An Inconvenient Truth: Oscar Winner

It won two. One for best documentary and one for best original song.

Congratulations to Mr. Gore, can't wait to see the film.

However, how can we digest all this green crap from Hollywood? Sure pull up to the Kodak Theater in a Prius, but how did the NYC and east coast contingent get to Bel Air, via commercial jet? Not likely for Seinfeld, Sorcese, Al Gore, et al. A Gulfstream G500 consumes fuel at the rate of about 1 gallon per nautical mile, so figure about 5000 gallons per round trip. That's like 8.5 years of fuel for the average driver for one weekend! They need to ride public transit (1st class is okay) to put some creditability in their message.

It's interesting that many of the movies that were nominated were shot guerilla-style. Low-tech, outdoors, natural light. The big blockbusters are overlit and competely artificial. Natural light is a challenge to the filmer, but the moviegoer likes to see it, because it's real life.

Of course, these same films were often shot in exotic locations, which requires more air travel. Still, there's an upside to that, becuase the viewer is exposed to foreign settings.

I agree with david k. i wonder how many of these 'green' celebs took transit and not a gas guzzling limo to the event? how many of them tele-commuted to accept their awards? how much black dye was used for their outfits?

David K - all of the travel done during the filming of the movie was offset with carbon offset purchases. Which you would have seen if you watched the movie.

I think that having one of the most watched shows, withs ome of the most influential people around, talking about green and global warming is definitely a big step.

Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's better than having the same show without anything about "the climate crisis".

Great news.

Hear about the SEQUEL to Inconvenient Truth?

INFO HERE.

Wow! An Oscar(tm)!

That'll shut up those climate skeptics!

Yeah, not sure if the Oscars are really that great at promoting environmentalism, considering the lavish and ridiculously polluting lifestyles of celebrities.

As one skeptic (can you believe they still exist??) said: "Am I the only one annoyed when rich people with private jets, large SUV's and limousines lecture me about doing a little bit to save the environment?"

I get the feeling that a lot of people already feel that "environmentalist celebrities" are really nothing more than "liberal, rich hypocrites" and the Oscars didn't do anything to change that. I love the environment, and I was mildly disgusted.

It would've been better if somebody actually bothered showing that they WERE contributing to a lighter carbon footprint. Leo talking about buying a smaller house. George Clooney riding a train. Somebody buying parts of a suburb to transform into a multi-use community (yeah right). Or is that asking too much? *sigh*

Hate to burst anyone's bubble here but I just found a site that gives Al Gore a bit of a black eye. Apparently his masion in Tennessee uses 20 times the amount of energy as the average american household. Like the saying goes "its takes money to make money", its probably true that it takes energy to make a change but even this is a bit much from a guy who talks about this stuff every single day.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

"Apparently his masion in Tennessee uses 20 times the amount of energy as the average american household."

Al Gore's mansion could have easily used 40 times as much energy as the average household. The fact that it only uses 20 times as much energy, simply proves he is a dedicated environmentalist.

Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics

"Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

It’s the latest in a series of desperate attacks by Drudge to paint Gore as a hypocrite. Some other examples:"

See? Mr. Gore's efforts to reduce his carbon footprint have been completely successful, otherwise his mansion would be using far more than merely 20 times the power an average american home consumes.

In fact, I'm so inspired by his sacrifice, that I'm going to use my millions to buy carbon offsets for my own mansions.

Frankly, I'm surprised Mr. Gore only won an Oscar. He really deserves sainthood.

An Inconvenient Truth has had a major hand in doing what 20 years of environmental communication weren't able to: nearly squash the bogus debate about whether or not global warming is real. That's HUGE. Gore and his team have affected public opinion in ways that, with luck, will translate to policy changes and massive CO2 production reductions. That impact seems like an enormous offset.

So, yes, let's remain vigilant about greenwashing and eco-celeb trendiness. But let's also recognize that we're all starting where we're at. If Oscar set pieces are now painted with Low VOC paints, for instance, that's a great step taken because someone took the time to care about it. The Oscars will happen regardless, so, they might as well become as green as possible, yeah?

Glad to hear everyone's getting a little more green, the Oscars did it to be 'SMUG' but hopefully somebody had noble intentions. Love the cause, and I support it!

Is it only me or others also see Al Gore's vested political interests in it??

Congratulations to Time Magazine's man of the year! Let's hope the next President elect will follow in his footsteps when it comes to protecting the environment.

it is very importend for us to be friendly to ouwer nature...

So; i like what u do, but when u realy do what Y telling all over the world,, "W(A)Y " Y are dressed like a super star, Yr Costume is made with BUSH energy, "W(A)Y " Y are arraving with a super LIMO is made with BUSH energy, i know a little confort is not "BAD" but Y are en exemple for some people in this world.... and and and...

a big smak from Tahiti

it is very importend for us to be friendly to ouwer nature...

So; i like what u do, but when u realy do what Y telling all over the world,, "W(A)Y " Y are dressed like a super star, Yr Costume is made with BUSH energy, "W(A)Y " Y are arraving with a super LIMO is made with BUSH energy, i know a little confort is not "BAD" but Y are en exemple for some people in this world.... and and and...

a big smak from Tahiti

Man-made CO2 accounts for only 1/10th of 1% of all greenhouse gas effect. Put another way, man-made CO2 is 1/1000th of the total greenhouse gas effect. Completely eliminating ALL man-made CO2 world-wide would reduce "global warming" by a whopping 1/12 of one degree. An almost unattainable 20% reduction would reduce it by 1/60th of one degree. Well that certainly sounds like it's worth it to change our entire way of life. I'll snuff out the dinner candles. Maybe Al Gore could help out by holding his breath. BTW, that would also help out with air pollution.