bechtelearthdays


 * Title: ** Earth Days

** Director: ** Robert Stone

** Release year: ** 2009

**What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

This film takes a historical look at the environmental movement in the United States; specifically focusing on the foundation of Earth Day. The central argument of this film is that we are clearly facing huge environmental problems today, but many of these issues are not contemporary. The environmental movement has already been around for decades (although it still seems very new to someone like me who is just getting involved). A few themes mentioned throughout the movie are: it was societies’ choices in the past have gotten us to where we are today; technology can have a good and a bad side; and we can solve environmental issues through population control, renewable energy production, conservation, and by other means, but that does not mean we have to accept lives filled with scarcity. These important topics will be analyzed in greater detail to follow. Another piece that is present throughout the film is that a movement can only be successful if we stand up and take action.

** Who are the key social actors and stakeholders in the film? **

This film takes the standpoint that everyone and everything on earth is affected by environmental issues. Whether directly or indirectly we are all sharing the same living space (Earth) and therefore any one person’s actions have an effect on everyone else. This is hard to imagine in every specific case, but is clearly true for climate change and many other kinds of pollution. The planet’s ecosystems usually get hit first but other effects often follow. Our actions affect more than just those living on the planet now; we are also affecting the lives of future generations.

** What does the film convey about the matrix of factors that contribute to our dependence on oil? **

This film looks at many factors that contribute to our dependence on oil, most of which are idealizations we have today which are rooted in historic events. One of these factors is that very few people today believe in conservation. The notion that individuals should mediate their consumption was readily given up after the World Wars. The economic boom that happened in America at this time opened people’s eyes to the seemingly endless amount of goods which they could have. Even now that we can see the trouble with this people are having a tough time reverting back to the conservation ideals we had for many years. To make things worse, our strong belief in capitalism has led us to view success as having lots of material goods. In many cases this could not be further from the truth, but it certainly makes people always want to have more. Another belief that we have that sprung from around the same period of time is that in the future everything will be perfect. There are many clear contradictions to this, but the ideology still exists. One example is the belief in the mid to late 1900s that everyone could have a better quality of living though advanced chemistry. Pesticides and plastics were seen as some of the greatest inventions at the time, but today we know they can cause many severe health problems. This faith that people have in a better future breeds a lack of concern for the impacts we have today. Furthermore, the American ideals of manifest destiny have led us to see ourselves as superior to the environments we live in and the other creatures we share them with. This is contrary to the fact that we are absolutely dependent upon them. Humans have such an enormous power that it is nearly unfathomable! The effects that we can have are astounding and we are just being able to see their extent today. We have drastically changed the planet that we live on, in ways no one would have thought possible 100 years ago. Many of the problems we are causing and the matrix of factors associated with them are anything but trivial. However, most people aren’t even questioning the things that go on around them because their beliefs tell them not to worry. This is one of the most important contributions to our dependence on oil.

** What does the film convey about the matrix of problems caused by our dependence on oil? **

This film does not go into as much detail about what the matrix of problems we are facing actually is, but it does reveal a few important nodes. Most notably, we are destroying the balance of nature by taking over the earth for our own benefit. This is clearly against everything that ecology teaches us. Today we actively try to push nature out of our lives and our living spaces as much as possible. This has brought us to a very unstable way of life today filled with risks and on the verge of collapse. Furthermore, we cause greater pollution to the earth’s air, water, and land every day. The examples used in the film are chemical and nuclear pollution, but many other forms exist as well. The resources we are polluting are essential to our lives as well as those of other species. It simply doesn’t make sense to destroy the things that are vital to our survival. Another problem that the film mentions briefly is that we do not live self sufficient lives and are therefore dependent upon other world powers and the creation of greater externalities.

** What does the film convey about the matrix of affects that would be mobilized by a shift away from oil? **

This film does not specifically analyze what will happen if we shift away from oil, but it does give a variety affects that we will see when trying to improve our environmental sustainability (which means shifting away from oil among other things). The benefits are that we will be able to live happier lives and improve the lives of future generations, but there are many problems we must overcome before this change can be made. The biggest problem is that people are normally very resistant to change. There are many reasons for this, but in general it is because of the same beliefs and faiths that cause us to depend on the way our lives are now (those mentioned two questions back). The reason is that to live sustainably, the only way we currently know how is to give up the modern aspects of our lives today. The film argues that this is simply not possible any more, but we can definitely make other changes to have a positive impact. The problem is, for people to want to make any changes in their way of life, they have to see that there are better options, which means understanding the way we live today has problems. One reason for this is that society does not understand that the earth is a limited resource. It clearly is limited, but on an individual level, it is so big that most people think of it as close to infinite. Why else would they be ok making so much trash? Another reason is that most people really only understand linear change, but many aspects of our lives are actually exponentials. One example of this is population. Another altogether different aspect that makes mobilization of sustainability efforts hard is the corporate interest. Most corporations will act in the best interest of their own profit and only act sustainably if they are forced or if it makes economic sense. In addition, our current political system is not conductive to sustainable change. The major reason behind this is that political candidacies are short term and therefore most politicians only think about improving the present and not very much about the future. To make things worse, there is often very little unity between governing bodies after a major election. With a new president can come a whole new national agenda and any progress made before is likely to be lost. A final difficulty that is faced when promoting sustainability is that no movement is perfect. The environmental movement certainly has not been perfect. One problem that the movement has had is communication. The example of this given in the film is dispute between loggers and environmentalists over why more sustainable logging practices should be used. This communication problem rapidly became a huge source of opposition to the movement; even though both sides would have benefited from sustainable logging.

** What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

I found this film very fascinating and believe it is one of the best sources of environmental media we have seen in this class. The reason that I liked it so much is that it presented very strong facts. It may not have been quite as “sexy” as other environmental films, but its credibility was excellent. The aspect of the film that I liked best was the use of experts in the film. The speakers were chosen from a variety of different backgrounds and experience, but they all shared similar beliefs. The greatest part was that the director made an effort to show the credentials and history of these speakers, which gives excellent credibility to the film. These speaks had a large amount of wisdom to impart through the film.

** What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? **

Despite how well done this film was, it still had a few blemishes. The most obvious challenge for the film was that it came off as more of a historical documentary than anything else. This can impart a great deal of knowledge, but it does not necessarily the most effective way to grab people’s attention and gain support for the film. The target audience was clearly more mature adults who already had a pretty good idea of what is happening with the environmental movement today and not so much the younger population who is newer to the movement. In fact one of the most stunning aspects of the film is this movement is not as contemporary as I typically view it, but has been around for quite a while. Another aspect of the film that could have been improved was its overall tone. I was not overly hopeful about the outcome of the environmental movement, especially in the beginning of the film, and this would probably turn away a lot of people. I also think it could have included a better analysis of a few topics that were mentioned. The effect of corporations, for example, was mentioned but not given very much thought. It was also mentioned that damming rivers is not a sustainable way to generate energy because of its environmental effects. This is a very bold outlook on a topic that is surrounded by a lot of debate. I can understand making this argument, but I think it should have been better supported in the film and the opposing viewpoints should also be considered. If the director did not want to go into this much detail, I don’t believe he should have mentioned the topic at all.

** What kinds of corrective action are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. **

There is a wide variety of corrective action suggest by the film, mostly aimed at solving the large scale problems we are facing. The first suggestion is that we live our lives in accordance with the principles of ecology. This would be excellent to look at, but would mean giving up our modern lifestyles almost completely and going back to a more simple lifestyle. Another suggestion is that we practice better conservation. This is certainly an excellent place to start, but won’t fix everything. Next, the film suggests we make an effort to reduce population. This is also a good idea, but the director does not go into very much detail of how this should actually be done, which is, in fact, very controversial. Another way to solve our problems would be to adopt a new consciousness and understanding of what is happening around us. This will likely be necessary on some level before we can make any significant changes, but it is not something that can be easily implemented by itself (at least not without mind control!). The best suggestion made by the film is to join the environmental movement. Solving environmental problems will only be possible if we work together. In many ways this movement is antiestablishment, which would also solve some things. Shifting away from our current economic vice would be one example. The film also briefly talks about the more straight forward solutions such as better investment renewable energy sources and use of the “Whole Earth Catalog” items.

** What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (2 sources) **

This film provided a huge amount of information and covered most topics very thoroughly, but there were still a few things that caught my attention and compelled me to seek our more information. The first was where did the strange looking green flag with a Greek letter theta on it come from? This was shown during the film in one of the scenes where environmentalists were protesting. The flag had the same stripping pattern as the American flag, but instead of stars in the upper left corner there was a theta symbol and everything was green and white (see below). After doing a quick search I found the following site: []. This website describes the history of what is known as the Ecology Flag. This flag was developed in the sixties by the political cartoonist Ron Cobb as a symbol of the environmental movement. The logo on the flag actually has a dual meaning as both the combination between the letters ‘e’ and ‘o’, which stand for ecology and organisms respectfully. According to the site, “This stylized symbol also resembles the Greek letter “theta” which is associated with the Greek word ‘thanatos’ (death). This symbol, therefore, implies mankind’s threat to the environment.” This is a very interesting historical reference, which is not around very much anymore. My other question was whether the “Whole Earth Catalog”, which was mentioned in the film, is still being published and what it includes today. A great deal of information on this and similar publication can be found at []. This site also includes copies of all the catalogs published. It turns out that this document was published for four years back to back before only being continued intermediately. The last issue was released in 1996 and contains a wealth of very revolutionary environmental articles.