ChrisKerr-Heat


 * Title:** Heat
 * Producer:** [|Martin Smith] (note: no noted director)
 * Release year:** 2008


 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

This film is a direct attempt to confront CEO’s, government officials and those representing different environmental organizations and companies about the facts of global warming; inquiring what they actually are to experts in the field, and turning that data on corporate leaders. Because Martin Smith is such a good investigator, he leads incredibly interesting and revealing narratives with industry titans and other key players in the energy/environment sphere.


 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

This film draws out how corporations are deadlocked into continuing to destroy our environment. The film begins by talking about how, for some reason, all of the glaciers of the world are in severe decline. The glaciers in the Himalayas, for instance, have declined 40 percent in the last 50 years. It is predicted that if glaciers continue to decline at this rate, 80 percent of them will be gone by 2035. The reason this is an issue is because most of these glaciers are the main source of water for a variety of major rivers. These rivers include the Yellow River and the Ganges, both of which provide water to millions of people. The Yellow River alone provides water to over 250 million people every year. Image the crisis that would take place should this river dry up! The film then goes on then to talk about these developing countries. Both China and India have been working very hard towards becoming leading industrialized nations, and both are complete success stories in that regard. Unfortunately, as more and more countries become developed, the resources of the world will continue to be dried up at an alarming rate. Part of the problem with all of this growth stems from the creation of concrete, which is the third largest contributor to greenhouse gas emotions globally. During an interview with a major Indian concrete CEO, Martin Smith asked him whether he would be able to cut down on greenhouse gas emotions by 80 percent in the next 50 years, which would be required if we were to, according to the IPCC, cut down enough to not cause drastic change to the environment. The CEO replied that perhaps 10% is reachable, but not 80 percent. The concrete industry happens to be growing 10% a year. One area the film focused on was China’s growing economy. In just the last year, the leading car company in China sold over 250,000 cars, mobilizing families all across the country. They have no plans of stopping there; they plan on increasing their sales up to 750,000 per year in the near future. Although this means that now millions more Chinese will get to drive, they will also be contributing to the destruction of our natural resources and release of carbon emotions. China’s energy companies are on the rise as well. In just the past year, China’s leading energy provider grew 80%, building 2 new coal fire plants every week. In an interview with the CEO of the company, it became clear that although they understand that global warming “might be an issue” in the future, that their primary concern was to create a profit for shareholders. One very important figure throughout the film was [|Dr. Rajendra Pachauri,] the current leader of the IPCC. Although he was originally favored by those such as George W. Bush for the position, being a renowned economist and board member for many large corporations, he has, after observing the data about global warming, become very adamant about mandating change in policy. “If we don’t take action immediately” he says, “we face a crisis. Climate change is caused by human actions, and we need to do something about it. The sooner we realize that, the better”. If this isn’t clear enough evidence that change must take place, no evidence in the world will sway our society. The burning of coal was discussed more closely in another section. In the United States alone, we have 600 coal fire power plants. Each year these plants aid in the burning of 1 billion tons of coal per year. The largest, run by AEP, burns through 1 train carrying 130 cars full of coal every //12 hours.// To give an example of what this is able to power: 1 lbs of coal is needed to power your TV for 4.5 hours. Although most people are under the impression that coal is a thing of the past, 50 percent of the electricity in the United States is generated by coal. Some are proponents of finding ways of capturing the carbon emitted by this coal and storing it underground. This remains a popular alternative in the future, even though coal companies are stating themselves that this method is unlikely to see actual use, as it not only increases electricity costs by 20 to 30 percent but also there is no way of knowing whether this gas will leak back out and potentially find its way into communities, where the deadly gas would be a silent killer. Part of the problem involved is that the coal lobby in the United Sleep Government is so large that any attempt to cut down on coal subsidies would be seen as an “affront to the American way of life” and would be shot down. Automobiles were another major topic of discussion. American cars emit more greenhouse gasses than those in China, India, Japan and Europe combined. CAFÉ standards in the United States, which stayed stagnant throughout the 80s and 90s, are what determine how fuel efficient car companies are allowed to make their vehicles. During one incident, California tried to raise the standards within their state. A few other states including many in the North East and Florida were leaning towards accepting these laws as well. When presented before the EPA, however, the plans were completely denied for absolutely no reason; the White House actually denies to this day allowing the discussions which took place to leak out. Another relevant issue has been the concept of a carbon neutral car. Under pressure from California, Bill Clinton started a multibillion dollar program which would have given the big 3 united states automakers incentive to create cars which got upwards of 80 miles to the gallon. All of these companies had prototypes available within a couple of years. Unfortunately, the program was shut down for no apparent reason. Japanese companies, on the other hand, had began frantically designing electric and hybrid cars to combat what they felt would be a surge of American cars into a new market niche. When the program was cancelled, however, the Japanese companies found themselves in the niche with free reign. Thus the hybrid Prius sales began skyrocketing, while the big 3 found themselves in bankruptcy. When questioned about why “the Japanese were eating GM’s lunch”, a fumbling GM representative said that they were always trying give the consumer what they wanted and that every decision made by the company was done “in the company’s best interest”. This clearly shows these companies are either operating in a fantasy world severely separate from reality, or there are some backdoor deals going on between them and the oil industry, which was the films next target. The oil industry, according the film, has invested trillions in sunk costs into oil rigs and other various oil extraction methods. Hibernia, the largest off shore oil rig in the world, draws about 100 million dollars worth of oil every 5 to 6 days. All of this goes towards Exxon Mobile’s revenue of 400 billion dollars every year. Seeing as the company has to invest only 40 billion every year, this corporation has shown the largest profit margin in the history of the world. Even with this surplus, however, they only invest 100 million annually in research towards alternative fuels and technologies. Although they say that they are “ bringing [their] strength to finding energy technology of the future", their actions are clearly speaking louder than their words. Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon, has even gone so far as to deny meetings with shareholders, a large percent of which have signed documents stating that they want Exxon to do more research into discovering new alternatives. Oil companies also have a history of trying to distort the truth about global warming so as to suppress this desire for alternatives. Exxon has, in the past, donated large sums of money to anti global warming groups, which tout fallacies and preach false sciences. All of this points to the fact that instead of benefiting our society’s future in any way, these companies have one goal; profit at whatever cost.


 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

This entire film was done professionally and with no holds barred. No facts appeared skewed, and every question asked by Martin Smith was straight and to the point. Every fact was backed up by either an interview with an expert, or a mountain of statistics provided by respectable sources. This is documentary is about as good as it gets. There wasn’t one section which I found to be un-compelling or persuasive.


 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

If I had to be picky, I would suggest that the interview with the representative from GM could have probed more into the reasons for the company’s choices regarding their research into electric and hybrid cars. Although Smith did a good job of asking tough questions, I felt that he only scratched the tip of the ice berg; what was truly motivating these companies to make such awful choices in future investment? Were they in some way linked to the oil companies, or were they actually so poorly run that they figured it would be better to continue selling gas guzzling automobiles even during an oil crisis? Another area which the film could have delved deeper into were ways in which the viewer could help to solve these problems. Unfortunately the documentary was already 2 hours long and already so chock full of good information that it would be almost ridiculous to ask for more.


 * What additional information does the 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?**

As mentioned above, the investigation into GM’s investment choices would be where I want to find more answers. Unfortunately there are very few reliable resources on the subject, as the true reason for their decisions is shrouded in secrecy. If only Smith had probed further with his questions!


 * What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

Again, this area of the film was lacking. There were very few spots where a fewer could gain knowledge of methods of intervention other than during the political scenes, where it discussed different candidate’s points of view and their potential actions if given positions of responsibility.


 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

Perhaps if the film touched upon the other side of the global warming argument, talking with those who felt it wasn’t happening, it would give the viewer a better understanding of both sides of the argument. Although it is quite clear that global warming is happening, understanding why people refuse to believe this might have given the viewer better insight into the matrix of problems involved.