Film8

1. Title, director and release year? “Earth Days” was released in 2009 and directed by Robert Stone.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of this movie is that we are polluting the earth which has resulted in an environmental crisis. We have built inventions such as the car and the atomic bomb which cause negative externalities to the environment.

3. Who are they key social actors and stakeholders in the film? The key social actors are people who have witnessed the earth’s changing environment. These social actors include professors, astronauts, botanists, and other professionals.

4. What does the film convey about the matrix of factors that contribute to our dependence on oil? Our World War 1 involvement sparked a huge industrial boom in United States manufacturing. We consumed more and more oil as we produced more mechanized products. Also, the invention of the car contributed to our dependence on oil. We have used it as our main mode of transportation and are reluctant to give up our vehicles. The chemical industry has contributed to the environmental crises because we use synthetic chemicals for fertilizer and pesticides.

5. What does the film convey about the matrix of problems caused by our dependence on oil? Some of the problems that are caused by our dependence on oil is the huge amounts of CO2 and sulfur dioxide emitted into the air. We are poisoning the environment by using chemically produced pesticides and fertilizers. We can actually consume the pesticides on our fruits and vegetable. This poses a potential health threat to us and the rest of the food chain.

6. What does the film convey about the matrix of affects that would be mobilized by a shift away from oil? The film doesn’t make any comment on moving away from oil. The film explains more of the negative consequences associated with oil and petroleum based products and the effect on the environment. The Arab oil embargo forced oil prices to rise by 400% in just two months. Gas lines would stretch for half a mile. People needed to ration oil. During this period, would have been a good time to transition to a renewable energy source by society. The high price of gasoline should have motivated people to invest money and research into different sources of energy that would be cheaper.

7. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I found most compelling that people wanted to build airports in the everglades. I find this shocking because the everglades as an ecosystem is home to many species of animals, birds, and plants that would be effected by a nearby airport. Also, the everglades are located far from most communities in Florida and the ride from the airport to one of these communities would be about an hour. They wanted to put dams in the Grand Canyon. There is so little water you would not be able to have enough dams. Senator Gaylord Nelson came up with Earth Day in 1970. He was strong on conservation issues and proposed a nation day of learning about saving our environment. Still today we continue to drill for oil and still pollute our environment. I was also surprised to learn that the Republican party was for a sustainable environment in the 1970s. Today it is the opposite. The democrats are more for a sustainable environment than the Republicans. Earth Day occurred on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lenin, the father of communism. Another interesting fact is the first Earth Day had the largest demonstration with 20 million people across the nation. Economists have shown that once basic needs are fulfilled consumption becomes more materialist and a growth of the economy will have a limited effect on the individual. Electrical companies were the biggest monopolists in the 1970s. I think it is more true now because you cannot choose your energy provider. You are given one based on your geographical location.

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

Pollution instantly kills people. The film made it sound like you just die when you breathe in pollution. I think if you die of pollution, it will take many years of the pollution hurting you. It will not be instant. I was surprised to hear that our population tripled in a 50 year period. There has to be a rate limiting factor for the human population that will cap our population soon. Another thing that I find shocking is that environmentalists were wire tapped by the FBI in the 1970s. It makes no sense that these people were being tapped because they wanted to protect the environment and not bring destruction to the world. The fact that economic growth has no effect on a macro level is kind of strange. The perception of growth is something that drives the economy and instills faith in a country.

9. 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.

One corrective action is to have some environmental government mandate with new rules and regulations. Environmentalists want to clean up lakes that are polluted from toxins. Look at the down side of any technological project instead of only looking at the upwards potential. These are two very good actions. It will be hard to get members of congress to enforce a mandate on an industry that helps fund their political campaigns and provides taxes to the government. Looking at downside risks more. This too will be hard because most people are only focused on money and only care about what is happening currently.

10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references, explaining what your learned from each reference.) The film made me look at statistical information concerning deaths that are caused by pollution. According to //Science Daily,// 40% of world wide deaths are cause by pollution with a specific focus on water. I assume this occurs mainly in poorer regions of the world. “Air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year. In the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment.” The United States is also a small manufacturer/producer compared to countries such as China and India. []

This film motivated me to do some research on the RPI ECAV. I wanted to see how green the building actually is. “It was designed to support photovoltaic arrays totaling 14,000 square feet for future electric generation; and the stadium, which can support up to 20 micro wind turbines along its cornice.” First I have not seen any micro wind turbines. I feel that RPI should take action and not state what the building can potentially do. It is like me saying we can go green in 50 years. RPI needs to take action now to be proactive with all greening initiatives. []