StephanieCaouetteFilmAnnotation12

1. Title, director and release year?

The name of the Film is Burning the Future Coal in America by David Novak in 2008

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

The film is centered around the impact that the coal industry and mountain top removal is having on the people of particularly West Virginia and states in Appalachia. It goes through the stories of activists and researchers who have had firsthand experience dealing with the devastating consequences that the coal industry is imposing on the people of Appalachia. It shows how mountaintop removal as a way of extracting resources is unsustainable in every way and that they will not sit dormant any longer.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The film goes through many different sustainability issues surrounding the coal industry, first and foremost mountaintop removal was the main sustainability issue focused on. The coal companies are making their way into the mountains of Appalachia and blasting off the tops of mountains, leaving the ecosystem and environment completely trashed. Mountain top removal has replaced traditional mining due to its efficiency and “safer” work conditions. They can now take 100% of the coal out of the mountain, without ever digging a hole and climbing in to extract the coal.

Not only are they ruining the natural landscape and ecology of the area they are also dumping the waste left over into the valleys ruining the water systems that had been in place for centuries. The film revealed that over 1,000 miles of streams and waterways have been buried and destroyed because of the overburden from the coal industry being dumped into them. This has a direct correlation to the water that makes it into the towns which is becoming rapidly polluted.

The women they followed said that the land has always been the root of her family, she lived here her whole life, both her grandfather and father worked in the mines, and nature has always been a part of her life. She went through and showed the different things you could eat and use from nature. Now days all of these things are either gone or contaminated to the extent that you wouldn’t dare eat them. They depicted streams where aquatic life used to bloom, now being filled with toxic slurry and black water.

Because of the mountaintop removal in one town, 60 of the 125 houses had children that attend the school near the coal plant, 53 of those 60 households had a reported health problem. Also, there are 155 sludge ponds in the state of West Virginia, which are unlined and often poorly built.

In addition to these sustainability problems the film outlines the different health problems that have come from the coal industry, people with cancer, gall bladder problems, neurological problems; all complex problems with no answers. Men and women are being poisoned by their water, getting sicker each day with no answered from government.

This film once again showed the political implications of big coal, and how government officials seem to side with big business, which is also a sustainability issue. They continue to say that they are moving towards clean coal but as it was put in the film, “clean coal is nothing more than a little bit less polluted coal, it is not actually clean its more along the lines of “slightly less dirty coal”.

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

I found the story about the flooding in West Virginia very compelling, the fact that the woman had lived there 35 years and had never seen the type of flooding they have seen in the last 4-5 years [because of the mountain top removal]. The townspeople knew that it was a direct consequence of mountaintop removal yet the coal mining engineer went to her front yard and looked her right in the eyes and said that the flood was an act of god, not the coal companies fault. They depicted the mountaintop removal as “wholesale environmental devastation” which couldn’t be truer.

I also found the interview with the machine maker shocking, the fact that he said that coal companies and miners take “great pride as they mine the coal to make sure we have small and gentle footprint on the saint beauty of West Virginia”. I found this appalling that they could consider what they are doing to be gentle and okay for the environment, it just goes to show how twisted some minds are surrounding the coal industry.

I found the commercials that they had on “sexy coal” and mountaintop removal and the process of refurbishing the mountainside interesting. All of the information that they put in those ads is so false, the researcher came in right after they showed them and showed what ACTUALLY happens which made the impact of the films central argument hit home much harder.

I found the stories about the toxic slurries breaking in Kentucky and West Virginia to be a compelling piece of the film too because it shows that lives are being taken at the hand of big coal companies and something needs to be done about it.

Lastly, the political parts of the film, like the fact that whenever they prove that these companies are operating against regulation or that they are not following the rules, that administration and government officials find loopholes to eliminate the rules so the industry can continue doing what they are doing. Also the fact that whenever they are challenged they say that they are providing jobs, when only a couple decades ago there were 125,000 mining jobs and today there are just about 15,000. What this means is that they are decreasing jobs at an alarming rate, destroying our environment and hazarding the health of millions each day with no consequence.

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

I found the part of the film when they went into the energy plant to have little impact on me. Showing me little kids on a field trip and where the “coal goes” did not add anything to the overall message that mountaintop removal needs to stop. They also threw out some cheesy lines about how coal “touches just about everything and everyone’s lives” these were just fluffy points that were unnecessary.

Also, I did not like the section on the West Virginia Power baseball park. I think that they were trying to show that power companies have a loyal following and provide other social benefits, but I find it informational or an important aspect related to the message. 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.? At one point in the film they talked about flocculent being added to the water. They didn’t give much information besides the fact that it was a chemical that was not good for you. This compelled me to look deeper into what it actually is, why the added it to the water and if it is legal/ethical to do this.

Also the segment they did about the stream and well samples made me curious about the findings and why this scientific data hasn’t been more compelling in the political scene to provoke reform. The facts are evident that the water is polluted and they know why so why hasn’t anything been done to fix it? I also wanted to know more about the different rules that have been changed or bent in order to allow for coal and oil companies to break the rules and continue ruining our land. Why are they allowed to break the rules? Why is our government allowing this to happen and actually facilitating it?

7. What audiences does the 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?

I think that the film is meant for all audiences, more to those who know little to nothing about mountaintop removal or the coal industry in general. I think that it is a good film to open up the eyes of Americans, and get them involved in saving the mountains and participating in more sustainable practices. I think that the film is likely to change the way the viewers see coal and the way it is extracted from the ground and will make them act on it in any way they can.

8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?

If you ask anyone if taking off the top of a mountain is okay nobody would say yes. I thought that one of the best messages for action was that people need to stop living under the intoxication that we cohabitate in a land that has limitless resources. I think that the mere fact that “the extraction of coal is killing Americans” and that “it is acceptable collateral damage that we should lose people so that others can live in the customs they are accustomed to living in” should be enough to make people want to change and start helping the people in W. Virginia and other mining states. They provoke the viewer to not just sit back and let people poison you; working with people in your community can get things done

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

I think that the film was well done for people who do not know much about the coal industry or the devastating effects of mountaintop removal. For me, it was a little bit on the simple side if they would have added more statistics and factual information it could have upped the educational value for me but otherwise I think that it was well done.

“Getting mad doesn’t solve anything unless there is something being done”