The Age of Consequences

First and formost, this movie looks great! There are many drone shot scenes, well set-up interview environments, great shots and clips from the ground and fantastic computer generated simulations. It does add upp to a nice to see documentary. Add an important topic to it such as climate change and its impact on geopolitics, while also pointing out the important fact that climate change is only part of chaos at hand. and it seems difficult to fail, right? Yet it does feel lackluckster. While pointing out the threat of chinese global expansion along with a view other countries it never dares to talk critically about its own, the USA. This slowly meanders into the movie feeling oddly xenophobic, and sadly so. I really liked many parts of this documentary, but i cant let myself fully enjoy what i was seeing as i had this nagging feeling that it also wanted me to feel better about all the US, despite all shortcomings it has on its own.

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" begins with the assumption that man-made global warming is real, and proceeds to blame every flood, hurricane, endangered species, and other natural disaster on CO2 from the evil industrialized nations. Ten years later, "The Age of Consequences" picks up the narrative by blaming every political crisis in the world on the same dubious cause. Madeline Albright, Secretary of State in the Clinton-Gore administration, is billed as the star of the film. Other politicians and military personnel also contribute. Climatologists and meteorologists are notably absent. Those who are already terrified by global warming (oops-I mean climate change) may enjoy being further terrorized by this film. The continuous music track, reminiscent of the soundtrack of "Jaws" will help. But if you are looking to be informed, look elsewhere.

I went for the premiere screening at HotDocs festival in Toronto. I loved the beautiful aerial shots of nature and industrialized areas, and cool computer animation sequences connecting visual pieces together. Everything else.. oh, well, the movie felt like a US military propaganda, in which US is declaring a "war on climate change". Limited, one-sided information, presented in a way that was more aimed at instilling fear than explaining the real causes of climate change and empowering the average citizen. Immigration crisis in Europe and Middle East got also superficial treatment - shocking, dramatic pictures, accompanied by one sided opinions favoring US politics (At the same time immigration issues at the US south border were not even mentioned). I understand time constraints of 80 minutes format, but that is not enough of an excuse for presenting this kind of limited perspective... In this extreme situation glorified US govt and US army are entitled to take whatever measures necessary to provide the global stability - all too familiar. There are better documentaries on the topic.

The Age of Consequences makes a strong point about the connection between climate change and global instability … and then belabors it to death.

The documentary begins with a parade of military leaders and civilian defense and diplomatic experts, all reinforcing that connection – as if trying to drown out the politicians who pretend it is open to debate.

The filmmakers list a number of ramifications – land loss, shortages, migration, civil unrest and international conflict, to name a few – but then make the same, or very similar, points for each one.

This documentary examines an important topic, so it's a shame that I was nodding off about three- quarters of the way through. Really, though, you could get the gist of it from viewing the trailer.

###

Stu Robinson practices writing, editing, media relations and social media through his business, Phoenix-based Lightbulb Communications.

When I was in high school, I already had to endure eco-fascist propaganda, except that back then, besides for all the "we are poisoning the planet", the climate propaganda was all about "global cooling" and the imminent new ice age. That was not a "fringe opinion", as they claim now, that was the majority opinion promoted by the UN, the NOAA, Science, Nature, the British Society, The Guardian, the NYT and National Geographic. I have before me an article from 1973 about the "coming food crises" due to the massive global cooling and the climate "new normal" written by the Institute of Atmospheric Science in Colorado and ... the Aspen Institute. Yes, the one that is now promoting global warming. And the "institutional race theory". They were and are Marxists. Yes, they already used the term "new normal". Of course everyone thought that the planet was cooling as it had been getting colder since 1943. Despite rapidly increasing CO2. From 1880 to 1940, there was massive warming. The poles were melting - fast. Amundsen took advantage of an exceptional period of very low ice in the Antarctic. The Artic and Greenland saw massive ice losses. The climate alarmists switched to "global warming" after 1978, as the climate trend changed. There was some warming until 1998. From 1999 until today, there has been almost no warming at all. We've experienced multiple extremely harsh, snow-rich winters. Greenland and Iceland glaciers are advancing again, the US glacier park no longer warns about "disappearing glaciers", because they've also been growing again. Right now, Madrid is under the heaviest snow and cold in 50 years. Again, that's not "climate change", as it was just as snowy and cold 50 years ago. It's just in the usual range of climate events. The fearmongering about "shrinking Arctic ice" is based on the reference year 1979, which saw exceptionally high levels of ice. Mysteriously, they didn't use 1975, which saw very low ice levels. Lots of dire warnings about global warming were promoted since the 1980s. Not one of them ever came true. There is no harmful climate change. The only noticeable change due to slightly increased CO2 is a greening of the planet - Australia got slightly cooler and slightly more humid, cf. their meteorological records. 2019 was exceptional due to an Indian Ocean Dipole event, which occurs every few decades. Most arid regions are now more fertile and greener. The entire Levant, Middle East and Northern Africa - Turkey, Iran, Iraq, even Saudi Arabia - saw snowfall. There has been snow on the Sahara at least 3 times over the last few years. Pacific Islands are not shrinking, they are growing! Species are not going extinct. Polar bears increased from around 8'000 in 1960 to about 36'000 now. We constantly grow more food on less land, so there are no food shortages due to climate change. The number and surface of wildfires is much lower now than it was 100 years ago. When they say that global warming "causes wildfires", they lie. There are not more storms, either. They predicted "no more snow" after 2010, because the planet was supposed to be "too hot". We experience snow record after snow record all over the planet - with extremely low temperatures. At the South Pole, temperatures of -98C were measured in recent years. Absolute cold records. The ice, both on land and sea ice, has been growing massively over Antarctica. The migrations have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the climate. Some are moved by wars, but most are just attracted by handouts by western countries. The climate is always changing, because planet earth is an incredibly complex system and totally unpredictable. Humanity has no influence at all. There is not even a correlation between CO2 and the climate. There have been periods with very high CO2 levels and very low temperatures and vice versa. Even over the last 200 years, there is no correlation. Glaciers started melting at the end of the little ice age when the industrial age had barely started. Right now, glaciers on Greenland and Iceland are advancing, cf. NASA data. This is just abysmal propaganda by warmongers who are looking for ways to control the world. Don't let them control your minds. Look up the actual data!