AliciaLin3

= **Blind Spot** =
 * Title:** Blind Spot
 * Director:** Adolfo Doring
 * Release Year:** 2008

Blind Spot is a documentary about the current oil and energy crisis. The main idea behind this film is that if we continue to burn fossil fuels at the rate we are, we are going to face some dire consequences. By making educated decisions now concerning the energy crisis, we have more options in the future.
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The way we run our economy and the energy we use has effects on the environment. There will eventually be a point known as Peak Oil where we deplete our energy. Declining oil production will change the world, and if we continue to burn fossil fuels, our economy or ecology will eventually collapse.

Fossil fuels was what drove innovation, it was the force behind the industrial revolution. Things we find commonplace now, such as an Orange from Florida, is possible because petroleum is cheap. Americans are accustomed to a high standard of living, and we believe that growth is normal and consumption is normal. By believing these things, we do 30% of the world’s consumption although we only make up 4.5% of the world’s population.

The sustainability problem this film draws is our dependence on an unsustainable energy source. We now depend on oil for everything. Before, work was done by human or animal power, but now it is all done by machines. Our food additionally relies on fossil fuels because our average food item travels 1500 miles. It’s gotten to a point where the energy to transport the food outweighs the actual calories obtained from it. For instance, it takes an average of 3 calories to transport 1 calorie of lettuce. In the past, food is local and does not need to travel that far.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

Additionally, politicians make a lot of money by lying about the current energy crisis and alternative energy. The government has been for biodiesel when in fact it takes more energy to produce a gallon of biodiesel than the actual energy biodiesel can produce. Additionally, there’s a notion that we can simply always get more when we need to. Since the government supports these kinds of deceptions, it makes it difficult for people to get a sense of the current situation.

Also, people who do acknowledge that this is a problem and challenge the way of life are historically outcasted from society. People in general know what the culture has taught, and science and truth is not necessarily a part of that. This makes advocating for sustainability and decisions based on science difficult.

The way we set up our society makes it difficult to become less dependent on fossil fuels. We live highly individual lives, and we are completely atomized and isolated. We live in bigger homes and we drive further differences. It’s difficult to modify these kind of behavior, and it makes becoming less dependent on fossil fuels in our daily lives almost impossible.

I think the most compelling part of the film was the analysis on common things we don’t normally think about, such as it takes 3 calories of energy to transport 1 calorie of lettuce. For the most part, I was already well aware of peak oil and alternative solutions, such as biodiesal, that aren’t really solutions to the problem. So, informational tidbits such as the food example, was interesting and thought provoking because it seems ridiculous that it takes so much energy to consume so little energy.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I was not completely convinced by all the people they chose to interview in the film. It seems that not all the people interview were experts in the subject matter, and thus the information they were conveying did not have as much as intellectual weight.
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

I would like to seek out alternative energy sources as well as ways other countries set up their residential developments to save on fossil fuels, for instance some European countries make driving cars more difficult than riding bicycles.
 * 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 think the issues of fossil fuel are part of a lot of issues and problems we discuss in class, although they may not seem like it. For instance, with my Matrix presentation about the use of palm oil, this would not have been an issue if it had been extremely expensive to ship the oil over to the U.S. from Indonesia. Additionally, government deception always makes understanding the reality of the situation difficult. For instance, in my other Matrix presentation about the food pyramid, the government advocates that people should live healthier lifestyles and complains about the obesity epidemic; however, the food pyramid is based on lies, and eating what is recommended on the food pyramid will actually get you fat. This is similar to the energy crisis because the government is concerned about the energy we consume, and instead of trying to really fix the issue, it advocates for biodiesel as we know takes more energy to produce than it actually produces.

I believe this film best addresses people who are unaware of how fossil fuels effect every aspect of life. It is not just cars will be affected by the decline of fossil fuels, everything we do will be affected when it is no longer a viable fuel source. I believe this film fosters viewers to think about alternative means to fossil fuels and perhaps steps to cut down on their consumption.
 * 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?**

It is suggested that we should rethink alternative sources of energy that make sense, unlike biodiesel, and rethink how we plan residential areas and the foods we consume.
 * What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

I believe that if the film had chosen more reputable people to interview, it would have added more weight to the arguments made against fossil fuels. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and of course there were some individuals in the film that were experts in the subject, but as I recalled, one person was a webmaster, and I don’t fully trust his views on the subject matter. Thus, it takes away from the arguments in the film and decreases its educational value because it decreases its credibility.
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**