JPH+Dirt!

**Directors:** Bill Benenson, Gene Rosow, and Eleonore Dailly **Year:** 2009
 * Film:** Dirt! The Movie

**What is the central argument or narrative of the film?** The central argument of the film is that humans are intimately connected to the dirt and soil, and the widespread misuse of this common resource is causing problems in food production, desertification, pollution, and global warming. The film demonstrates that the abuse of soil is not a localized issue but is widespread throughout the globe; it affects most cultures and most peoples in one form or another. In first world counties it can be most easily seen though the proliferation of pesticides and the treatment of rain water runoff in cities such as Los Angeles. In the third world the issue of soil misuse is mostly expressed by food shortages and desertification. The proposed solutions to the problems involve empowering people especially the poor and farmers to be able to meet local food needs, restructuring the current agribusiness model of farming, and rethinking urban development strategies.

**What sustainability problems does the film draw out?** __Agribusiness:__ Perhaps the largest issue that this film discussed was the sustainability problems of large scale agribusiness. The nature of the agribusiness system is to drive efficiency. They increase crop yields by using pesticides and fertilizers that find their way into the water supply and create food that is “empty in nutrients and loaded with toxins.” Increased efficiency is also achieved through the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s). These crops are not natural and the effects of using such crops have not been adequately studied. Monoculture crop production depletes the soils of nutrients which are not allowed to naturally replenish. This destroys the nutrient value of the soil and eventually leads to desertification as seen in American Dust Bowl of the 1930’s and is seen around the world today especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. In another sense Agribusiness is a sustainability problem in that it forces small scale farmers to abandon their sustainable practices just to try to stay afloat and support their families. Small scale farmers are forced to go into debt to purchase pesticides and farming equipment just to try to compete. In India over 200,000 farmers have committed suicide because they cannot afford to pay off their debts. Those who give up farming often move to the slums of cities trying to find jobs creating a plethora of other sustainability issues relating to water and waste treatment.

__Disempowerment of the Poor:__ This movie demonstrates that you cannot have an environmental revolution without the incorporation of the poor into the plan. The film uses examples from the South Bronx and Rikers Island Corrections Facility. The impoverished and the convicts of Rikers are disempowered to make change in their community as most of lives are governed by crime and poor education. Organizations such as Sustainable South Bronx are committed to empowering the citizens of the South Bronx and ex-convicts. They provide them with resources to a opportunities to create better public spaces, get jobs, and grow their own food. Since so much of the world lives below the poverty line all sustainability plans must incorporate these groups.

__Desertification__ The artificial creation of deserts and wastelands is a huge sustainability problem that this film addresses. When the land is destroyed by poor agricultural, mining, or logging practices it is very difficult to reclaim for useful purposes. Once all nutrients have been taken from the soil or the soil has been contaminated with toxins there is nothing that can grow in that area. The lack of vegetation leads to wide spread erosion which leaves nothing but bed rock. Mass migrations of people result due to the inability of the land to provide food the region. These migrations put strain on the food systems of other region and cause political destabilization. As the movie says, “If the Congo Forest goes, Africa goes.” We must work to preserve the viability of our land.

**What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?** This film was very unique in its presentation of the sustainability issues. They began the film by building an emotional connection between the viewer and dirt. Then when the film presented the issues the viewer would take personal offense as if the dirt was a personal friend who was being violated. The initial positive treatment of the dirt was an effective way of making people feel connected to the issues. I personally found the small segment on the how Los Angeles handles storm water to be one of the most persuasive and compelling parts of the film. Growing up in the south west I have been exposed to water scarcity issues my entire life. The discussion of how Los Angeles has covered so much of its land with asphalt and concrete that the ground can no longer absorb rain water disgusted me. The rain water that can no longer be absorbed by the ground to replenish the aquifers is funneled into the concrete walled Los Angeles River and is channeled into the sea. Meanwhile water from Northwest must be brought into Los Angeles everyday to replenish the aquifers. Water waste is an issue that I can easily connect with and I think that the method that Los Angeles uses to control its storm water is a very obvious problem that needs to be addressed. The plight of the Indian and African farmers was another compelling part of the film. The arguments seemed very logical. They made the connection that the people of the past knew how to live with dirt as part of a positive feedback system. Modern forces have forced them to abandon those practices and the consequences have been disastrous. The arguments and the graphics were very easy to connect with, in this part of the film. The statistic of farmer suicide in India is staggering and is a sign of deeper issues.

**What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?** I was not particularly convinced by some of the proposed building practices that were suggested in the film. The Natural Builders in the film who used a mix of dirt, cow manure, and binders to create floors and walls did not present any sort of scalable solution. Although I thought the method was probably effective there did not appear to be any reasonable way to use the material or process on a large scale. I was also not entirely compelled by the spiritual connections that film attempted to draw between people and dirt. Although I am a religious and spiritual person and have personally visited Chimayo, New Mexico, I think that movie should have either made the spiritual significance of dirt a larger part of the film or they should have dropped it. I think that vast majority of the audience particularly our Sustainability Problems class would be unfazed by this aspect of the film.

**What audiences does the film best address? Why?** I think that the most appropriate audience for this film are those that are mildly or not-at-all familiar with environmental issues. The movie was very light hearted and built positive emotional connections with soil and dirt. There are some issues that could have been explored in much greater depth and that could have presented some very horrific images such as current mining practices through The movie presented simple solutions and motivated views to do small works as evidenced by the story of the hummingbird. Large scale political or corporate interventions were not discussed. Many of the things that could have been incorporated into the movie turn off people that are new to dealing with environmental issues because it makes them feel so insignificant and powerless. The focus on big problems with small interventions and the upbeat nature of these interventions would lead me to suggest this movie to people that is relatively unexposed to sustainability problems.

**What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?** I think that a critique of mining practices could have enhanced the educational value of this film. There was very little discussion directed to any sort of mining issues which are very inherent in soil problems due to heavy metals leaching into the soil and into the water supply. A discussion of the logging industry would also have been relevant and beneficial. Most critiques of business practices were focused on Agribusiness Industries.

**What kinds of actions 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.** The large scale intervention that they most focused on in the film was crop rotations and crop diversity. These two practices would help farmers to return nutrients to the soil without fertilizers, stabilize soil from erosion, and provide a buffer against pest epidemics. Small scale interventions that the film suggested were focused on urban development with programs such as Sustainable South Bronx and building partnership programs between urbanites and organic sustainable farmers. Additionally the options of Nature Building were presented.

**What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?** This film inspired me to learn more about Sustainable South Bronx and their initiative in Greening the Ghetto. It is interesting to see the initiatives and progress of an area that has been ignored and ostracized by New Yorkers. [|Sustainable South Bronx] Additionally I looked into different Nature Building programs and stumbled upon EarthShips. EarthShips are homes that use 100 percent recycled materials or natural materials. The homes integrate their systems around the natural systems of the earth to maximize sustainability. [|Earthship]