For those that watched tonight's Channel 4 documentary (see http://www.channel4.com/greenmovement) this is my quick response :
The debate revealed that the film alone - without the debate - would have been a disaster. The documentary was ideologically driven, contained serious factual errors, and omitted key information.
The debate revealed that the 'green movement' left its hippy origins behind 20 years ago and has grown up, whereas documentary makers are still stuck in the past.
The debate revealed that the green movement is broad, more united than the documentary suggested, and much more interested in solutions than personal point-scoring and partisanship.
In fact the documentary itself was largely unnecessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Further to this quick response, this is a longer response which is also to be found on the Oxfordshire Green Party website (www.greenoxford.com/) :
ReplyDeleteWhat the Green Movement Got Right
The central thrust of the programme was that although the Green movement was right about climate change, it was naive, ideologically driven, technophobic, patronising towards the developing world and unwilling to admit its mistakes. Two 'mistakes' in particular (it said) have cost, and will cost, many lives: its refusal to countenance nuclear power or genetically modified crops. It also accused the movement of preventing the elimination of malaria by opposing targeted use of DDT. As a result of the movement's success in halting nuclear power development, coal burning still dominated. Anti-GM campaigning would result in starvation in developing countries affected by climate change.
There followed a live debate in which two of the protagonists (Mark Lynas and Stewart Brand) were tackled by representatives of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, plus environmentalists from Africa and India and others. It was quickly apparent that the documentary was a source of some embarrassment to all, including the presenter, and Brand and Lynas moved rapidly to assert that they supported the bulk of what the Green movement was doing. Major factual errors and omissions were highlighted - the DDT accusation was baseless, a story about the blocking of GM food aid to Zambia was exposed as false on several counts (the aid was not needed as there was plenty of non-GM food available, those blocking it were Zambians not westerners). Major issues to do with nuclear energy had been ignored - the fact that it has never been economic, has too long a lead time to be a quick enough response to climate change, depends on a nation-wide secure electrical power grid which India (for instance) doesn't have, and is linked to weapons technology. The issue of GM multinationals in league with corrupt government seizing control of seed stock that peasant farming communities depend on, creating further dependence, was glossed over despite being one of the biggest objections to the technology. All speakers agreed that these technologies were no 'magic bullet'.
The end result was that the 'Green movement' appeared light on its feet, truly international (not patronising), diverse but united, competent and (scientifically) knowledgeable, and opposed to certain technologies not on ideological but deeply pragmatic grounds: it's about what works quickly and effectively 'on the ground'. The documentary had attempted to suggest that the Green movement was a bunch of well-meaning hippies, some of whom had grown up, but the debate demonstrated that, if anything, it's those who blindly trust in technological solutions without asking the hard political questions about who controls them and why who are being naive and ideological.
There's a value in a provocative documentary to stimulate debate about the most important issue humankind faces, but it is possible to provoke without resorting to unfounded accusation and distortion. The debate was excellent, but I'm concerned about those who switched off before it. Still, at least Channel 4 has changed its tune and seems now to be accepting that human-induced climate change may be happening after all.
Was the program correct in saying that Chernobyl has shown that nuclear accidents are not as devastating as once thought? Steve
ReplyDelete