Una verdad muy incómoda: Ahora o nunca
Título original: An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power
PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
6,6/10
8,4 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Una década después de que Una Verdad Incómoda (2006) llevara el cambio climático al corazón de la cultura popular, la continuación muestra lo cerca que estamos de una auténtica revolución en... Leer todoUna década después de que Una Verdad Incómoda (2006) llevara el cambio climático al corazón de la cultura popular, la continuación muestra lo cerca que estamos de una auténtica revolución energéticaUna década después de que Una Verdad Incómoda (2006) llevara el cambio climático al corazón de la cultura popular, la continuación muestra lo cerca que estamos de una auténtica revolución energética
- Nominado a 1 premio BAFTA
- 6 premios y 16 nominaciones en total
Bill Clinton
- Self
- (metraje de archivo)
Xi Jinping
- Self
- (as Jinping Xi)
Barack Obama
- Self
- (metraje de archivo)
Argumento
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesReceived two standing ovations at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival.
- PifiasAl Gore claims that he predicted in Una verdad incómoda (2006) that sea level rise combined with storm surge would flood the 9/11 memorial construction. He didn't. What he did say was that if all the ice melted off of Greenland, it would flood areas with high population, as well as the 9/11 memorial, making no mention of storm surges. As it was Hurricane Sandy that caused the memorial to flood, Gore now rewrites his original claim so that it matches up with the fact. (The exact wording is available in the 'memorable quotes' sections.)
- ConexionesFeatured in The Michael Knowles Show: Al Gore Saves the World... Again! (2017)
Reseña destacada
I'm in full agreement with Gore about the gravity of global warming, but I'm not sure if a film like this will sway those already entrenched in denial. He, as messenger, is terminally mistrusted by the simpletons who really need to be swayed. I also don't like him preaching the virtues of the Environmental Industrial Complex, which has abandoned pretenses of protecting nature from human impact and shifted toward grabbing electricity at the expense of natural landscapes.
There's too much talk of how we can save the planet by industrializing Earth's dwindling open spaces, as if everyone agrees it's a necessary sacrifice. There's no proof that wind power, a very diffuse source of electricity, will make much difference. Germany's experience with Energiewende is a good example. Actual CO2 reductions have been scant and the countryside has lost its character via machines dominating scenery that used to host churches as the tallest structures.
Every time I see cameos of giant wind turbines looming over fields and mountains, I think people are making a huge blunder called business-as- usual. Man has a history of trying to solve one problem by creating another; in this case the aesthetic destruction of nature. Wind power also presents growing threats to bird & bat populations and human health via infrasound and other irritating noise. The industry denies that those are significant problems and its devotees claim nothing can be truly ugly except coal mines. Who are they kidding?
It would be much better to see Gore and others focus entirely on smaller footprint technologies like solar, and new prospects like Deep Geothermal which combines the best of oil drilling technology with greener thinking. Instead of desecrating the Earth's surface, we should aim for energy sources that don't occupy more land or ocean space.
I'd have more hope if the average person didn't waste so much energy with things like unnecessary engine idling, and using more lights than needed. They still consume energy based on pricing and don't care how it's being depleted.
P.S. I see several grossly unscientific reviews on this site, like the straw man claim that Gore previously said Florida would be underwater by now, and a major misunderstanding about infrared absorption and CO2 saturation. Those comments show the level of intellect a film like this is up against, including in the nation's highest office.
There's too much talk of how we can save the planet by industrializing Earth's dwindling open spaces, as if everyone agrees it's a necessary sacrifice. There's no proof that wind power, a very diffuse source of electricity, will make much difference. Germany's experience with Energiewende is a good example. Actual CO2 reductions have been scant and the countryside has lost its character via machines dominating scenery that used to host churches as the tallest structures.
Every time I see cameos of giant wind turbines looming over fields and mountains, I think people are making a huge blunder called business-as- usual. Man has a history of trying to solve one problem by creating another; in this case the aesthetic destruction of nature. Wind power also presents growing threats to bird & bat populations and human health via infrasound and other irritating noise. The industry denies that those are significant problems and its devotees claim nothing can be truly ugly except coal mines. Who are they kidding?
It would be much better to see Gore and others focus entirely on smaller footprint technologies like solar, and new prospects like Deep Geothermal which combines the best of oil drilling technology with greener thinking. Instead of desecrating the Earth's surface, we should aim for energy sources that don't occupy more land or ocean space.
I'd have more hope if the average person didn't waste so much energy with things like unnecessary engine idling, and using more lights than needed. They still consume energy based on pricing and don't care how it's being depleted.
P.S. I see several grossly unscientific reviews on this site, like the straw man claim that Gore previously said Florida would be underwater by now, and a major misunderstanding about infrared absorption and CO2 saturation. Those comments show the level of intellect a film like this is up against, including in the nation's highest office.
- AJ4F
- 31 jul 2017
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idiomas
- Títulos en diferentes países
- An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power
- Localizaciones del rodaje
- Empresas productoras
- Ver más compañías en los créditos en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- 1.000.000 US$ (estimación)
- Recaudación en Estados Unidos y Canadá
- 3.496.795 US$
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- 124.823 US$
- 30 jul 2017
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 5.433.926 US$
- Duración1 hora 38 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
Principal laguna de datos
What is the French language plot outline for Una verdad muy incómoda: Ahora o nunca (2017)?
Responde