TedfordSixDegreesCouldChangetheWorld

1. The title of the film I viewed was __Six Degrees Could Change the World__, directed by Ron Bowman and released in 2008. 2. The central argument of this film is that in our modern world we are figuratively turning up the thermostat on our planet due to our individual carbon footprints. With each degree the earth warms, we increase chances of "100 year storms" and shifting climates around the globe. Around the 2 or 3 degree Celsius mark (above normal temperatures) we will have likely reached a tipping point where global warming wont be reversible, and the processes generated by it will be "self-fueling" (for instance, as the ice cap melts the rate of global warming exponentially increases). There are many matrices of issues that are created from situations that global warming will cause, although much of the effects are hard to predict. 3. There are several sustainability problems that the film speaks to, which I'll list in bullet-form below for clarity: 4. There were several really compelling segments in the film. At each degree mark the film would break off and have a short commentary on the carbon footprint of a particular item or a "case-study" type segment about a particular region of the world. Early in the movie at the one degree mark, the film did a short segment on the carbon footprint of a cheeseburger. The commodity chain analysis of a burgers carbon footprint seemed detailed and persuasive on a basic level, enough to make the average person think twice about eating beef, or maybe inspire them to learn more. I also found the portion of the film about Australian bush fires to be really compelling, but for different reasons. The imagery used in this section, although likely computer generated, was powerful in some ways. The shot of the man using a hose on his roof with the bush fires raging in the background was especially powerful in my opinion, because it is not unlike some of the coverage I've seen of the fires out west by California. Extreme weather is so beyond our control that it has this effect that can make you feel very small, which this portion of the film was successful in doing. 5. Although many portions of the film were effective in their imagery or scientific information, there were a few parts that were less than convincing. The entire segment on the heat wave in 2003 in Europe was heavily informational and obviously very tragic, but I'm not sure if it stands as an issue in sustainability or "carbon footprint." Continual wildfires in Australia, year after year can potentially stand as an argument toward climate change, but one hot summer could be dismissed as cyclic or just an outlier. Although there were many thousands upon thousands of causalities, many were elderly and the film covered the fact that people were intensely ill prepared. The roofs on most of the houses were tin, essentially creating small ovens for the residents inside. I also felt that several of the images were repeated many times, making for an interesting collage of images and stories. The only down side to this was that if an image was especially striking I would notice it every time it appeared again, and I grew a little weary of viewing the same image multiple times in that fashion, and each time it became less striking. 6. This film best addresses an audience that has already been exposed to some of the "hard truths" about climate change and similar topics and is at least already enlightened to the fact that global warming exists, is occurring and is also man made. An audience that is not familiar with the issues may simple dismiss the information in this film as above them or they may deem it too scary of a topic to think about and will therefore continue with their daily lives. It's delivery would have to be a little less "apocalyptic" in nature to maybe speak to those groups. Although I've seen this film before and I'm already aware of these issues, so a person new to this information may react differently. The film did well with the scientific information although could have had more (such as the "ice popping" segment), to help with people who may still be "on the fence" about whether global warming is occurring or not. 7. As stated in number 6, the film lacked in more solid scientific information. That information is critical in convincing people who are still on the fence that global warming is real and occurring. Although it shouldn't be something still under debate, it unfortunately is. An increase in the number of offered solutions would have also been a welcome change, as the end was a little fuzzy along those lines. I felt that this film, being so accredited and so heavily funded could have at least been a little more inspiring because National Geographic definitely had the resources to reach many audiences. 8. The film offers a few basic suggestions tied to statistics for solutions. For instance, switching to CFL bulbs will benefit the climate crisis by saving X amount in oil and carbon emissions. The main focus within the "solutions" portion was on one gentleman who seem to be a professional at moving himself from place to place and carrying everything he needed in one pack and relying heavily on his skills with "mobility." In today's world I'm not sure of the amount of people who would model their lives after this man, I see many other points of intervention. I think that in the past there have been great inspiring leaders who have effected a change in our government and way of life somehow (at least here in America.) Today we experience many rights that even 40 years ago were still new or not commonplace. If there is legitimate scientific evidence to prove there's global warming, I think that by concerted, organized efforts policy will follow the preference of the people. Encouraging individuals and inspiring this breed of activism is really important for future endeavors. 9. There were many important points within this film that I had to do some sort of extra research on to get the entire story: > > > References: > Larsen, Janet. "Plan B Updates - 29: Record Heat Wave in Europe Takes 35,000 Lives - Far Greater Losses May Lie Ahead > >>  | EPI." Earth Policy Institute – Building a Sustainable Future | Home. 9 Oct. 2003. Web. 14 Oct. 2010. . > > > Tsikas, Mick. "Why Global Warming May Be Fueling Australia's Fires - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, > >>  News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 9 Feb. 2009. Web. 14 Oct. 2010. . >
 * The disconnect between society and our food as illustrated during the hamburger segment.
 * The disconnect between the first places that are warming and the people who are most responsible for the emissions that caused the warming. This is illustrated in the segment where the folks from Greenland speak to the ice that is melting and how the bubbles within the ice make popping noises because they have been buried deep in the ice for centuries. The issues arising in Australia are far away and receive poor news coverage here in the states, along side issues that are involved with the global water crisis.
 * This goes along with bullet two's main point, but the underwater effects of global warming are also out of sight for the average everyday American (or European perhaps). Bleaching of the coral reefs is an issue that effects countless marine species, however it doesn't directly or visible affect anything else yet and so many people don't know about it or are content to push it out of their psyche.
 * Wild Fires in Australia: I was so moved by some of the graphics and visuals within the segment about Australian wild fires that I felt the need to find out more. I found out that already 160 people died in one of the last rounds of wildfires that occurred in 2009. I also found out that a lot of people are more skeptical of the correlation between these fires and climate change than the movie seems to convey. Apparently a lot of the Australian police think that the fires were deliberately set, although Australia's readily dry environment is essentially kindling for these fires.
 * Heat wave in Europe (2003): This event didn't catch my attention at all until I viewed this movie, but it was essentially a wide spread environmental health crisis in its own way. 35,000 people were confirmed dead because of the effects of this heat wave. That is an absurd number of people to die because of heat. Not only children and older adults are at risk in these extreme heat situations. Apparently at temperatures above 104 degrees fahrenheit, you body really struggles to stay alive because your organs enter the picture and are at risk of failure. I just recently learned about urban heat islands in another course, and knowing that I can't imagine what it felt like to live in a city like Paris. Apart from the the tin roofs essentially made all of the houses like little ovens. Europe, in my mind, has always seemed climate-wise a colder place to live. Now, as climate change inevitably ensues, its apparent that we all need to change our mindsets about climates around the world.