New disastrous climate documentary on Netflix
The White House Effect is Netflix’s one-sided new climate documentary. It will surely go down well with many (young) Netflix viewers because, you see, (American) politicians did and do nothing about the climate problem, under the influence of ‘the oil industry’. If only that were true.
Source: Shutterstock
Peter Baeten
Date: 9 November 2025
Netflix is rather woke, so the chances of a balanced climate documentary are not very high. Nevertheless, The White House Effect describes the climate dilemma of the Bush Sr. administration (1989-1993), the central theme of the documentary, in a somewhat neutral manner. We see that the administration had completely understandable hesitations about the climate alarmism that manifested itself in the late 1980s. Even then, it was clear that rapidly reducing CO2 emissions would inevitably come at the expense of the economy. So the question was very justified: how certain and strong was the relationship between global warming, extreme weather, and CO2?
There was political pressure on the US because other countries, for example in Europe, were already fully committed to climate action. The battle between ‘climate’ and ‘economy’ focused on Chief of Staff John Sununu and EPA Director William Reilly. Sununu (economy) emerged as the ideological winner, and the US government took a cautious stance for the time being and was not (yet) joining in the climate hysteria.
The White House Effect argues that this was largely because the media (!), malicious and corrupt climate sceptics and the oil lobby suppressed the climate story around 1990, and that this is why US climate policy has never really recovered. The question is, of course, to what extent this is true, but it ís true that there was indeed more room for sceptical voices in the media, politics and science at that time. But in doing so, the documentary inadvertently undermines its own argument. Because when we see how freely sceptics could still operate around 1990, we experience the contrast with today. We realize all the more how much the position of sceptics has been marginalized in the decades since (at least until Trump). Anyone in the mainstream media (except FOX) or in science who proclaims a contrarian sceptical climate narrative these days, is immediately denounced. And a ‘suspicious’ oil company like Shell doesn’t even dare to align itself with Clintel’s position: there is some warming, CO2 probably contributes to it, but no, there is no climate crisis.
And there is much more to criticize. For example, the environment and climate are once again confused. Attention is paid to the environmental disaster involving the Exxon Valdez oil tanker in 1989. This obviously has nothing to do with the climate, but it is typical of the underlying sentiment in the documentary that the oil industry is simply terrible in every way. Nowhere do the filmmakers add any neutral consideration of the economic usefulness of fossil fuels. For that reason alone, this documentary cannot be taken seriously.
Source: Shutterstock
Source: Shutterstock
Furthermore, we are once again inundated with doom stories that do not come true. For example, Hurricane Hugo in 1989 is cited by alarmists in the documentary as undeniable proof of the disaster that is coming. Now, 36 years later, we know that hurricanes are not increasing in frequency at all. Forest fires are also mentioned, and these too have decreased in the decades that followed.
Nevertheless, The White House Effect will surely go down well with many (young) Netflix viewers because, you see, (American) politicians did and do nothing about the climate problem, under the influence of ‘the oil industry’. If only that were true.
more news
China’s Massive Coal-to-Liquids Expansion
In this article, Australian science writer Jo Nova examines China’s rapidly expanding coal-to-chemicals and coal-to-liquids industry. While much of the West focuses on phasing out fossil fuels, China is quietly transforming coal into fuels, plastics and fertilizers at massive scale—raising important questions about energy security and global climate policy.
New Ice Core Study Finds No Clear CO₂–Temperature Link
New research from ancient Antarctic ice cores is challenging long-held assumptions about the role of carbon dioxide in Earth’s climate history. Evidence suggests that CO₂ and methane levels remained remarkably stable over millions of years—even as the planet experienced dramatic temperature shifts. These findings raise fresh questions about the extent to which greenhouse gases alone can explain past and present climate change.
BlackRock CEO Abandons Climate Delusion for Investor Needs
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has publicly shifted toward what he calls energy pragmatism, admitting that society now demands a balanced approach to meeting power needs rather than adherence to rigid climate agendas. This could be a pivotal moment for global energy policy, as one of the planet's most powerful financial players steps back from decades of ill-advised “green” mandates.
