Film2

1. Title, director and release year? The 11th Hour was released in 2007 and directed by Leila Connors.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of the film is that there is going to be deforestation, global warming, and mass species extinction. It suggests that we are contributing to the problems in the environment and it is up to us to take action now before this gets worse.

3. Who are they key social actors and stakeholders in the film? The stakeholders and key social actors are scientists and physicists. The film reaches out to experts in their fields. These experts explain that we need to take action to preserve our environment and ourselves. They describe the beauty of the world we live in. The film shows our beautiful society that we live in and describes the human body as very complex.

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

One of the factors that contributes to our dependence on oil is the human mind. The movie references Adam and Eve and our ability to think logically, yet we want more and more. Another factor occurred in the 1800s with the invention of the steam engine and the fossil fuel age. People began to see nature as a resource that is abundant. It gave people the perception that there can be ultimate expansion. Another factor is the industrial revolution with the rise in use of fossil fuel. Selfishness is a problem too. We are always wanting more and more and we are very materialistic. Also, politics plays a role in our dependence on oil. Politicians have not been doing enough to help protect our environment. There is a lack of bipartisanship and there is too much money wrapped up in the political machine due to lobbying. In the 1970s most of the environmental Acts were passed by congress. The reason for this is that there was a common goal between two groups of people. The economy is meant to grow not to shrink and when there is economic growth something loses. The biosphere loses because more resources are tapped. The film describes the agricultural boom as a problem saying that the more and more people that inhabit the earth the more and more resources we have been using. 5. What does the film convey about the matrix of problems caused by our dependence on oil?

The film conveys that we are destroying the environment. The CO2 emissions have risen immensely because of our dependence on oil. The permafrost beneath the tundra is melting in the northern hemisphere. The higher the temperatures in the Arctic the more and more the ice melts which lead to higher sea levels around the globe. By the end of the century the Arctic might be ice free. Another problem is the rainfall patterns have begun to change. There has been floods in areas of the world that have never seen floods before. There are food problems because floods destroy farming areas and cold weather destroys crops. Most importantly, without food people die. Our dependence on oil is leading directly to human deaths.

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

The shift away from oil is difficult since the United States subsidizes oil. If we let oil prices rise

maybe we can move away from oil and society will begin to use less natural resources. Also, we are subsidizing food. The more food there is in the world the more people will be sustained, and the more people the more resources that are being used. There is a lack of bipartisanship in the government is a problem which makes it difficult for the passing of legislation that supports the environment to be signed into law. Our materialistic society is the reason why there is a lack of development in alternative fuel sources. The United States spends more money watering their lawns than India collects from federal taxes. We also have military forces deployed to safeguard our oil.

7. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I found it compelling that the population of the world in 1930 was 2 billion people and in 30 years the population rose to 3 billion in 1960. Another fact that was compelling is that the United States borrows 800 billion dollars from the world per year and uses one billion dollars per day to subsidize oil. I don’t think we need to subsidize oil or take on more debt. This is the reason countries fail, such as Greece, because they can’t repay the lenders. Another compelling fact is that asthma rates have raised. One of the experts said he was not surprised when he walked into a classroom and 30 percent of the students were asthmatic. I find it ironic that we are in the Middle East to bring stability to the region, yet we are there to safeguard our oil assets. There is no one living system that is stable or improving. So that means that we are killing ourselves slowly. I was not totally surprised that low income areas are places where toxins are dumped. I was surprised that some corporations have no sympathy for humanity. Finally, what I find most compelling is that the United States spends $500 billion on advertising each year. Kids watching TV can identify over a few hundred different company logos but no more than 10 plants. That is frightening because that means we are a product of what the media is forcing us to watch.

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

I was not convinced by the part that states we can’t go back to just using sunlight. Lacking technology, the planet could not sustain 2 billion people. Sure technology plays a role. I am sure we would not have the lifestyles we do if there didn’t exist technology. Technology has helped us advance intellectually and has helped us find cures for various diseases. Another part I was not persuaded by is the fact that pesticides go into the ground and wind up in the ocean. Sure I can believe that they can end up in the water supply but I don’t think the pesticides used in the middle of the United States seep into the oceans. The film states we have become good alchemists. I don’t agree we are alchemists. I think we are more like innovators trying to make things easier and simpler, but by doing this we are using finite resources, which disrupts our environment. Approximately, 95% of our old growth forests are gone. Today, when you cut down a forest you must replenish it. Finally, I was not compelled by businesses are the problem because of the CEOs. I believe ethics can’t be taught, they must be acquired. People know right from wrong and these CEOs rather just turn their heads the other way.

9. What kinds of corrective action are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest any suggest some yourself. One corrective action is to change the object of desire. We desire a lot of materialistic things

but we have choices. We need to make the choice to change our habits instead of going out and buying new good. As a society, we need to begin by consuming less. Communications is another way we can make a difference. There needs to be more coverage by the media on the environment. We need to make the goods that we consume. They need to be recyclable. Energy needs to come from alternative fuel source, mainly the sun. We all have to treat each other with fairness and care about our neighbors’ well being. This will help us produce less. We need to change the way buildings are designed to use green design. Also we need to use more efficient transportation methods. There needs to be leadership attention to the environment. In the 1940s, FDR mobilized our armed forces and in three years defeated Nazi Germany. Japan and fascist Italy were defeated in 3 years 8 months. If we can do that, we should be able to make a commitment to using alternative fuels.

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.) I wanted to see the subsidizing of fossil fuels compared to the subsidizing of alternative fuels. Italy and Lichtenstein are the only countries during 1990-1995 that provided more subsidies to alternative energy than fossil fuels. The United Kingdom had almost no subsidies for alternative fuels.

http://colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/1995/12/31/direct-subsidies-fossil-fuels-and-nuclear-energy-vs- renewable-energy-1990-1995/

Another thinks I was interested in was the rate at which the polar ice caps are receding. The film makes it seem that they will be gone in 100 years. If that is true places like Florida will be under water. I believe that they are melting but not at that fast a rate. According to NASA the polar ice cap is melting at a rate of 10% per decade.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1024-05.htm