Human+Footprint-+Pringle

1. Title, director and release year? Human Footprint, **Director** Malcolm Brinkworth, 2008

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The amount of products and energy intensive activities that take place throughout our lifetime can add additional strain to the planet, which is known as the human footprint.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The amount of milk we consume throughout our life, especially in the United States, averages 13,056 pints of milk per person per lifetime. Besides the footprint, issues such as chemical injections that are in the milk have been known to cause defects. As a nation, we eat a total of 1,649,630,427 lbs of food a day. Issues such as obesity are causing harmful disease and death. The mindset Americans have with plastic bags needs to change from behavior such as double bagging to reducing the amount of plastic bags we use, especially if a product can be carried by hand instead. Americans materialistic values have consequences, not only on the environment, but also on the health of our bodies. The amount of chemicals found in lotions, crèmes, make up, and other personal products can be hazardous. Laundry uses over 560 billion gallons of water a year and with the amount of clothing the average person owns, these estimates are not projected to decline.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The amount of diapers children use in the first two years of their life (3,796) equates to ,7592 lbs of crude oil. The amount of plastic used in diapers is equivalent to 715 lbs, or 18 billion total diapers a year in the United States. When they showed the process of a cocktail cherry it was sickening to see that they bleach the cherries then add chemical sweeteners and artificial coloring. I felt the most compelling parts of the film where when they showed the composition of products, such as shoes and diapers. The composition of products creates problems in recycling because many of the materials to make the product cannot be reused. Also, the segment on beer I thought was interesting, especially considering how much alcohol students at RPI potentially consume. Once homes are involved, our footprint increases by a magnitude of order because the consumer now has a place to hold more products while constantly renovating appliances, furniture, paints, etc. Americans spend a staggering 12.5 years of their life watching TV.

5. What parts where you not compelled or convinced by? I thought it was ridiculous some of the scenes they used to show how much we consume, for example taking all the eggs and smashing them on the floor. Along with the cheesy background music, it made the film seem very amateurish. The amount of energy they use for these simulations is not sustainable which contradicts to the film. I also question who and how the figures were made up to validify the film.

6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? This film compels me to find out what they did with all of the products after the demonstrations (were they donated to charity or were they simply thrown out?). Based on those findings, it can easily make the argument that the film itself is contradictory to the sustainable message they are trying to convey.

7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? The film is supposed to reach out to all types of Americans because we can all relate to the common practices they show throughout the film. The film would not be as effective or appealing to those outside of the United States because they use a lot of geographical and pop cultural references.

8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The film suggest very generic methods, like lowering the thermostat by two degrees in summer and raise two degrees in winter, can make a difference, however they quickly reference you to their website to find out more information. Yet the whole issue is that people do not know how to act on their given carbon footprint in a positive way and I felt they should have spent more time giving solutions, as very little were offered.

9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? Any sort of suggestion or opinion on how to fix the problem of our footprints would have been an added value to the film. Their method of random statistics hitting you every minute is extremely repetitive and made me lose interest in watching the movie. They seem to only focus on the consumption aspect rather than making suggestions on how marketing can play a role in consumer behavior which is vital to reversing the American bad habit of over consumption.