AliciaLin4

= **Blue Gold: World Water Wars** =
 * Title:** Blue Gold: World Water Wars
 * Director:** Sam Bozzo
 * Release Year:** 2009

Blue Gold is about how we are using up water faster than can be replenished naturally, the politics behind water ownership and distribution, and what will happen if this trend in increase water consumption continues.
 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

In general, we are mining groundwater at a rate of 30 billion gallons a day, and this is 15 times more than can be replenished. By mining so much groundwater, we are setting ourselves up for major problems such as sink holes and desertifying the planet. Some other factors that lead to desertifying our planet include building hardscapes, such as paving our roads, which don’t allow rainwater to penetrate the surface and seep into the ground, and by cutting down forests.

We are additionally polluting our water and destroying natural ways water purifies itself. We pollute our water through car and especially industry pollution, and we are increasingly destroying the wetlands, which are natural filters. Additionally, we dam rivers which lead to soil erosion and block nutrients the river carries down to keep water and land healthy and fertile.

Also, the way we privatize water causes major problems. Shipping out water from the Lakes of Michigan to all over the country disturbs that areas natural ecosystems. Privatizing a natural resource, such as water, causes a lot of issues because water is the essence of life, and giving an entity control over it is unfair to the denizens of the area.

It is estimated that we may only have 50 more years before our planet’s water systems collapse.

The sustainability problems this film draws out is that natural resources should not be commercialized and the way we build our infrastructure disrupts natural processes that can lead to dire consequences.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

It is unfair and essentially unsustainable to commercialize natural resources such as water. Natural resource is not equal to monetary profit. For instance, the Aral sea was once one of the four largest lakes in the world. Since it could hold so much water, the USSR decided to divert the water for irrigation projects to grow cotton. As a consequence, the Aral sea is now essentially a desert.

Also, shipping water all over the world causes problems because it destroys the natural balances of ecosystems. For instance, China is a country that does not have a lot of water, yet almost all our apple juice comes from China. So one of the driest places on Earth is basically exporting its water and desertifying its land.

Since our buildings, sidewalks, streets, highways and etc. are impermeable, this disrupts natural processes, such as allowing rainwater to seep into the ground. This causes sinkholes and desertifies are land, which is unsustainable because it destroys the fertility of our land and our ability to build communities on it.

I thought one of the most persuasive points in the film was when the film offered a means to actually kind of fix the problem. Its solution of using hydroponics versus traditional farming methods was compelling because it was more efficient in terms of water use than normal farming methods, and it seemed like a technique that can be easily implemented. Of course, hydroponics are not “the solution” because it does require the use of a lot of PVC which is an unsustainable material; however, it was at least one way of trying to solve an issue that seems feasible.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I was not particularly convinced by the idea that public ownership is better than private ownership. So, as in many films we watched in class, corporations are infamously portrayed as companies that only care about their shareholders and not the community. Well that may be true, but the film suggests that government control is a better solution; however, it was the government that allowed privatization. So, was the government looking at our best interests? I’m not so sure, so I’m not fully convinced by the underlying alternative to privatization in the film.
 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

This film compels me to seek out why public ownership is better than private ownership, and what kind of systems under public ownership work the best.
 * What additional information does this 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.?**

The concepts in the film remind me of this lecture I attended in this museum in Albany. The lecturer pointed out that natural resources is not equal to monetary profit. His example to illustrate this concept included an island in the Pacific Ocean that sold its sand for monetary profit. The locals found out that their sand was extremely precious, so it basically sold its island for money. After selling most of its island and destroying its natural resources, the islanders were extremely wealthy; however, this wealth led to self-destructive tendencies such as obesity, laziness and poor education. The islanders, after seeing the devastation they has been done to the island, decided to restore the island to its former glory; however, once the sand has been removed and the ecosystem devastated, no amount of money could repair the damage that has been done. This is similar to the Aral sea situation because once the natural ecosystem has been destroyed, it can’t be fixed by throwing money at it.

I believe this film best addresses viewers who are aware of many of the popular sustainability problems such as the oil and energy crisis, but unaware of some of the less popular but equally important issues such as the water crisis. This film encourages viewers to think of alternative and creative ways to fix the problem. Since it offers one type of solution, the us of hydroponics, it may lead viewers to think of other possible solutions. I think this film is likely to change the way viewers think about environmental problems because issues that people normally wouldn’t think twice about, like water because it’s a renewable resource, are a surprisingly a major sustainability issue.
 * What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?**

The main intervention the film suggests is that we should adapt to our ecosystems versus the other way around. If an area of land doesn’t support people and their needs, then they shouldn’t live there. For example, don’t live in a desert and expect to own a swimming pool. We should learn to live within the limits of our water sheds.
 * What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

Also, methods, such as hydroponics, are more efficient in terms of water use than traditional farming practices so they may be implemented.

I believe the film could have explained why public ownership is preferable over private control. Water should be universal, so it makes sense that government should control this natural resource, but obviously in the past there has been problems with governments securing public health and welfare, such as places having contaminated drinking water. Perhaps if the film touched on these issues and showed examples of public systems that work well, this might have added to the film’s educational value.
 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**