Rachel+Neiman_Annotation+8


 * __FILM ANNOTATION FOR BLUE GOLD... WORLD WATER WARS__**

Blue Gold: World Water Worlds, Sam Bozzo, 2008 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? ** The central argument of this film is that we have abused our water resources and it has destroyed our environmental sustainability. Even though we need it to survive, we have not treated it with the care through pollution and mindless consumption. The privatization of water has also led to the sustainability issues surrounding our sources of water. Our habits reflects our belief that the world adapts to us and not that we adapt to the world which is why we do not allocate the use of our resources properly. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? ** Similarly to our crisis with oil, sustainability problems concerning water stem from politics, the economy, media and information, behavior/culture and the environment. Politics play a major part in this sustainability problem because many governments do not protect our water resource. They allow large corporations to buy the rights to our local water sources to sell back what is rightfully ours under the claim that it is cleaner when many of the times it is less filtered than our drinking water. These corporations are so powerful that it is hard for the governments who want to stand against them to do so. United States former President George Bush has even purchased lands in Paraguay which contains one of the world’s largest remaining fresh water sources. If governments start purchasing water from other nations, that is not sustainable because people would be taking more than their fair share and leaving others with less than they are due. Wars could be started if our government does not handle this properly.  There are many economic issues surrounding this sustainability problem, mainly due to the privatization of water. Governments have handed over the control of water to major corporations which is a problem in and of itself because they are giving “profit guzzling machines” control over a resource that is essential to our livelihood. It is not possible for us to survive without water. The World Bank then works with these corporations to give them access to water rights in third world countries. This is even more heinous because the people in these nations do not have the means to even pay for this water. The WTO also has control over this precious resource and it is only concerned for the well-being of corporations not that of human beings. They have a “not in my backyard” approach to these issues. As long as what they do does not affect them in a negative way, it is perfectly acceptable to take advantage of other purely because they have the power to do so. Such an example can be found in the privatization of Bolivia’s water. The locals could not even afford water for sustaining themselves leaving many people sick or dead. In Africa, water has also been privatized in many areas. Pumps are installed for the locals to get water but many times only air comes out even though they are charged for using the pump.  The media and commercials have led the public to believe that bottled water is healthier than tap water which is false on many occasions. There are less strict regulations on the filtration of bottled water since is overseen by a company instead of the government. People buy this bottled water and they don’t realize that it has been taken from someone else and that it is depleting some other nation’s livelihood.   Behaviorally and culturally, people take advantage of water. They treat it like oil—as if it will never run out. When the Mayans experienced a drought, thousands of years ago, they moved to the forests to continue their farming. This led to a decrease in food production because of the lack of water. We also pollute our water on a daily basis without thought. Every time someone litters or uses pesticides, our water supply is polluted that much more. There are 30 billion gallons of water that are pumped per day to meet our demand. This is hardly sustainable when only 3% of the water on Earth is available for drinking and other everyday use. We pump 15 times more water than is being replenished. Again, the practice that the world adapts to us and not the other way around is inherently unsustainable because when it comes down to it, we need the world, the world does not need us. In Southern California, we somehow decided that we needed water so we would divert it from the north and bring it to us. This is inexcusable because now, the residents from Northern California do not have water to sustain themselves.  As for the environment, the rate at which we consume water is problem enough let alone the fact that we don’t take care of it. Sinkholes are popping up more rapidly because we are wasting so much water. We are taking all of the nutrients out of the soil with all of the water that we consume. Dams also cause erosion because they do not allow certain nutrients to flow downstream. The Aral Sea is now a wasteland because all of the water was used for irrigation. Water is not being used conservatively and therefore will not be able to sustain future generations. 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? ** I found the entire film quite compelling. Unlike the other films, Blue Gold actually showed success stories in fighting against this issue as well as providing a few solutions. I was most compelled by the information about water privatization. I did not really understand or know much about this issue before watching this film. Upon learning about this problem, I have tried to stay away from disposable water bottles and if I do somehow end up with one, I use it multiple times. (I had an aluminum water bottle but I lost the cap and have yet to buy a new one.) 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? ** There were not really any points that did not strike me as important or relevant in this film. The only issue I had was that I do not feel American citizens are as willing to take action against their government as the people in Bolivia, for example. Since there are enough people in the middle and upper class, the issue would have to noticeably affect everyone for action to be taken. There are minor protests in the United States and hardly anything ever comes of it. The American people are too “lack luster” to get up and try to bring about change. I felt the example in Bolivia was a little irrelevant to problems we are experiencing in the United States (not that we are the only ones with issues of course). 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.? ** I would really like to learn more about the intricacies of buying land around water and how one gains water rights. I am sure Bush was not the only person to buy land in Paraguay and I am curious to know who else is trying to buy land there. I would also like to learn more about the policies pertaining to water privatization and why governments have not done more to protect their citizens’ rights to water. I would also like to learn more about the initiative presented in the film as possible solutions to improve our water problems. 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? ** I think this film is best suited to high school students and above because of the intellectual level of the content. Although I wish I could shove this in some water privatizing corporation’s “face,” I know that they are already aware of this issue and simply do not care. I think it would be good for more mature students to watch because there are relatively easy lifestyle changes that they could learn about making from watching this film that will increase environmental responsibility in future generations. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? ** This film actually presented a few solutions to this problem. One action it presented was the protest in Bolivia. The entire nation worked together to overthrow the government and kick the large corporations responsible for privatizing their water out of the country. The film also suggested that people use hydroponic farming instead of traditional farming because it conserves water. Another point of intervention was to support local produce and water as well as to limit the amount of water per person. They also suggested that people dig trenches in the ground to allow rain water to collect and seep back into the ground. 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? ** <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">Like I wrote before, I think this film did a really good job of covering all of the bases concerning water as a sustainability problem. It could have touched more on the Aral Sea and how to implement the points of intervention named above.
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">1. Title, director and release year? **
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;">