Spartz+Annotation+7

Annotation #7 11/10/12 //Gasland//

//Gasland// was a film by Josh Fox and was released on September 15,2010. The focus of the movie was the natural gas industry and the effects of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies across the U.S. He also focuses on the industry’s refusal to take responsibility for the contamination of well water due to lack of scientific evidence that it was their fault. Fox travelled across the country to conduct interviews with people in many of the 34 states that had gas drilling at that time to try and find out the potential impact of drilling that was proposed in the upper New York state region. The interviews had a wide range of emotions displayed. Some were humorous, some cautiously hopeful that the situation would be fixed, but mostly were displaying the fear they had for their families and surrounding communities over something they had no control over. There were a lot of images of the health hazards to people and to the environment and other animals. Overall the main way the film attempted to compel viewers was to appeal to a viewer’s emotions. The many numbers throughout the movie helped with confirming the argument, but I still think that a majority of Americans get overwhelmed when a long list of chemicals they have never heard of gets thrown at them. If Fox had picked a few to focus on and truly explained those well and maybe had a longer list on the film’s website of impacts it may have been more easily accessible and would have been more valuable as a piece that contributes to public environmental knowledge (Gasland). I think the film was directed at those in potential fracking areas warning them to prevent it while they still can or to at least be cautious to allow fracking in their area. I also think Fox was trying to direct part of the narrative to the natural gas companies as well. I think he was aware that they would not be likely to watch the film, but if they did he was trying to get them to see how expansion of their business was dangerous and they can’t just keep expecting to be able to pay off people.

Fox drew on a couple of sustainability problems in his attempt to point out the dangers of fracking. He focused primarily on ecological, organizational, and economic factors. The environmental impact of fracking is large. As more chemicals are pumped into the system to draw out natural gas, they have the possibility of releasing toxins into the air that can harm things living in the local area. The local ecology is harmed as wide ranges of land have to be cleared to build the wells. The most important environmental factor however, is the contamination of fresh water system as the chemical permeate the drinking water aquifers. This has the potential to harm humans and both domestic and wild animals in the areas where drilling is taking place. As local homeowners realize they are being affected by the drilling, they tried to call it to attention. Another problem arises then. Who is the right person to contact? As seen throughout the movie, Fox had a very difficult time getting in touch with the natural gas companies and the EPA had voted that they did not need to investigate the toxins that were being injected into the ground. Since gas companies were exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act, they did not have anyone that could legally question them on the chemicals used in their processes. This shows a breakdown of the organizational system in place. There should always be a system of checks and balances in industry as well as safeguards to prevent environmental impact on the scale discussed in the film. In this instance the organization was not developed properly and now citizens are paying for the mistakes of the government. Finally, there are also direct economic problems associated with fracking. As said above, natural gas companies were above certain laws that allowed them to not present all the materials they used in the fracking process or report the risks associated with fracking on local environments. This made it difficult for people to prove that there was a problem caused by these companies. Citizens would have to spend their own money to test their water and land for toxins if they suspected something was wrong. Even if they went to court to sue the company, they may not have had sufficient proof to show that natural gas companies were to blame. In the instances where the company was found guilty, the fine was on the order of $370,000 which is pocket change to large companies. They would also be willing to pay off anyone in the area who is likely to cause a commotion about their problems. Overall there are a large number of factors that contribute to the unsustainable practices of extracting natural gas. On the whole, the main suggestion to correct the situation was to place more limitations on industry and to develop a system that allows the public to know exactly what is being placed into their environment. I agree with this solution as long as an enforcement plan is also put in place.

One of the most compelling things I heard in the movie was “crap is crap no matter what package you put it in.” I found this statement funny as it was basically in the context of companies trying to sugar coat the situation. I thought it successfully helped to make the film seem less depressing. I thought it also helped in showing that people are upset that their way of life has been affected so much by drilling, but they are more upset that companies were not upfront with them and are refusing to help or listen to their concerns. The other question that I found interesting was “how much water can you replace?” This, I felt, summed up the major ecological points of the film. We are used to thinking that water is a renewable resource but if we contaminate all of our sources, what are we going to do? The part that I was not necessarily convinced by was that companies leave people completely in the dark. I think part of the problem is that companies use language that the common person wouldn’t know. When this happens, people may not understand the consequences until something drastic happens.

After watching the film, I realized that I wasn’t really aware of how much influence homeowners and electric companies have over the sources of energy in certain areas. Homeowners can choose what they would like to use as suppliers for their sources of energy but they don’t necessarily get to choose their provider. Costs for different sources of electricity vary charges, this depends on shipping costs as well (PAPowerSwitch). This can differ by area however. I was also curious about the number of claims made against natural gas companies since Gasland premiered. In an interview with Josh Fox about drilling in the Delaware River Basin, it was stated that 69,800 public comments were made against drilling in that area (Merchant). Many of the statements made against the drilling most likely would not have taken place if people weren’t aware of the environmental impact it would have on them.

References: “Gasland: A Film by Josh Fox.” Gasland. Accessed: 10 Nov 2012. Updated: 2012. . “Frequently Asked Questions.” PA Power Switch. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Accessed: 10 Nov 2012. Updated: 2012. . Merchant, Brian. “Interview: Josh Fox, Direct of Gasland.” The UTOPIANist. 21 Nov 2011. .

Annotation 7 Document