In this week's New Statesman magazine, Hollywood actor Robert Redford makes a stinging attack on Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore. Is his scepticism of the former US vice president's green credentials at all justied?
Commenting on Gore's award, Redford, who himself has campaigned on green issues since 1969, says: "He's making a lot of money, he's having a belle epoque, a heroic moment. It must have been really hard for Gore to suffer all that [losing the presidential election], so he found another thing to come back with; the environment." ouch...
And he goes on...
"He had a lot of money behind him, because in Clinton's administration there was a lot of money. With that he was able to build himself a new campaign and pick an issue. And he picked an issue that just happened to arrive at its moment in time."
Asked why the thinks Gore is not going back into politics, Redford answers: "What's more important - to be a hero to your country and go save it...or do you want to be happy and rich and be a hero and not get into the political scene?"
Even if there is a germ of truth in what Redford says it looks like a case of sour grapes; while Redford was out there speaking about the environment before it became fashionable, Gore has taken all the credit.
As Redford says: "It was not a happy easy time [in the late 60s/70s], because those were the days that the oil and gas companies pretty much controlled the show on propaganda. Anyone speaking about solar energy would be smashed down as being a radical, a tree-hugger and granola-cruncher or what have you."
If Redford was that radical, granola crunching tree-hugger - and he does like to give the impression that he reigns over the Hollywood left - surely he should be thrilled that someone has been able to finally bring green issues into the mainstream, whoever it is and whatever it took?
Is Redford feeling aggrieved that Gore has robbed his green crown and he's not happy to relinquish it without a fight, or else is he just trying to deflect attention from his latest film, Lions for Lambs, which has had shockingly bad reviews?
