FloresJaredRevUp

Jared Flores Annotation 3: //China Revs Up//  1.  Title, director, and release year? // China Revs Up //, directed by Chris Schmidt, released in 2004  2.  What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film mainly focuses on the pollution and overconsumption that have come as a result of China’s rapid industrialization and growing economy. The film mostly compares China’s pollution and consumption to that of the United States. Also addressed is the growing dependency on coal in China, and that even the most environmentally conscious people talk about buying cars. The movie goes on to say that China is working its way toward being the biggest polluter in the world as a result of population growth and dependency on vehicles and technology. It is stated in the film that all countries go through periods of increased pollution and consumption during industrialization, and that the issue may eventually resolve itself, although steps still must be taken.  3.  What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The main sustainability problem that the film draws out is technology as a sustainability issue. Because of China’s industrialization, they have become increasingly dependent on coal, which makes up 70% of the country’s energy consumption. Coal, when burned, releases a great deal of carbon dioxide, and because China is such a populous country, seven of the world’s ten most polluted cities are now in China. Also, China has multiplied the number of cars in their country by ten over the last ten years, and their emission standards are not up to par with the United States and countries in Europe. Again, because of China’s high population, this is causing a great deal of pollution. The other main sustainability problem addressed in this movie is cultural sustainability. At the start of China’s industrial revolution, Mao Zedong had peasants work on steel making as opposed to farming. While this decision helped bring the country out of the dark ages, this naturally caused severe food shortages throughout the country. Also, it is because of Mao Zedong’s actions that the country is in the state it’s currently in. It is true that industrialization gave the country a much needed economical boost, but at what cost? With natural resources quickly running out, countries should be working away from industrialization, not towards it. Additionally, the pollution in China is affecting other countries. Some pollution from China can travel as far as the ocean shores of the United States.  4.  What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? One part of the film I found persuasive was the part where the environmentalist Chinese woman goes to shop for a car. Even though she and her husband were active environmentalists, even they could not deny the convenience of having a car. Naturally, she was looking for the most eco-friendly model. However, the “cleanest” cars in China were only using the Euro-2 emission standard, which, by that time, was ten years out of date. If even the car salesman himself was not aware of this, how could anyone else be? Even the most environmentally conscious people would be unwittingly helping China pollute the air more than any other country. They can’t even petition the government to update the emission standards, because they would have no way of knowing that they were out of date. Another part I found compelling was the use of Kuznets’ Environmental Curve. This curve suggests that as countries become more affluent, the amount of pollution that they put out eventually peaks and then declines. It is interesting to consider this curve, and the fact that as countries stabilize, they are able to start focusing on things such as the impact they are having on the environment. After all, during technological development, it makes sense that a country would be more concerned about improving the economy than how they are improving it.  5.  What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? The only part of the film that I was not convinced by was the part regarding the environmentalist Chinese man’s nature documentaries. Yes, I suppose it was a nice little vignette to show that he cared about the environment, but to me, it did not seem to flow properly with the rest of the film. It was almost like the film decided to go off on a random tangent. Showing the documentary filming did not add anything to the message of the movie and I think they could have done without it. They should have kept the focus on the pollution and overconsumption problems and how to solve them.  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.? Personally, Kuznets’ curve has me curious. This film has inspired me to dig deeper regarding the theory behind his environmental curve. I was not satisfied with the depth to which Kuznets’ curve was covered, and I would like to study how the developments of other countries relate to this curve. It seems plenty plausible, but I want to seek more information on how this curve was developed, and how it has been applied in the past. Other than that, I would like more information on the time of Mao Zedong and how he helped China to industrialize.  7.  What audience does this 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? This film best addresses an audience that is concerned with air pollution and the state of the ozone layer. The movie shows a lot of shocking images of how dense the smog is in China, and how the atmosphere is poisoned and how breathing in this air is poisoning us. The film also discusses how what’s going on in China is a problem the world over. While the main audience would e those concerned with air pollution, I believe that anyone can benefit from watching this film.  8.  What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The film mainly seems to say that high amounts of pollution and resource consumption are a natural first stage for industrialization. I believe that the film is saying that China should be allowed to take its course in development. Still, It couldn’t hurt to petition China’s government to update the emission standards on their vehicles. As with most films related to air pollution, the film suggests alternative energy sources, such as hydrogen powered cars. Alternatives to coal and other fossil fuels would be useful, but for the most part, they are not feasible at this time.  9.  What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental educational value? I think that this film could have done with more feasible solutions to the problem at hand. The film did a good job at explaining why China’s rapid industrialization is an environmental problem, but there were no good solutions suggested other than to let the industrialization take its course. The only solution suggested was the hydrogen powered car. That may be a good solution some day, but the technology behind it is not in a usable stage. People would not be willing to sacrifice so much money and efficiency to save the environment, because sadly, it’s just not that important to the common man.