Annotation_7_Do_the_Math

Annotation #7 Word count: 660


 * 1. Title, director and release year?**
 * Title: “**Do the Math"
 * Director:** Kelly Nyks, Jared P. Scott
 * Release Year:** 2013

The main argument of the film is that fossil fuel industry is killing us and unless we rise up and fight back we will see a cataclysmic disaster.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

Leading environmentalists like Bill McKibben present the facts that are backed up by scientific data. The film also has a strong emotional appeal and brings you closer to the problem by using such pronouns as “we”. There is a clear message that there is a problem and we can fight it.
 * 3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

Numerous sustainability problems were discussed. From the economic point of view, Bill McKinneb and many others in the film highlighted the importance and feasibility of shifting towards alternative and sustainable energy. It was mentioned that although top ten oil companies make ridiculous amounts of money they never cared about our future and the future of environment they so selfishly abuse. On the political note, Bill McKinnen addresses the government and talks about the need to make it illegal to pollute the air. Also, he talks about technical unsustainability and that we focus on making machines that ruin our planet instead of investing in wind turbines and solar energy that would bring us out of the deep hole we are currently in. Legally, he was able to establish 350.org that is considered the biggest environmental movement in the world.
 * 4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?****Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational?****Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

The most amazing part of the film to me was when they talked about how students were able to get school board to divest school funds from fossil fuel industry. It is certainly inspiring to see that college students like us can make such a change.
 * 5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

It would be nice if Bill McKinnen talked about exact steps made to achieve 350.org effectiveness or at least refer to some other sources. I don’t believe that it is easy to get thousands of people to follow an environmental cause.
 * 6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?**

The film addresses pretty much everyone as it was said, “What’s at stake now is the civilization itself”. That’s a pretty strong statement and we have to be concerned if we care about our future and the future of our children.
 * 7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

Overall, I think Bill McKibben did a great job painting the picture of almost all involved stakeholders. The last stroke that was missing is the future affects, i.e. what would happen if, for example, 2 degrees Celsius rise occurred? What would happen to ecosphere and animals?
 * 8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**

The main message is certainly that it’s time for action. McKibben says that we cannot afford to be bystanders and we should unite for a common cause. The least one can do in this situation is spread the message to one’s friends and family.
 * 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.**

The first thing I looked for after watched this film was Bill McKibben’s background and the things he accomplished. [] I also looked at college divestment movement since it seems to me that it is a great way to get involved. []
 * 10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)**