Bensley+Annotations+1

David Bensley Annotation #1 // Blue Gold // Words: 971

// Blue Gold: World Water Wars //, directed by Sam Bozzo, was released in 2008.
 * 1. Title, director and release year? **

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

The main argument of this film is that water as a natural resource should remain in the public domain; it should not be privatized and any water systems that are privately managed should be made public. It is also necessary to consider environmental consequences and the public interest when making any decisions about water systems.

**3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?**

The film relies more on emotional appeal and anecdotal information than on scientific information. It begins by giving examples of the importance of water and then citing a specific historical example, i.e., the Mayans breaking the regional water cycle, leading to mass destruction of forests and watersheds.

The narrative is sustained through a somewhat eclectic series of examples of economic and human costs of the misuse of the water supply. There are cases of economic costs of privatization, from France to the United States—including the demonstration of how a small group of companies has managed to purchase and control water supplies in municipalities the world over. There are also examples of economic costs of competition and mismanagement, including the effects on farmers whose lands are drained of water that is instead piped to other regions. Environmental costs are also outlined, with an effective comparison of water systems to the human body: rivers are to the ecosystem as an artery is to the body. Damaging or damming the river is hugely destructive to ecosystems.

**4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?**

The film mainly discusses political, economic, and ecological issues.

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

The most persuasive aspect of the film is the argument against the privatization of water, particularly with regard to Veolia, RWE/Thames, and Suez. The fact that water becomes more expensive when privatized is a strong argument in favor of keeping it publically owned and managed. The “hit them in the wallet” approach is very effective. Examples such as the decrease in water quality and employees in Atlanta are also dismaying.

Using historical examples also made the point very well, from the Mayans to the desiccation of the Aral Sea. The conflict that occurred in Bolivia after water was privatized painted a vivid picture. It resounded because it discussed in detail how a populist movement can successfully fight against bad policy, and was graphic in the depiction of the fight against privatization.

Although brief, the segment in which water was compared to oil was very compelling. It drew a parallel to a well-known and widely-discussed issue. There are significant effects on foreign policy, including the institution of military presences near water supplies. I was intrigued by the statement that Paraguay and Brazil are the “Middle East of water,” and the fact that the Bush family has been buying up land in the Paraguay/Brazil watershed.

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

I was not particularly compelled by the segment in which the former government employee is interviewed, saying that cooperation between government and private companies is ideal. He seems to be saying that combining government corruption with the privatization issues makes the best system. In actuality, it seems that he means to say that combining privatization and government control mitigates the issues of both, but the explicit message is that both have their problems and their respective problems will occur when the two are combined.

**7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?**

The film does an excellent job of addressing a wide variety of audiences the world over. Everyone from American city-dwellers to rural Chinese farmers is affected by water policies, whether it be in the destruction of resources, increases in cost, or decreases in quality.

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

The film could have been more valuable if it told viewers more explicitly what they can do in their daily lives to conserve water and help encourage positive changes to water policies and management.

**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 film is very good in that it outlines its suggested actions in a section called “The Way Forward.” It suggests that populism is going to be a very important movement in the future of the water supply.

There are also a few tangible changes/suggestions made in the film, including “micro-turbines” for generating power from rivers, hydroponic farming for less water/land waste, and small water catchments for replenishing groundwater without the negative effects of large dams.

**10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)** Being an engineer, I was compelled to find out more about the “microturbines” mentioned in the film. I found that a company named Energy Systems & Design has been making micro hydro turbines for over 30 years that are capable of providing power from small streams without stopping or significantly slowing their flow. This is a great option for home use. [] I was also interested in the topic of hydroponic farming, particularly the actual water efficiencies gained. I found that it takes as little as 1/20 of the water used by traditional farming to produce the same amount of food, while also minimizing groundwater contamination by its reduced use of pesticides and other chemicals. []