Age of Stupid

Categories: uncategorized

Date: 22 May 2009 22:25:22

Tonight I went down to the local library to watch Age of Stupid which is a docudrama featuring Pete Postlethwaite about climate change. It was one of a number of "indie screenings" going on around the country which then logged in for a web cast where Franny Armstrong, (producer of the film) was joined at the RSA by George Monbiot and by skype by Lord Nicolas Stern aswell as some bloke from the Met Office.

Have to say I that I now have a head full of conflicting thoughts and questions. Think I managed to find my cynical hat somewhere in the evening.

For those not familiar with the whole thing Age of Stupid is a film about what the effects of climate change might be and why we need to act now if we are going to stop it. Basic hypothesis it works on is "we're all buggered and it's our own fault". People need to (i) stop flying, (ii) stop exploiting the earths mineral reserves and (iii) stop being so up themselves about living near wind farms.

Well, I have to say it was a v.g. piece of Green propoganda, v. much in the style of Micheal Moore. And therein lies the first problem. This was blatently a film with a message linked to a social movement. For details of the social movement go to "Not Stupid". The timing of the screenings, a couple of weeks before the European elections left me v. much feeling I had paid my £2 to go to a party political broadcast on behalf of the Green Party, (although they were never mentioned).

The second problem I had was a nagging feeling, because of the propoganda element, about whether this was actually factually correct or not. My scientist friend suggested the data was correct.

The third issue came up during the webcast thing. The films producer is clearly a social entrepreneur. She had come up with this new method of distribution where you buy a licence and then are free to charge for people to see the film and you can make money for you or your orgnisation. This would have been perfectly reasonable had one element of the film not been about why capitalism is causing the problems we have. Now don't get me wrong I understand artists and producers have to eat and make money...it just didn't sit well with the film we'd just watched when the producer was encouraging people to buy licences so they could make a few quid. Now, I think the problem there may have been with me not the producer. Why is it that well meaning liberals have so much problem when money is involved?

The forth problem was the way that certain companies, particularly Shell, were targeted through the film. Now we all know Shell are not a good company and those of you who buy peterol should try not to support them, see the Essential Action site. However, they are just one of a group of exploiters. This was more evidence of how this film took a Micheal Moore approach. The wider issues of car ownership were not adequately touched upon, in my opinion.

The other big problem for me related to the way that, particuarly in the webcast afterwards, fossil fuel power stations were being slated. Now I know this is controversial, and I do believe there should be more windfarms...I happen to think they are v. beautiful aswell as environmentally friendly. However, as was made clear they are not going to meet all our energy needs. This realistically means we have to decide whether to go nuclear of coal powered on the renewal of power stations. The government appears to be going for a bit of both. I have to say I am firmly anti-nuclear power and so whilst I'm not a great fan of coal I regard it as the lesser of two evils at the moment.

However, if it's not all hype and we really are nearly at the tipping point where the human race is going for corporate suicide because of bad stewardship of the resources God has given us we need to do something to stop it...I think. If the data in the film is correct and the picture they paint is true we need to all get off our arses and take responsibility both individually and corporately and work out what we're going to do.

There is a theological question which arises for Christians, however. Have the fundies and evo's who are awaiting the end of the world and the New Jerusalem got it right? If they have and we need the end of the world for the second coming to occur should we then carry on as we are? It's a difficult question and one I don't feel comfortable with. To me the loving creator God is not about to go off on some modern art experiment where we destroy the creation and ourselves....I can't see God being like that. The only concievable way it could work if he were after a technicality to get himself out of the promise made after the flood. He could say I promised not to wipe them out again....but I didn't say anything about stopping them wiping each other out so I could start again. However, I can't bring myself to think of God being that twisted. Rather, I can see him cheering us on lovingly to find the solution and sort it out.

So here is my problem after seeing this film: do I treat it as propoganda to be ignored or as factually correct and so something to be urgently engaged with? If it is the latter I will need to work out what I can do to play my part, (being a public transport user who doesn't fly much). I would then need to join what Monbiot referred to as "the carbon army". As he pointed out we need an army because we're not actually dealing with "climate change" we're dealing with "climate distruction". Calling it climate change is like saying a full scale foreign invasion is "a few unwanted guests".