The Day After Tomorrow

About the film
The film opens with a climate scientist explaining to world leaders that there is a chance of an abrupt change in the world's climate. Rapidly melting ice is pumping so much freshwater into the ocean that the currents bringing warm water and higher temperatures to the Northern Hemisphere could stop moving, and plunge it into an ice age. The film then cuts to extreme cold weather events around the world, the freeze begins and the drama ensues.

What did you think of the film? Do you see it as an effective medium in getting the message across about global warming?

JM: What a film! The effects were just breathtaking and overall I can say that I thoroughly enjoyed it even though it hollywoodises the problem. What an effective medium for getting part of the message across. If I were to pick holes in the argument I would probably say that the film does not accurately portray the science of climate change, nor does it emphasise the fact that we can avoid the dramatic impacts of climate change if we take action now to reduce the pollution that causes global warming.

Does WWF see the catastrophic scenario depicted in the movie as pure fiction, or are we one step away from the end of the world?

JM: Luckily, unlike in the movie, we still have a bit of time to slow down climate change before it wreaks havoc on the world - but not much! Although the movie is classical Hollywood with a lot of drama and big effects - it also carries a clear message: climate change is real and must be curbed immediately. To stop global warming, we need responsible leaders who will listen to scientific advice, and take up the challenge to put us on a climate-friendly pathway for the future. We know the solutions. We have the technology. What is needed is political will. Critics will reproach the film for scare mongering, by showing extreme scenarios to depict climate change.

Are any of these realistic?

JM: The movie is an action film rather than an educational one. The drama is fictional, but the scale of the impacts, if global warming goes unchecked, could be real. The timing is also totally exaggerated, although the film has never claimed accuracy on all accounts. Storms, floods, refugees, much of what the movie shows, already exist in parts of the world. Climate change does not happen exactly as in the movie but what many of us don't realize is that the "Day After Tomorrow" is already reality for millions of people worldwide. The United Nations estimate that more than 20 million people die every year as a result of natural disasters, many linked to climate change. In Bangladesh, for example, hundreds of thousands of people lost their homes recently because of flood catastrophes. Although the movie distorts climate change impacts, this is a good opportunity to raise awareness on the reality of the issue. This is a good platform to let the world know about how climate change is affecting each and everyone now, and that something has to be done to address the situation NOW. The film does provide a good base of information on the life of a climate scientist - the gathering of data, assessment of impacts and attempts to inform political leaders of the risks. Hopefully in the real world, they will have more success than they did in the movie with the Vice President of the United States.

Isn't the movie's basic idea very similar to the climate change report by the US Department of Defense (Pentagon) that became known early this year?

JM: The Pentagon report is based on a similar worst case scenario as in the movie. It says that - and I quote from the summary - "...because of the potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change, although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern." Reasons given are that a sudden cooling, even when spread over ten or twenty years, could lead to massive food shortages, water shortages and problems with energy supply.

In terms of the overall campaign to highlight global warming, how would you rate this film?

JM:In the fight to combat global warming the film falls short as it does not highlight all the solutions already at hand. We know the cause, we know the impacts and we know the solutions. Hopefully, the movie will make people think a bit more about their environment. Climate change is already happening even if New York does not drown in a sea of ice. I hope that this movie will make people realize that we can avoid catastrophic consequences if we act now: we must reduce the pollution that causes climate change to keep some control over what is happening to our climate. It isn't too late, but what we need is decisive leadership of individual countries and of their governments. Unfortunately we can't see much of that so far.

What do you feel this film could achieve in terms of political and big business initiatives?

JM: The film accurately portrays the deaf ear that the Bush administration has shown to the scientific findings on climate change and the lack of political leadership from around the world on the problem. So the hope would be that the film would serve as a wake up call and galvanise leaders who are ready to take on the challenge.

What do we have to do to prevent the worst?

JM: If we want to have any chance to prevent massive climate change we have to reduce the pollution that causes climate change substantially and quickly. WWF is campaigning for an exit from coal because the use of coal is especially bad for the climate. We need to use "clean" or renewable energy such as sun and wind more than in the past and also promote new technologies such as the use of wood and other biomass. The most important aspect of energy today, however, is efficiency - saving energy by using the best available technologies for heating electricity and transport.