time-line graph with slide rule properties, starting by deluging us with news and cultural references from 1988, a year marked by intense discussions about the Greenhouse Effect and unprecedented droughts and heatwaves across the United States. At a Senate hearing on this topic, a NASA climatologist affirms that CO2 emissions undeniably impact the atmosphere. Another expert highlights that such warnings have resonated within the scientific community for 15 years. Incoming President George H.W. Bush acknowledges global warming, likening it to the White House having the power to counteract the Greenhouse Effect. He also emphasizes that addressing this issue transcends political ideologies and is a shared responsibility for our future. However, these forward-thinking sentiments won’t persist.

Let’s travel back to 1977, a time when President Carter addressed the nation following an alarming government report about the potential catastrophic impact of climate change. Instead of taking immediate action, he chose to discuss this urgent issue in a televised address, encouraging citizens to reduce excessive consumption and waste, acknowledging that this was an unprecedented challenge our society had ever faced. People on the streets showed a willingness to adapt and make sacrifices for the common good in response to his appeal.

By the termination of the Carter administration, it became apparent that the national mood had shifted significantly. The growing irritation over fuel-pump issues, stemming from reduced oil production (and increased prices) following the Iranian Revolution, exposed America’s heavy reliance on gasoline. As a result, the outgoing administration was criticized for what was termed “the energy crisis.” Reagan, running on a platform of abundant oil exploration, won the election by promising to drill extensively. Upon assuming office, he reduced regulations in the oil industry and cut funding for solar power initiatives. Interestingly, his vice president, Bush, was a wealthy figure from Connecticut who had made his fortune in the Texas oil business.

Eight years after his initial term, Bush positioned himself as a presidential contender, touting his commitment to environmental issues and promising action on climate change concerns that had grown more pressing over time. He chose William K. Reilly, a known environmentalist from the World Wildlife Fund, for the role of EPA chief. However, he also selected John Sununu, a conservative with a reputation as an ideological combatant, as his chief of staff. It soon became evident that Sununu held more influence in the administration.

As a film enthusiast, I must say that “White House Effect” delivers an overwhelming sense of unease through skillfully woven archival materials such as leaked White House and corporate communications. It’s infuriating to witness how the administration gradually backed away from its promised eco-friendly stance under pressure from corporate allies, resorting to clever subterfuge to undermine legitimate scientific research. One chilling moment is when a high-profile report was manipulated against the will of its respected author. The media started to fill with so-called experts who aimed to downplay climate concerns, which in turn fueled the fire for populist figures like Rush Limbaugh to denounce “eco-imperialism.” However, it’s important to note that many of these authorities were later exposed as paid shills for the gas, oil, and coal industries.

In a seemingly indifferent manner, Bush and Sununu refuse to acknowledge any change of stance. This leaves Reilly appearing increasingly isolated, compelled to make feeble explanations for the administration at global meetings where the U.S. stands out as the most reluctant nation among those pledging to reduce CO2 emissions. The constant background of confusion (when exactly will this supposed “crisis” occur?), distraction (arguments that eco-policies harm growth, jobs, and America), and blatant misinformation (“humans aren’t causing global warming”) provide a convenient veil for a shift in focus. As early as 1984, Al Gore described this transition as moving the issue from a scientific to a political arena.

In the meantime, various catastrophes occur, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Hurricane Hugo, and the Gulf War, all serving to highlight the risks associated with continued reliance on fossil fuels. Notably, the past 30-plus years since the first Bush presidency have been marked by a continuation of these issues. However, despite this, denialist arguments have grown stronger, even as it seems that every passing year breaks the record for being the hottest on record.

“The ‘White House Effect’ concludes in a heartrending flash, emphasizing the regrettable consequences of delay. Initially, we see poignant interviews from Reilly and the late climate scientist Stephen Schneider, expressing regret over missed opportunities. Subsequently, a graph depicting CO2 levels in the atmosphere since the advent of human civilization around 10,000 BC is presented. The line remains relatively steady until the rise of commercial oil drilling approximately 150 years ago, at which point it skyrockets dramatically. This visual representation effectively dismisses any arguments from skeptics.”

The lack of any external commentary in what’s essentially a compilation feature only strengthens the filmmakers’ forceful argument. (Two of them, longtime collaborators Cohen and Shenk, also have a second Telluride nonfiction feature this year in combat-PTSD-themed “In Waves and War.”) The result leaves little doubt that discourse around climate change, once an issue of bipartisan agreement, has been deliberately manipulated to encourage ill-informed doubt, and to protect the interests of corporations still posting sky-high profits at the planet’s expense.

This narrative unfolds like a captivating yet chaotic slow-motion crash, offering an engagingly swift pace. The compelling unity of its complex layers – the multitude of events, characters, and conflicts – is effectively maintained by the progressively somber intensity of Ariel Marx’s string-based original soundtrack.

2024-08-31 19:47

‘The White House Effect’ Review: How the U.S. Government’s Global Warming Fight Went Cold

Read More

Minority Mindset