AcocellaGarbage

1. Title: Garbage: The Revolution Starts at Home; Director: Andrew Nisker; Release Year: 2008

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? This film is meant to demonstrate the environmental impacts of our everyday actions, starting at home, keeping in mind future generations. “We have no idea how much we pollute thanks to the garbage man.” It follows the McCormick family as they keep their trash for 3 months in an attempt to become more aware of their consumption.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? One of the many sustainability problems pointed out is over packaging. Bananas, peppers and rosemary were all in their own bags when the family went grocery shopping. Some of the individual wrapping may be convenient but many times it is not recyclable because manufacturers layer different materials together that cannot be separated when being recycled. For example, the plastic spouts on the orange juice cartons make the entire carton unrecyclable unless you take the tops off. Also, toothpaste tubes have a thin layer of aluminum on the inside, making them unrecyclable as well.

Another problem discussed that is not always mentioned was road runoff, which is petroleum mixed with rainwater. It is more toxic than untreated sewage. The film points out that one gallon of oil destroys one million gallons of water. Our waterways are all filled with undrinkable water due to pollution that is contributed to by road runoff. Uneven distribution of water is also a sustainability issue discussed in the film. The UN reported that 1.1 million people do not have access to clean water while we have unlimited access to water at one flat rate.

Also, coal usage and mountain top removal are touched on in the film. The story of one man, Larry, who refused to sell his land to the coal company because he says there are some things that money can’t buy, was particularly interesting. He values his land because it is his culture, his life, his history and doesn’t want it to be destroyed.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? I was very persuaded by all the facts and statistics that were used in the film. It was done well so that it did not feel like it was just shoving statistics at me. I was also interested by the green bin program that was implemented in the McCormick’s city. I wish that kind of composting program was used in my area. I also found it interesting that the methane produced by the composting process was actually used to power the plant doing the composting.

Seeing the mine cracks that were created in Larry’s property due to the blasting from the mountain top removal on the neighboring property definitely showed me yet another problem associated with mountain top removal. They were not even blasting on his property but the shaking and force of the blasts were destroying his property as well. These cracks in his land were hundreds of feet deep and thousands of feet long.

I was also surprised to see some of the short interviews of various people at the beginning of the film. Many were unwilling to save their garbage for three months. I suppose I wouldn’t really be very willing to do so for a random person who had approached me but many of them laughed at the idea. Many even said they didn’t care what happened to their garbage after it left their curbs.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? I’m not completely convinced by the recycling of the car. They removed all the oil and rubber to be reused, the frame got crushed but then what? The metal gets separated and melted down to be reused but then the rest of it, about 10-50 percent of the car, still goes to landfills. I agree that this is a better option than just junking the car but I think it still leaves something to be desired considering half of the car can still end up as waste.

6. What audience does this film best address? Why? I believe the film is meant to address the average consumer in order to raise awareness of our levels of consumptions and waste. It follows an average family as they try to do exactly that: become more aware of their actions.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value? I would have liked to know more about how this 3 month experience affected the family after they began getting rid of their garbage again. Did they start buying things at the grocery store that had less packaging? Did they stop using such harsh chemicals to clean their house? How were their kids affected? I also think adding some more ways to reduce waste could have been addressed to add to the education value of the film.

8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested in the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action that you can imagine being effective? Some actions suggested by the film include pressuring packaging manufacturers to produce more recyclable containers and getting more information about your personal waste levels. It also suggests starting a revolution against waste in your own community. Raising awareness is a very important part of sustainability.

9. What additional information has the film compelled you to seek out? (Two supporting references) I went to the homepage of the film that was posted in the credits. The film has been very well received by many communities. Screenings of the film are popular as well. The director, Andrew Nisker has been interviewed quite a bit about his film. []

I also looked into the green bin programs in Canada. It is meant to collect and compost organic waste such as fruits and vegetables. It services 510,000 households in Toronto. The program has spread around Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. I think it’s a great idea. If people can remember to recycle, remembering to separate their organic waste from their regular garbage is not too much more to ask. [] []