The first thing that struck me as I watched the movie was: “How come Gore, who is articulate and intelligent, failed to win the U.S. presidential election in 2000? How different would the world be today if he had?”

To a degree, the movie serves as a political vehicle for Gore. He refers to the Bush administration’s failure to ratify the Kyoto agreement. He shows alarming statistics on his country’s huge contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions. Subtly, he rebukes the Bush team’s failure to bring in measures on better car-engine efficiency. Essentially, he “thumbs his nose” at Bush.

Yet everyone in the industrialized world and developing nations should see the movie. Staggering issues for mankind’s future hang in the balance. These include:
• more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;
• slow, but inexorable, temperature rises;
• melting polar ice caps;
• rising sea levels;
• higher ocean temperatures;
• more violent storms;
• melting glaciers;
• fewer water resources;
• more extinct animal species; and
• mankind’s demise (maybe).

Luckily, humans have ways to remedy the situation. Something can, and must, be done now before it’s too late. Gore aims to inform people and motivate them to action. He hints that U.S. citizens should choose a better president the next time.

The movie draws fire from critics. Many politicians and business people disagree with the global-warming theory, despite the evidence that Gore capably shows. Unwilling to accept the message, they shoot at the messenger. Taking action on global warming contradicts their economic interests. They’re prepared to sacrifice long-term benefits for short-term gains.

Until people accept the global-warming realities, they’ll do nothing to prevent them.

The image firmly fixed in my mind shows a set of scales. On one side lies a stack of gold bullion. On the other rests planet Earth. As Gore asks: “Which one is more precious -- the gold or the planet?”

He lets the evidence in his big-screen lecture give the answer.

ARCHIVES