Hartmann+Annotation+5



Thomas Hartmann March 24, 2014 Word Count: 1,450


 * Title:** Garbage Warrior
 * Director:** Oliver Hodge
 * Release Year:** 2007

The central argument of the film is that immediate action must be taken to become sustainable because the strain that humans are putting on the earth through their resource consumption is more than it can handle. The film argues that living sustainably is one of the most important actions that must be taken to avert disaster. For example, increasing the thermal mass of houses allows for better temperature regulation without increased energy use. Further, incorporating systems such as rainwater collection, sewage treatment, and energy sources into a house makes it more sustainable because it can function without a dependence on external resources such as electricity and water from utilities. As a side-effect, the cost of constructing these houses is significantly reduced. Further, the film describes how reusing garbage such as glass bottles, plastic bottles, tin cans, and tires as building materials is sustainable. Finally, the film argues that the political and legal system is flawed in that it is so slow and restrictive that no true progress can be made toward sustainability.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film conveys its messages by following Michael Reynolds, an architect and activist for sustainable living, in his efforts to design sustainable buildings and communities based on his ideas. The film uses very little concrete scientific information in its arguments and relies primarily on the audience relating emotionally to the stories presented in the film. For example, the film follows Mike through his efforts to get a bill passed that would allow people to live in experimental housing that does not necessarily need to comply with all of the standard regulations for a period of ten years. The film begins by describe how Mike lost his architect’s license in building his sustainable communities and how he is completely out of place in the government when he drafts his law and attempts to get it passed. This is effective at creating an emotional connection between the audience and Mike. Further, this connection is strengthened when Mike helps teach tsunami and hurricane victims how to rebuild in a better and more sustainable way.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

A significant portion of the film is used to describe the many problems with the legal and political system. First, the many laws and regulations retard progress toward sustainability because they do not allow new houses that are significantly different from other houses to be built. Further, it is very difficult to pass bills because the political system is both slow and consists of many people with agendas that will do anything that it takes to prevent a bill from being passed. The example provided by the film is filibuster that prevented Mike’s bill from being passed in 2005. The film also draws out the economic problems that are caused by these regulations. For example, the film argues that roads and utilities such as electricity, gas, water, and sewage are very expensive and can be eliminated if they are built into a self-sustaining house. Finally, the film describes the technical challenges of building sustainable houses in ways that have never been tried before. One of the examples that the film provides is constant adjustment needed to get the optimum area of south facing windows for heating in the winter. The film shows that it is easy to have too many windows, which could make it unbearably hot.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

The most compelling part of the film was its descriptions of the many issues with the political and legal systems. The combination of seemingly unnecessary formalism, obstacles, slow progress, and over-regulation makes it very difficult to accomplish a goal such as passing a law to promote sustainable housing. This was particularly compelling because it is easy for the audience to relate to the difficulties that Mike experienced in working with the political system from experiences in life such as waiting in line at the DMV.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The least compelling parts of the film were the parts that made claims such as the earthquake survivability of the sustainable houses without proper supporting evidence. For example, Mike argues that his house built from reused tires and bottles could survive a 9.0 earthquake or a tsunami with no scientific evidence as proof. Further, he argued that immediate action must be made to address sustainability problems because there are only a few decades remaining before life as we know it on earth ends. These arguments reduce the credibility of the film because they have no supporting evidence and make the film seem unreliable in the claims that it makes.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The film best addresses an audience of people who have an open mind and are willing to make significant changes to their way of life in order to contribute to a specific cause. Anyone watching the film that does not have such an open mind is less likely to make an emotional connection to Mike and his communities and even less likely to join a similar community.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The film could have significantly increased its value in environmental education by providing concrete evidence for its arguments. For example, the film argues that Mike’s sustainable homes allow families to live without the need to ever visit a grocery store. However, the film does not provide sufficient evidence that the amount of food that can be produced by the house is sufficient to feed the people living in the house. If sufficient proof had been provided for each argument, the film would have been seen as more trustworthy and dependable, which would cause more people to accept the messages that were conveyed.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The film suggests that significant changes should be made to the political and legal systems in order to enable more significant progress towards sustainability, particularly in sustainable housing. While the film does not provide specific ideas of how this could be done, it doesn’t describe how working with the system is sometimes the only way to accomplish a goal. Further, the film suggests that building sustainable houses and communities will relieve much of the stress that humans have put on the earth. Specifically, two of the ways that housing and communities can be made sustainable that the film suggests are eliminating the need for extensive infrastructure such as utilities and building structures out of repurposed materials such as tires and bottles.
 * 9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.**

As the film mentioned the use of greenhouses to provide families with food but did not state the give the size requirements for a given number of people, I was compelled to learn more about the details such as the typical yield per area of greenhouse. In Wynn Free’s article, “The Year-Round Dome Greenhouse,” he describes how domes can be used as strong greenhouses. In his Free’s interview with Udgar Parsons, Udgar states that greenhouses can typically yield approximately three pounds of food per square foot each year. Therefore, a fifteen-foot diameter dome greenhouse would provide 400-500 pounds of food each year. Udgar states that this is enough for two to three people given that a single personal eats approximately 200 pounds of vegetables each year. From this article, it seems that a reasonably sized greenhouse could supply a family with a steady supply of food throughout the year.
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

Additionally, Mike claimed that his building made from cement and bottles could survive a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. In an article by //Quake Busters// called, “Housing Vulnerable to Damage in Earthquakes,” I found that unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, which do not have steel reinforcement, would not survive a moderately large earthquake, let alone a catastrophic magnitude 9.0 earthquake. Although the construction of Mike’s building was not entirely concrete, I do not feel that it contains a level of reinforcement that is equivalent to the steel rebar contained in modern reinforced masonry buildings and therefore would not survive an earthquake of that magnitude.

Free, Wynn. “The Year-Round Dome Greenhouse.” //The Spirit of Maat//. Vol. 3, No. 1. <[]>.
 * References:**

//Quake Busters//. “Housing Vulnerable to Damage in Earthquakes.” //ABAG//. 2012. <[]>.