Rovereto+Six+Degrees+Could+Change+the+World


 * Title:** Six Degrees Could Change the World
 * Director:** Ron Bowman
 * Release Year:** 2008

The film discusses the temperature effects of global warming, specifically going through what changes the world would go through for each degree Celsius the average temperature of the Earth rises. It begins with one degree hotter than it is today, and the societal and environmental changes it would bring. It then proceeds through each increasing degree until it reaches six degrees hotter than at present, when the world will be totally unrecognizable compared to the one today, and most likely inhospitable for humans.
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The main problem the film deals with is global warming. It goes into the effects of global warming at temperature increases from one degree Celsius to six degrees, and the many ways in which the environment will change, and at what points it is unlikely to recover. At one degree hotter, there would be a wheat shortage in the US west, as drought set in. However, at the same time, England’s climate is becoming more Mediterranean, becoming better suited to grapes and olives. By two degrees, Greenland’s glaciers would begin to disappear, and the majority of the world’s coral reefs would be lost. At three degrees, the arctic would be ice-free all summer, and the intense weather of El Niño would become the new norm. The film indicates that between two and three degrees lies the ecological tipping point after which the Earth could not recover. At four, the film says all glaciers would melt and the West Antarctic ice sheet would melt. At five degrees hotter, social rules and norms would break down as conflicts increase over the few resources left. At six degrees hotter, deserts would spread quickly, coastal cities that are now centers for today’s economies would be submerged underwater and abandoned, and the Amazon rainforest would be a distant memory.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

In exploring the different scenarios that would arise at ever increasing temperatures, the film hints at several problems with today’s societies that would cause these climatic predictions to come true. The first is the lack of cooperation between the many national governments of the world. The issues dealing especially with conflicts and resource allocation would be problems that are rooted in this lack of international cooperation. Another issue is the influence corporations have in our society. A big part of the reason for man’s large impact on global warming is due to our reliance on fossil fuels, for the production of our electricity and for the fueling of our vehicles. The group of companies that control the lion’s share of these resources makes sure that people are reliant on them, and stay reliant on them, to the detriment to the development of better technologies. This is not explored in the movie, but it is the reason for our huge consumption of fossil fuels. This fact //is// mentioned in the film.

One of the most persuasive parts of the film was when it talked about how the many aspects of the climate that would change. One instance that comes to mind is when the effect one degree of temperature increase was discussed. The segment began with the Bay of Bengal being flooded and a wheat shortage in the US west, as drought lead to desertification. But then it mentioned that England’s climate would become better suited to grapes and olives. This aspect interested me, as many features on global warming focus solely on the ‘doomsday’ portion of it, where if the temperature rises by one or two degrees, the whole world instantly becomes desert and people are living like they’re in the world of Mad Max. The acknowledgment that some climates may improve economically or even aesthetically added some needed realism to the film and to its message, which I found to be refreshing. Instead of diluting the message by talking about some changes that are not necessarily bad ones, I believe it strengthened the message by showing the complexity of the issue and the warming process.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I was not really convinced by the latter part of the film, once they got past 3 degrees Celsius. Up until then, the experts painted a picture which seemed realistic, in that their details were grounded in evidence, yet were still horrible consequences of global warming. After the segment about 3 degrees, the film made it a point to mention that after 3 degrees, the predictive programs and science begins to break down, and we can only speculate. The film should have really ended the description of the effects of global warming after 3 degrees. Speculation is speculation; the experts just listed a bunch of horrible scenarios that might happen, although they really have no way of predicting this reliably. To me, it came off as an excuse for the film to have a bunch of special effects at the end. The film was far more substantive before it began to talk about increasing the temperature by 4 degrees.
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The film is tailored to address those already familiar with global warming and the problems that have led to it, including man’s large role. Its message and content serve more as validation for the viewers that the problems they already knew exited were as severe as they thought they were, or may be worse, but is not laid out in such a way as to be primarily an introductory film to these issues. The underlying causes of global warming are not discussed in any detail in the film, and it does not try to prove to the viewer that global warming is real or is at least partly man’s fault; it instead assumes the viewer to be watching with this perspective already in place. It also partly acts as a call to action for these viewers, showing just how bad the world could get if we don’t act immediately.
 * What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

Despite its intended audience, I feel as if a brief introduction to what global warming is and its major contributors today would only improve the message of the film, and make it more accessible and meaningful to those who may not know that much about global warming, increasing how far the movie’s message would spread.
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

As an improvement directed towards those familiar with global warming, going into the theory of global warming, and the predictive trends scientists use to make their simulations would be an addition these viewers, myself included, would have found interesting.

The major point of intervention that the film states is the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that being constantly pumped into the air at outrageous levels. The film talks about personal solutions, like more efficient wiring and lighting for homes and other buildings, solar panels and better insulation. Carbon taxes are a good way to increase the demand for more efficient, “greener” appliances and products. At the larger scale, pushing for international cooperation in the enforceable reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a worthy goal to meet within the next couple of years.
 * 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.**

Looking for more information on global warming and possible solutions led me to the website for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ([|IPCC]). This site is a great resource to follow the progress legislation is taking in terms of climate change, as well as scientific developments and research.
 * What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?**

I was also astounded by the severity of the heat wave in Europe in 2003, and that I had never heard of it before. I went searching for information and found an article [|(from the Comptes Rendus Biologies] [|Volume 331, February 2008)] detailing the circumstances of the heat wave and the distributions of the deaths, as the deaths are now believed to have exceeded 70,000 in the summer of 2003. The problem was only compounded by the fact that there was no system in place to help all the elderly stay hydrated and cool during this heat wave, as this type of weather had never happened before in Europe, especially in France, where 15,000 deaths occurred in August of that summer alone.