DaleSixDegrees

Jacob Dale Annotation #1, 10/28/10 Six Degrees Could Change the World

1. Title, director and release year?

The film titled __Six Degrees Could Change the World__ is a National Geographic documentary that was released in 2008 and was directed by Ron Bowman.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The central argument of this film is conveyed in the title. It brings forth the message that within 100 years we could be seeing a 6 degree Celsius rise in temperature with our current inaction. Even though temperature fluctuations have taken place before on earth, the pace of climate change now is the issue. To convey this, the film mentions that we are at 383 parts per million of CO2, and we are not far off from 450 parts per million which guarantees disaster. The film then goes on to articulate the consequences of the earth warming each degree until the 6th degree which would almost totally destroy our planet. In 2003, parts of Europe had an extreme heat wave and photosynthesis slowed down causing plants to retain oxygen and instead release CO2 into the atmosphere. A 2 degree rise would be where permanent damage would set in. At 3 degrees, El Niño would be the status quo and at 4 degrees we would have a completely unrecognizable planet. When the 6th degree would approach, oceans would be marine wastelands and the ultimate doomsday scenario would come to fruition.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The film draws out various sustainability problems that have led us down this tragic road, many big and some small. For example, the film talks about the enormous CO2 impact and the carbon footprint the things we eat have. Each cheeseburger has a significant carbon foot print by itself and there are more harmful effects from cheeseburgers being eaten than harmful effects from SUVs in America. The film also talks about the dependency on fossil fuels for transportation and daily energy. It makes a point that the fossil fuels that were once a form of CO2 in the Cretaceous era are now being used to power us and add back CO2 into our atmosphere bringing us back to the conditions of the Cretaceous era. The film also talks about how melting glaciers will contribute to the scarcity of water and how the consumption of natural resources will lead to barren wastelands which will be exacerbated by the global warming conditions.

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

I found the overall message of the film compelling. For each degree of warming, stunning HD graphics and scenes were used to create a picture of what the world would look like at each degree of warming. Many of these scenes were better than movie scenes such as those in the __Day After Tomorrow__. To back this impressive imagery were facts that were rather unknown to me such as the cheeseburger carbon footprint which I never heard before. Also, the film had a global perspective and examined some of the recent events such as the heat wave in Europe to show that we are heading toward the doomsday scenario if change does not take place. Besides these facts, the film used events we were all previously familiar with such as the Dust Bowl. The film mentioned how with a 1 to 2 degree shift we could be seeing dust bowls 20 times more powerful. This helps the public grab on to something they are familiar with to imagine a new and more devastating scenario. By painting such a dark picture of a new world, the film viewer is faced with really understanding how crucial it is to at least slow the pace of global warming.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?

I was a little unconvinced with some of the doomsday scenarios around the 5th and 6th degree marks. It seems to me as if there could have been some exaggerating there since the movie was ending and a final message to the viewer needed to take place. Around this part of the movie, it was more of a painted doomsday scenario with a lack of statistics and facts to back it up. Overall, the film was very convincing. The solution section of the film was where it was lacking. While the film kept emphasizing how dire the situation was, it provided small scale solutions that might not have a big enough impact. For example, the film mentioned that some solutions can start right in our homes. Weatherization and having families use less fuel and electricity was offered as a solution. Surely the extreme doomsday scenarios painted in the film require a bit more action than just weatherization of a home or energy efficiency?

6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?

I would say the film is addressing college students and other individuals with some familiarity of climate change. The film did not go into detail about what a carbon footprint is or how CO2 is increased and so on. By using these scientific terms throughout the movie, it is as if they expected the viewer to already be familiar with them. The film instead focused on painting terrible scenarios that could take place if the pace of climate change is not slowed. Also, the solutions portion of the film was skimpy. This makes me believe that the makers of the movie felt the audience already knew global climate change is rather serious, but they just wanted to paint a better picture for the audience. By not listing more solutions, it is almost expected for the viewer to realize how dire the situation is itself and go out and find solutions themselves.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

More solutions should have been added so that the viewer could act on the urgency created in the film. The director could have also thrown in some explanations of the scientific terms used. Although I have familiarity with climate change, I was confused by some of the terminology used as well as the concepts that were thrown out. The European heat wave and plants having their photosynthesis slowed down perplexed me. I wasn’t sure exactly how such a scenario could play out. It wouldn’t have hurt to show more data and statistics to back up the imagery. Sure the imagery created showed devastation, but how did they arrive at these scenarios exactly?

8. 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.

Although the film was skimpy on solutions, it did convey some possibilities. The main solution was just to simply reduce energy consumption and the pace of global warming. To do this, the film suggested weatherization for homes and emphasized energy efficiency. Families should consume less energy, and more technologies should be created that use less energy such as more fuel efficient vehicles. The film talked about nuclear energy as being a good possible alternative and mentioned other forms of renewable energy such as wind power. However, it did criticize wind power for having expensive maintenance.

9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)

This film made me seek out more information about El Niño and the Cretaceous period. I have heard about some of the negative effects of El Niño, but not enough to paint a picture in my head what a world would look like with El Niño being the status quo. Through some more research on this event, I have learned that it is just simply warming of the surface ocean waters in the eastern Pacific region. When the surface air pressure is high in one part of the Pacific such as the eastern part, it is lower in the western part. News broadcasts that I have watch previously mentioned that this phenomenon takes place on average every five years or so. Apparently, scientists are still rather unsure exactly how El Niño forms, but they suspect that it has been responsible for the Mississippi and California floods that occurred in 1993 and 1995. Also, this phenomenon has contributed to horrific hurricane formations. Scientists are continuing to study El Niño to learn more about it since not all of its occurrences are the same or cause the same effects.

[]

The final doomsday scenario painted was supposed to mimic the Cretaceous period and ironically this is the period in which most of our fossil fuels were created. So, I decided to find a little about the climate of this era. As this period went on, there was no polar ice and most of the land was at sea level. High tectonic activity was the norm as well which was accompanied by volcanic activity and increases in temperatures. This was exactly the scenario painted throughout the film. In fact, New York City was even shown to be submerged.

[]