bechtelfuel

** Director: **Josh Tickell ** Release year: ** 2010   The central argument of this film is that we are living unsustainably and the source of this problem is our choice of fuel. Simply put, we are addicted to oil. The director explains throughout the film that living this way was never a conscious decision made by society, but was coerced by those who want money and power, at the sake of everyone else. The people being referred to are large corporations such as Standard Oil and the government leaders taking their handouts. Tickell argues that the cars were originally designed to run on ethanol and that it was a conspiracy led by Standard Oil that led to the use of oil products for fuel.  ** Who are the key social actors and stakeholders in the film? **  There are many different social actors and stakeholders in this film and because everyone relies up oil products in their everyday lives, we are all large stakeholders. Some of those who are even more significantly impacted by our current fuel choice are those who live in the fallout areas of oil production and refineries, the soldiers who fight our wars, and those who live near oil spill disaster areas. All of these people suffer serious negative effects that are caused by our oil addiction. Most struggle with poor health, economic devastation, and even death. Other social actors include big oil corporations, politicians, and OPEC countries. All of these parties are invested in our current fuel choices and stand to gain a lot of wealth from it.  ** What does the film convey about the matrix of factors that contribute to our dependence on oil? **  This film doesn’t spend as much time addressing factors that contribute to our dependence on oil, but is certainly makes some strong points about them. It begins by briefly explaining that nearly everything in our daily lives relies upon cheap, abundant fuel. Our rapid technological advancement began with the industrial revolution and still continues today with nearly the same mentality. Everything including our food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and everything else we need in our everyday lives used some form of oil byproducts to get here. Our ridiculous automobile dependence is obviously the top of the list. According to the film, however, this was not the way it was meant to be. Ford, the inventor of the automobile had originally designed car motors to run on ethanol, not gasoline. This plan was supposedly ruined when prohibition started and Standard Oil suggested use of oil byproducts for vehicles. Another story told in the film was about Rudolf Diesel. It is believed that he originally intended for the engine to run on bio fuels and not oil products either. Apparently there was a lot of mystery surrounding his death, which Tickell understood to be another controversy in order to establish big oil.  ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What does the film convey about the matrix of problems caused by our dependence on oil? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">There are a huge number of problems caused by our dependence on oil and the film does a pretty good job of drawing connections to these. The first problem is that our economy runs on oil and we have to import it from other countries. This means that our economic actors are directly connected to geopolitics. As a result, governments are encouraged to secure more oil for the country any way possible; especially since our government is more than $3.5 trillion in debt. This typically means one of two things, going to war or becoming allies with some of the most brutal dictatorships on the planet. Our country has done both. Furthermore, the United States’ enormous oil consumption and strong dependence on it sends prices soaring. This isn’t much of a concern for us right now, but it makes it incredibly hard for third world countries to even see a drop of oil. Another serious problem is that crude oil contains many harmful toxic chemicals. The processing and refining of crude oil creates a huge amount of waste that all has to go somewhere. As the film puts it, there are three options: pollutants can be burned and put into the air, or dumped in the water, or deposited on land. Either way, it destroys the vital systems that our lives are dependent upon. In Louisiana, the highest oil producing state in the US, there is a large fallout from oil production. This and other pollution “accidents” cause serious health defects for people in surrounding areas; including miscarriages and cancer. According to the film, chemical release “accidents” occur between 200 and 300 times per year and are the only way to get rid of such large volume of toxics without getting in serious trouble. In most cases the victims are often never see any form of compensation. This is one of the massive hidden externalities of our oil dependence. The film also briefly mentions the most obvious problem that fossil fuel use causes; global warming. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What does the film convey about the matrix of affects that would be mobilized by a shift away from oil? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">This film addresses many of the difficulties that would be faced by attempting to mobilize a shift away from oil. Namely, there would be a strong opposition to change from corporations. Many of the effects of this can already be seen today, especially from American car companies. These corporations refuse to help shift away from oil. In fact, they produce and advertise large gas-guzzling vehicles more than anything else. This problem extends much further however. The film explains how through campaign financing and other funding, these corporations are able to take control of government. Oil companies spend $240 million in government funding every year and as a result we see strong government support for the oil powered industry. This comes in the form of tax breaks supporting larger cars, subsidies of as much as half the cost of oil production, and many other policies. President George Bush and much of the rest of the government blatantly lied to the American public following the 9-11 bombing about why we were going to war in the Middle East, for example. As the film explains, all the US government had to do was give the public some reason to justify invasion and the easiest claim happened to be weapons of mass destruction; when in reality the cause was the need for oil. Furthermore, 25% of the US defense budget, a total of $3 trillion, was unaccounted for in the national defense budget around the same time. The consequence of this is that the majority of the public doesn’t understand what the causes of our oil dependence really are and therefore there isn’t yet a huge push to shift away from it. Without this, it is not likely that the government will ever change its position on oil use. An example that the film uses are seatbelts requirements. Most companies didn’t put seatbelts in cars until they were required to by the government as a result of public outcry. Even when the government did try to make steps toward shifting away from oil during the Carter administration, they quickly backtracked when Reagan became president. It seems that the only oil alternatives that the government will support are those that are destructive in other ways, such as ethanol. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The part of this film that I found most persuasive was how personal it made the problems. The director used a great amount of pathos to make the viewer really feel the problem. I was also compelled by some of the solid facts that the movie included. ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">I was not very compelled or convinced by most of this movie. It really painted a very one-sided view of what was happening and overlooked some important parts of the real picture. For example, the only way to use biodiesel in an unmodified engine is to mix in 20% standard diesel fuel. This isn’t a big issue because reducing our fuel consumption by 80% would still be a huge accomplishment, but this is something that was never even mentioned in the movie. It’s hard to believe that there isn’t anything else they conveniently left out. This film also tried to draw too many conclusions from various controversies. I don’t believe that documentaries should simply avoid controversial issues all the time, but they shouldn’t jump to conclusions as fast as this one did. Lastly, I think it would have been much more easy to understand the movie if they had started off by explaining the differences between biodiesel and ethanol instead of waiting until the end to explain it. I found myself very confused about half way though because of this. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">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. ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">The most obvious form of corrective action suggested by this film was switching from oil products to running on biodiesel. Most of this film was dedicated to addressing this single solution, which it did a pretty good job of. Biodiesel is a renewable source of energy that can come from a wide variety of living matter. The film also suggests that we can help correct the problems of oil dependence by taking action on an individual level. This certainly is an important first step and from there we can hopefully begin to come together for lager, cooperative action; such as reforming the government. Right near the end of the film Tickell also mentions a wide variety of other possible solutions, such as: wind power, solar energy, plug-in vehicles, better public transit, improved energy efficiency, vertical farms, and complete urban redesign. These ideas were mentioned, but not discussed in any detail and in my opinion only added weakness to the film. It would have been much stronger to only consider one or two methods of solution and do a stronger analysis on their potential for a solution. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? ** <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">There were many parts of this film that I felt compelled to do more research on, but the one that caught my attention most was the Megaflora tree. This was mentioned in the film as a potential new source of biofuel. Many of the facts and figures presented in the movie and more can be found here: []. The reason I decided to check into this tree species is that it sounded like it had to be a GMO. Looking at the website, however, it says that they are not genetically modified, but simply a cross between two kinds of trees. Much of what is on the website is hard to believe, but what I found the most shocking was that these trees grow where no other plants can, do not produce any kind of food (cannot reproduce), and will grow back if they are cut down. This seems incredibly unnatural to me and so I wanted to see if I could find any scientific studies about the organisms. The closest thing I could find was []. This site shows the other side of what appears to be another controversy. Apparently the findings shown on the first website and in the film were falsified. The second website, however, does not offer proof of their findings either. The best thing that I can conclude from this is that we need more unbiased scientific evidence before we put our faith in any possible solution.
 * <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Title: **<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> Fuel
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film? **