DalethEndofSuburbia

Jacob Dale Annotation #8, 11/12/10 The End of Suburbia

1. Title, director and release year?

The film, __The End of Suburbia__ was directed by Gregory Greene and was released in 2004.

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The film takes you through the history and functions of the suburbs we now know today through the use of various experts and 1900s imagery. The suburbs first started to take their formation around the 1920s with the invention of the automobile. Progress slowed for the suburbs after the great depression hit, but sped up rapidly after World War 2. It was viewed as a payoff to soldiers for having fought in the war. This was the point in time when rapid growth happened due to highway expansion. People saw the suburbs as an anecdote to city life which was a horrible place filled with pollution, byproducts of factories, and raunchy swells. Country living provided an escape. This all became known as the American Dream which was surrounded by home ownership and affordability as well as the room for expansion. It was a happy go spending world surrounded by a culture of consumption and adults buying large quantities of resources and products to build their families.

The next portion of the film focused on how suburban life was based upon the nation on wheels and our highway system. The documentary described the suburban way of life as the “greatest misallocation of resources in the world.” Our world was and still is focused on cheap oil. The very concept of upward mobility, a sense of security, and gracious living needs to change. The suburbs have made us dependent on cheap energy that will cease to exist. We drive miles and miles to get to work, school, shop, and just live our lives. The system based on endless energy will not continue to be possible as we are stuck in a notion of endless energy through fossil fuels which could have peaked in supply.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The film draws out numerous sustainability issues that include the end of our current lifestyles, the end of fossil fuels, soil degradation, a lack of food, the Jevons Paradox, public policy, and the media. First and foremost one of the most devastating things to us will be the loss of our American Dream. The film mentioned how we cannot keep consuming the way we do when our energy sources do run out. How will we be able to get to school, work, entertainment, and shopping? We are a nation of wheels dependent on fuels sources that will run out. Also, peak oil is another issue. Peak oil has happened worldwide already or will happen by 2020 according to several experts. There is some debate on this, but the debate is not about if or how, but rather when. Dr. Hubbard is the world renowned scientist who discovered this. By the time we peak, we will recognize it much later. This will cause a gap in what we want to use and what we actually have. The United Sates oil peaked in the 1970s, and it took us over a decade to recognize it. The same will happen with the rest of the world.

Besides running out of energy, we have other consequences. Due to our energy policy and our service economy, we are quite dependent on China since we make use of trucking delivery systems to deliver goods throughout our country. China provides us with many resources and products. This can soon come to an end if we are competing with them for energy. What would we do then? We have seen fifty years of world peace and stability, but what will happen if our supply lines end from China? Our current food production will also be affected. Our current agricultural practices require petroleum for fertilizers and pesticides. This causes soil degradation, and this will mean we won’t be able to continue with these practices when we run out of energy. As of now it takes 10 hydrocarbons for every calorie we consume. Our food prices will sky rocket and our ability to grow food will diminish.

Other issues that are affecting us are the Jevons Paradox, public policy, and the media. The more and more efficient and skilled we become at producing oil, the more negative effects we will see and the worse the problem will become. It will cause us to run out faster. Even though this seems to have positive attributes, it does not. This is why this concept is known as the Jevons Paradox. Our public policy is also unsustainable. Our government leaders are part of the problem for not encouraging sustainable practices and renewable energy many years ago. They allow us to continue our unsustainable practices, and currently they are helping to increase our national debt to unsustainable levels. We need energy to expand our economy, and we are running out of it. Even Cheney’s energy expert realized this. Finally, the media is another issue. The media is not letting the American public know about all of these problems and their magnitude. This is because there is no upside for the media if they tell us the truth. It wouldn’t help stock prices rise for their owners, so they don’t tell us the truth. One thing is for sure, we need solutions to get us on the right track.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

The most persuasive parts of the film to me were the energy blackout of 2004 and the peak oil discussion. The blackout happened on August 14, 2004. It started in Toronto, Canada and it affected over 50 million people in Canada and in the East Coast of the United States. Fuse boxes tripped everywhere as we approached 100% capacity of electricity. This was sparked by 90 degree temperatures and people utilizing air conditioners as well as their normal electricity uses. To me this really speaks volumes that we are using too much energy and that we are so dependent on energy. We either need to use less energy or come up with alternative energy sources if we want to continue our consumption. Another compelling part of the film for me was the peak oil discussion. The film talked about Dr. Hubbard the expert behind this theory. Bringing home the concept of peak oil was the fact that almost all scientists agree it will happen or has happened. It’s not a question on whether it will happen; it is just a question of when. The other compelling idea was the lag behind us finding out about peak oil. It happened in the United States during the 1970s, but we didn’t figure it out until one decade later.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?

I was not impressed with the discussion about hydrogen energy and nuclear power. The film was rather quick to dismiss both of these energy sources without really getting into specific details and didn’t have a lot of factually grounded information. One expert described hydrogen energy as a delusion, and said we have no idea how to make it work. Also, experts said that it was just a form of energy storage rather than energy. The film described methane as being the only current sensible way to produce hydrogen and the fact that it takes more energy to make hydrogen than we get from it. Sure this all may be true, but why discount this energy source? Also, nuclear energy was discounted since the public perceives great dangers form it, and our politicians can’t agree about it. These seem like rather silly reasons to dismiss the energy source. We clearly need a lot more research, and we are in a dire situation. I think we need to look into all energy avenues.

6. What audiences does the film best address? Why?

I believe the film best serves viewers that are high-school aged and above that aren’t familiar with peak oil or how our lifestyles are unsustainable. The common environmental buff would already be aware of the issues discussed in the movie. This could be since the film was made in 2004, and I heard about all these issues in college already. Around its release, the film was perhaps more informational.

7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

I believe the film should have gone more into its solutions. It was quick to discount hydrogen and nuclear power. The film should have discussed more about this. I also feel the film gave broad solutions that we need implemented. The problem with this is that it is up to our policymakers. The film should have given ways the public could intervene to help our situation out.

8. 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 film suggests numerous corrective actions. It focuses on the fact that there are no quick solutions. We need to downscale all that we do including sports, education, and so on. We cannot continue with our consumption as we are running out of energy. We need railroad transit so that we are less dependent on our cars, and we desperately need retail on a local level. The film discussed new urbanism rather extensively. We need to have community living that is easily walk-able, and we need green housing. This will allow us to use our space better, have a higher population density so we save land and resources, and it will possess an urban feel. Other solutions will require massive collective approaches. The media and our public policy need to keep the public informed. Our leaders need to act. We need renewable energy to replace our fossil fuels. Right now solar power, bio fuels, and upgrades to our electric grid look promising.

9. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)

The film made me want to learn a little more about the black out that happened, and what our government is currently doing to get us on the right track for a better energy future. The blackout that happened in 2003 was the largest ever in U.S. history. Besides of course Canada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts were affected. Apparently al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the outage, but later it was found that the problem was transmission lines and fallen trees. Reliability issues were cited for the blackout. Canadian and U.S. officials said the electric system needs to be more reliable, and FirstEnergy blamed the blackout on some of its transmission lines and its alarm systems not functioning. The interesting part about all of this is that no one has said that the real problem was our electricity consumption. Perhaps the system failed us since we approached such high utilization just like the documentary said?

[]

Besides the blackout, I was interested in what our government is doing to help our energy crisis. I was actually pleasantly surprised that the Obama administration has made some great strides in acknowledging our energy problems and the need to fix these issues. They seemed to have made some great progress unlike the Bush administration. The administration has worked with Congress trying to pass a Cap and Trade bill. Unfortunately, this bill did not make headway in the Senate due to filibusters. The Recovery Act has been passed to help our economy grow, but has made investments in a clean energy economy. Investments include the development of renewable energy, investments in high-speed rail, grid enhancements, retrofitting homes, and so on. $80 billion has been set aside to help with these projects. The White House has also applied energy efficiency standards for appliances, and has taken a lead in reducing greenhouse emissions in the federal government by mandating a reduction of 28% by 2020. The White House has also acknowledged the need to restore our ecosystems. So, it appears the Obama administration is doing more than previous administrations.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy-and-environment