Must-watch documentary shows how Bush Senior failed the climate

The White House Effect
Directed by Bonni Cohen, Pedro Kos, and Jon Shenk, available on Netflix starting 31 October

The initial scenes of The White House Effect, a gripping new documentary about climate change, take you to the severe drought of 1988. Imagine a scorching summer enveloping North America, bringing the most severe drought in the US since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, with no reprieve in sight as the heat persists.

These extreme weather conditions set the stage for that year’s presidential campaign featuring Democrat Michael Dukakis and Republican George H. W. Bush. Bush emerged victorious with a resounding promise of enhanced environmental protections.

“Some argue that these issues are insurmountable,” Bush remarked on the campaign trail in Michigan regarding climate change. “My answer is clear: we can do this, and we must. These challenges ignore ideology and political borders.” Such remarks from a prominent Republican figure seem unimaginable today.

In 1988 America, not only were green policies politically advantageous, but the link between fossil fuels and rising temperatures was addressed with relative calm, despite notable skepticism.

Largely utilizing archival footage, The White House Effect presents a poignant view of a future that never came to be. It tells the story of how millions were on the verge of embracing climate action as a bipartisan issue—and how that consensus was ultimately undermined.

A central conflict in the film arises between two of Bush’s advisers. In one corner is Bill Reilly, a former president of the World Wildlife Fund and the administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency starting in 1989. In the opposing corner is John H. Sununu, Bush’s chief of staff and a staunch climate skeptic. These two opposing forces guided the environmental policies of the Bush administration, leading to disastrous outcomes for the planet.

Observing our current world, it is evident which side prevailed, of course. However, what makes The White House Effect compelling is not merely its obvious outcome; it is the detailed exploration of this gradual descent towards collapse. The documentary’s archival material is consistently engaging, especially when its narrative shifts through time, emphasizing the film’s arguments. It maintains the viewer’s attention, preventing the grim reality from numbing their perception.

The film transports us back to the 1979 energy crisis, where countless individuals spent hours at gas stations waiting to refuel amid declining oil production, while Exxon’s quarterly profits increased by 119 percent. One person at a gas station, when asked why he continues to wait while suggesting others should return home, simply states, “I’m not turning back because no one else is.”

The documentary features several climate scientists, but none as significantly as Stephen Schneider, who was one of the first to advocate for action on climate change. He serves as an emotive thread throughout the film, from his initial testimony before a US Senate committee in 1988 to his final filmed appearance shortly before his passing in 2010.

“Reflecting on the beginnings of my advocacy, most of my immediate goals have not been realized. Yet here we are, making cautious progress,” he reflects. “People have become increasingly aware of the problem of global warming, and we are on the brink of initiating cultural shifts, though that evolves over [a] generational timeframe.”

It is heartbreaking to contemplate how Schneider would assess the past 15 years of missed opportunities, not to mention the current trajectory of the US under its reigning president.

Watching The White House Effect is an overpowering experience. It can leave one feeling resentful, especially for those, like myself, who were born too late to witness these pivotal moments firsthand. While the film serves as a polemic, it is a crucial one aimed at jolting us out of our complacency and stagnation by whatever means necessary— or required.