white house effect
Directed by Boni Cohen, Pedro Cos, and John Schenck, available on Netflix starting October 31st

The opening scene of white house effect transports viewers to the devastating Great Drought of 1988. The backdrop is a scorching summer in North America, presenting the USA with its worst drought since the Dust Bowl. Relief is nowhere in sight; the heat is relentless.

This climate crisis defined the presidential election that year, pitting Democrat Michael Dukakis against Republican George H.W. Bush, who triumphed with a landslide victory on a pledge for enhanced environmental protection.

“Some may argue these challenges are insurmountable,” President Bush remarked during a campaign stop in Michigan, addressing climate change. “My belief is clear: it is achievable, and we must act. These matters transcend ideology and politics.” Such a sentiment from a prominent Republican seems unimaginable today.

In 1988, the U.S. was a nation where addressing environmental issues garnered votes, and where the connection between fossil fuels and climate change was discussed with a mix of urgency and skepticism.

Predominantly narrated through archival footage, white house effect serves as a window into a hopeful future that never came to fruition. It tells the tale of a populace ready to acknowledge climate change as a bipartisan issue, only to be steered away from that consensus.

The film centers on a struggle between two advisors to President Bush. In the blue corner, Bill Riley, former president of the World Wildlife Fund and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator starting in 1989. In the red corner stands John H. Sununu, the chief of staff known for his climate skepticism. These two figures will shape the environmental policies of the Bush administration and face off for years, with dire consequences for our planet.

With hindsight, one could easily predict the outcome. Yet, what’s intriguing about white house effect is that it refrains from presenting this as inevitable. It explores a gradual march towards a destiny. The archival footage is always engaging, often shifting timelines to reinforce the film’s message, keeping the audience aware and engaged despite the grim reality on display.

Consider the 1979 energy crisis, during which Exxon experienced a staggering 119% profit increase while countless drivers waited hours to refuel due to plummeting oil production. One driver at a gas station remarked that everyone should just return home and await the gas shortage. When asked why he wasn’t turning back, he responded: “I’m not going back because no one else is.”

This documentary features numerous climate scientists, but none resonate more than Steven Schneider, a pioneer advocating for climate action. His journey forms the film’s emotional core, from his Senate testimony in 1988 to his final interview before his passing in 2010.

“Looking back at our early efforts, many of our immediate goals fell short. But here we are, making gradual progress,” he reflects. “The problem of global warming has been recognized, and we’re pushing for a cultural shift—something that will take a generation.”

It’s heart-wrenching to ponder how Mr. Schneider would view the last 15 years of fruitless attempts and the current direction of America.

Viewing white house effect can feel suffocating. It stirs frustration, particularly for those, like me, born too late to witness these events firsthand. While the film is polemical, it serves a vital purpose—shaking us out of apathy and urging action, no matter the cost.