Hartmann+Annotation+9



Thomas Hartmann Word Count: 1146


 * Title:** Do the Math
 * Director:** Kelly Nyks & Jared P. Scott
 * Release Year:** 2013

In the film, Bill McKibben argues that not only is the earth headed towards disaster, but it is to the point that it is too late to stop global warming. McKibben argues that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already higher than it can be for the earth to have a stable temperature. McKibben points his finger at the fossil fuel industry and the incredible influence that they have on politics. The fact that they can pollute without consequences is what has allowed them to grow so powerful. McKibben argues that there is a lot that can be done, which makes it possible to change direction quickly. He states that if nothing is done to make the economy ecologically sustainable, there will eventually not be an economy at all.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

The film uses the power of numbers in order to put the complex problem of carbon dioxide emissions and climate change into a simple decision with an obvious logical answer. The science and simple facts make it seem almost indisputable to the audience that something needs to be done to stop the fossil fuel industry. For example, McKibben explains that in the past, scientists determined that 350ppm is the most carbon dioxide that the atmosphere can hold without global warming. Currently, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is almost 400ppm. Also, the three numbers that McKibben stresses the most are that there is enough carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere to increase earth’s average temperature by 1°C, 565GT of carbon dioxide is the most that we can put into the atmosphere (assuming that a 2°C increase is the maximum that humans can handle), and 2,795GT of carbon dioxide is how much would be released into the atmosphere if all of the fossil fuels in the ground were burned. At the current rate of about 30GT per year, which is constantly increasing, it will not be longer before we start experiencing serious problems.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film draws primarily on global warming, caused by the released of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. The film blames this primarily on the fossil fuel industry, which has an incredible amount of political power. The fact that pollution is not taxed has given the fossil fuel industry an unfair advantage economically. The film also argues that political viewpoints that are focused on preventing climate change should not be considered radical. For example, McKibben argued that, if anything, it should be considered conservative to keep the earth working the same way that it has been working for thousands of years.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

The part of the film that I found most compelling was that 565GT of carbon dioxide would produce the maximum allowable temperature increase of 2°C, while there is the potential to release 2,795GT of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere if all fossil fuels were burned. Assuming an approximately linear relationship between temperature increase and carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, this equates to an increase of nearly 10°C or 18°F!
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I was not convinced by the part of the film that placed all of the blame on the fossil fuel industry. While I believe that it has too much power, I believe the blame should be spread between the fossil fuel industry, regulators and politicians, and consumers. For example, the film argues that the fossil fuel industry is allowed to pollute for free, which is unfair. How is this unfair when consumers can pollute in the same way for free? Further, the film argues that the consequences of global warming impact everyone. I disagree because your financial ability to pay for your well-being, which may include the ability to move away from a strongly impacted area, affects how much you are affected by global warming.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The film best addresses people who are less aware of climate change, its causes, and its consequences because it confidently provides information in these three areas. The film also gives hope to those who may be surprised by the current situation with easy-to-relate-to examples such as David winning in the story of David and Goliath.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

Although the film was already very effective at educating its audience about environmental sustainability, it could have been improved if it provided ways that individuals can change their behavior in order to reduce their carbon footprint. The film places all of the blame on the fossil fuel industry, which made it seem like there is nothing that consumers can do to fix the problem themselves.
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The film suggests that society has the ability to change quickly, which has been shown in the past during the 1920’s when there was an incredibly acceleration in science and technology. The film suggests that using more energy from alternative energy sources such as wind and solar is the most obvious corrective action. Further, the film argues that we attempt to hurt the fossil fuel industry economically. For example, this could mean putting a cost on environmental harm, including carbon dioxide emissions. Further, the film gives the example of Unity College, which was the first to remove all stock in the fossil fuel industry.
 * 9. 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.**

Think about carbon dioxide emissions so much, I wanted to learn what the EPA was doing in order to help reduce emissions. I found that the EPA is setting efficiency and emissions standards and regulations on vehicle in order to reduce emissions in transportation. The EPA is also setting standards for power plants, collecting greenhouse gas emission data, and setting requirements for carbon sequestration. I find it interesting that I found nothing that addresses the fossil fuel production industry itself. []
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**

In reading the article above, I was curious to see how the EPA was using a “renewable” fuel standard to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (sustainable and clean fuels are not equivalent). I found that the EPA analyzes the life-cycle greenhouse gas performance of each renewable fuel to ensure that it emits fewer greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. []