Hunt_Blue+Gold

//Blue Gold,// Sam Bozzo, 2008
 * 1.** **Title, director and release year?**

“This is not a film about the environment; this is a film about saving ourselves.” //Blue Gold// argues extensively for the fair access to freshwater for all. “Vandana Shiva” translates to “A river is the lifeblood of any ecosystem.” Although not often discussed, our globe is experiencing a water supply crisis. Currently we pump out 15 times more water from the ground than we put back into it. Of what little freshwater supply available to us as humans, we destroy and pollute most of it. Side effects of industrialization and capitalism, the movie shows rivers and streams polluted with both trash and frighteningly invisible, high toxin levels. Besides through pollution and waste disposal, corporate influence has affected our water supply in another way, privatization. Foreign corporate purchases of a country's water supply has affected what water access costs and who is able to get it. The film argues that water has become a commodity and thus out of the hands of the public good and those who need it the most.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**


 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * -Water Scarcity: Our available water source is depleting due to numerous anthropogenic causes including overgrazing causing soil depletion and rain forest reduction both resulting in less fresh water stored on land and more stored in the salty ocean. Since industrialization we have used half of our water supply, suggesting we can expect an ecological resource crisis within 50 years.
 * -Water as a commodity: The film describes the Chinese symbol for water as meaning “control.” The history of water as an important commodity runs back many years. Also very relevant is the cultural/behavioral aspects of water as a commodity. Ever since water has been put in a bottle and placed on the shelf people have agreed to pay for it. Now that we view water as something to be paid for and sold by another company for money, society will have difficulty switching back. Privatization ruins local water sources. As a commodity, water is sold to the highest bidder.
 * -Corporate water ownership: Suez and Vivendi were two corporate identities discussed in the film, interestingly enough those two identities are actually under one corporate organizational structure. As the film progresses we begin to understand the connection between Suez and government. Suez bribes politicians in countries or regions where they wish to buy the water supply. Naturally, this type of interaction between corporate and governmental affairs leads right into legislation and legal issues. In which those corporations who support and bribe regional governments are able to have a hand in passing legislation in Kenya for example making it illegal to limit rose exportation. The tragic event in Bolivia where the local government is harming the people to support foreign corporate interests is another example. Reagan/Thatcheresque policies allowed for this sort of privatization.
 * -Loss of Natural Water sources: in the past 100 years, over 60% of the wetlands in the world have been destroyed. These are the best sites for filtering water. We are harvesting water from aquifers faster than we can replace it (like oil). Soil erosion is common, less percolation when it rains.

The most compelling scene of the movie was definitely when Lee Kyung Hae killed himself in Mexico outside of a World Trade Organization conference. This showed how desperate the water situation is for some people. Before this movie I didn’t recognize water privatization as an urgent problem, but this image triggers an emotional response and makes it easier for me to feel compelled to do something different about my water usage. Another compelling anecdote is the fact that the Bush family has bought 98,840 acres of land in Paraguay. Brazil and Paraguay do have the covetous water reserves, so it is alarming that the Bush family was compelled to buy so much land there. The US also has a military base in on the border of Brazil and Paraguay and around the Great Lakes. These are scary details and imply preparation for the militarized taking of water.
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

The opening scene was a bit lame in my opinion. The whole metaphor of the guy dehydrating was a touch corny for me. I was particularly shocked when the film announces that currently more children die of cholera, a water disease, than of malaria, HIV, or wars. The most unconvincing scenes were the interviews with people from beverage companies. Their arguments were based on lies. I also was disturbed by the fact that farming communities can use unlimited water and in fact, must often use more water than necessary or they could lose rights to the water. Why not save this water and pump it to a community that needs it?
 * 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

I am most interested in finding what the sustainable level of water harvesting might be for every community. Human needs to stop moving into water starved area and then expecting to have a water intensive lifestyle with golf courses and such. Some areas just shouldn’t be populated due to water issues.
 * 6. 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.?**

This film fairly and comprehensibly addresses enough topics and with enough depth to warrant viewing by many audiences. The content is arguably too strong for younger viewers however with some of the graphic imagery. I would most certainly think that it would change viewers’ opinions about water rights. Water issues are less discussed than maybe any other sustainability problem that I can think of. I thought this film did a great job conveying its message and would certainly wake viewers up.
 * 7. 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?**

In China, planes fly by clouds with dry ice & silver halide to “seed” clouds. Desalination was also mentioned as a technique for freshwater manufacturing. Unfortunately this process is not that efficient as currently designed. Counties and states can also pass laws to keep out certain companies. Just like some localities pass laws to limit the entrance of fast food chains for example, some cities have limited the privatization of water.
 * 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

I found //Blue Gold// to be a successful educational film on the implications of our world’s water and its future. I thought the emphasis on the privatization of water was an important educational point, but perhaps the film could have spoken a little more about the legal implications of water as a commodity. It mentions the Dublin Conference of 1992 in which water was first named a good, but it never talked about when this became a legal concern. Similar to patent law and rights to living cells and things like that, it would be helpful to talk about the legal implications of water as a commodity to help viewers better understand their options as to the kinds of actions they can take.
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

[] [] []
 * Citations:**