Davey.Heat

Michael Davey Film Annotation 1: Frontline “Heat” Words: 1600, Date: 11/15/2010 2. The central argument of this film is that climate change is a problem which deserves a great deal of attention. This film presents this idea through a matrix of sustainability problems including the power of big oil, our dependence on coal, the ineffectiveness of the government and the degradation of our physical resources. The film makers reflect on what we have done to arrive at the critical place we find ourselves in, what can be done and how much time we have to do it in. 3. Climate change is the overall sustainability problem highlighted in the film. It is presented in segments which discuss the factors contributing to the seemingly insurmountable emergency. A visual call to action comes first depicting the degradation of Himalayan glaciers. Since 1920, the given glacier is estimated to have lost 40% of its mass. At that rate, the producers estimate that by 2035 all glacial ice in that region will be gone. The implications of this loss are momentous. Water supply is a large issue here as those glaciers provide fresh water to major waterways, including the Ganges. China already recognizes the potential water shortage and plans to divert water from other sources. Also, less ice means people will inhabit previously wild areas, causing deforestation and further loss of biodiversity. The film makers acknowledge that climate change has occurred in the past, but also note that it has never occurred with a global population exceeding 6 billion. The amount of strain we put on the environment is larger than ever before, and our industries seem less willing than ever to face the issue. The sustainability of big business is an indirect subject of the film, focusing on big energy. Our country’s dependence on fossil fuels is presented as something that must change quickly if we are to have a livable planet to pass to our children and grandchildren. With the rise of industrialization after WWII, previously consistent levels of CO2 in the atmosphere began to grow alongside fossil fuel intensive industries. The US is especially highlighted as having cheap and abundant energy, especially coal. There was no reason to change before now. Despite the awareness energy companies now have to the necessity for change, they continue to grow as a result of being bound by their shareholders to make a profit. This profit motivation is unsustainable, especially in industries based on tapping finite resources. This sustainability problem is one of the underlying points of the film. Whether it is through shareholder demand or flip flopping Presidential candidates, the established system will continue to support the companies which provide citizens with what they want or need. Another central sustainability problem highlighted lies in the eastern developing nations. The growing middle classes in those locations have their eyes on western development as a benchmark for how to be a part of a global economy. Unfortunately, the models by which they are gauging their growth are terribly destructive to the planet. Developed countries are both the most at fault for what is happening, and the best equipped to create change. 4. The most compelling part of the film for me was any part focusing on the leadership in companies which had failed to make decisions which would benefit the planet in the long term. I continue to be amazed by the short sightedness of CEO’s and other top management in powerful companies. The example of ExxonMobil’s contribution to research on renewable energies, 100 million dollars annually out of a 400 billion dollar revenue stream, is a disgustingly meager amount to put toward what could be the future of your company. Exxon further proves its poor leadership in the example of when some major investors in the company filed shareholder resolutions with the board of directors of Exxon, requesting meeting with the CEO. The CEO denied his major shareholders meetings to discuss alternative energy sources. Another prime example was of General Motors’ development of a hybrid electric car in the late 1990’s, the EV1. This car was designed, produced and even supported by the Clinton administration, and then demolished before it could be put to market. The program to develop the EV1 and other fuel efficient vehicles came out of Bill Clinton’s push on the big three American car companies to produce such vehicles. Shortly after that, Toyota and Honda, who had been left out of the Washington based pow wow surged to the forefront of hybrid vehicles with the release of the Prius and other new technologies. Now the American companies are playing catch up while the Japanese “eat their lunch”. GM balked at questions around why the EV1 was scrapped, and turn to the Chevy Volt as their next big innovation. Journalist Martin Smith attempted to drive one, and it could not pass 10mph. These companies clearly are reactionary with their innovations and have no desire to make investments in change while they may still do what they prefer easily and profitably. 5. I was not compelled by the bits about the election. This film was produced in an election year so the subjects are important, but these segments did not add much to the production. Their biggest role was to illustrate how politicians will say what they need to say to get votes. Obama and McCain’s platforms were both fairly volatile on the subject of alternative energies, however, the presidential race was merely an aside to the larger arguments presented in the film. I believe this is appropriate, but have not seen any films dedicated to exploring the shortcomings of our government as a sustainability problem. We can vote in every election, but unless the problems are identified, we will not know who will be best suited to fix them. 6. This film works for everyone. It provides both overviews of sustainability problems as well as high quality information. The film is well organized and holds the attention of viewers with extensive knowledge of sustainability problems, as well as those who may have little knowledge on the subject. 7. A common trend in environmental awareness films is to present the audience with the issues and current high level action items, leaving out what “Joe the plumber” can do every day to help in a radical way. The corporations are the players which can make the biggest impact, but those companies have employees and those employees have friends. There need to be action items in a film like Heat which target the average American and empower them to make change every day. 8. Nuclear power is highlighted as something that should be revisited, although it may not be an ultimate solution do to the extremely hazardous waste produced by it. Heat provides the examples of certain European countries and Japan as exemplary role models for sustainable policy making and living. Where Germany heavily subsidizes the use of alternatives, the US has poorly designed and inconsistent government support. In Europe there are heavy taxes on fuel and fuel intense vehicles, where here their purchases make up a critical portion of the GDP. Also, dependence on fuel is seen as a security issue in these countries because these fuels are largely imported, and any supply cuts would be detrimental to the infrastructure. T. Boone Pickens, a Texas billionaire and entrepreneur, proposes a switch to wind energy which he believes could power much of the US if installed strategically and supported correctly by the government. However, he is only one man and estimates his proposed project to cost more than he can personally finance. With the government supporting the fossil fuel industry, his project may stagnate for a few years before an appropriate sense of urgency is felt and the switch is made. 9. This film has prompted me to seek out some follow up information on our president’s energy policy ([|http://www.atr.org/obamas-energy-policy-flip-flops-offshore-a5079#]). Upon reading this article I identify two large problems. First, President Obama’s plan seems poorly planned. Good planning would include some sort of outplacement service or accommodation for the workers on the oil rigs to be shut down. Second, the defenders of the oil rigs fail to see the long term significance of weaning ourselves off of oil and the initial investment is unattractive both in terms of financial expenditure and loss of jobs in a transition between industries. Additionally, I looked up what Mr. Pickens has been up to since 2008 in his plan. On the website ([]), the Pickens Plan is described as a way to free the US from its dependence on foreign oil. As we import 12 million barrels daily, we get closer and closer to the point where cheap and easy oil will vanish. According to Pickens, oil production in the world peaked in 2005 and has declined every year since. The five pillars of the Pickens Plan are as follows: I believe that if the government gets behind this kind of movement, we will be on the right track to correcting the course our planet is heading on.
 * Title: Heat by Frontline (2008), Director: Tim Mangini, Writer: Martin Smith **
 * Create millions of new jobs by building out the capacity to generate up to 22 percent of our electricity from wind. And adding to that with additional solar generation capacity;
 * Building a 21st century backbone electrical transmission grid;
 * Providing incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to upgrade their insulation and other energy saving options; and
 * Using America's natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel in addition to its other uses in power generation, chemicals, etc.