FloresJaredCrude

Jared Flores Annotation 12: Crude Impact  1.  Title, director, and release year? Crude Impact, directed by James Jandak Wood, released in 2006  2.  What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of the film is that the world extracts and consumes too much oil. The film argues that in only 150 years, we have extracted nearly half the Earth’s supply of oil, even though that oil took millions of years to form from decayed organic matter. Even with all the oil being extracted, it is still barely enough to meet the massive demand. Oil is used in a variety of products, and as such, it is a part of everyday life. Oil is used to power cars, make nylon, and even to prepare the food that we all need to survive. The film argues that the American way of life is not sustainable, but that there are many ways to change things. In order to accomplish this, we must avoid using products that have too large of an oil investment.  3.  What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The main sustainability problem that the film draws out is cultural sustainability. Americans consume a great deal of oil every day, and that is because we have become accustomed to a standard of living that requires a great deal of consumption. Studies show that the average American is just as happy today as fifty years ago, but consumes three times as much. People have been conditioned to use a product once, and then to throw it away. Through the food we eat, the cars we drive, the electric appliances we use, and the lifestyles we live, the American way of living is highly unsustainable. Another sustainability problem that the film draws out is the sustainability of organizations. Oil companies are able to make billions of dollars in profit each year. In fact, in 2005, the top 3 oil companies made $63.7 billion in profit. As the demand for oil increases, these companies push to extract more and more oil. Because American oil can no longer meet the demands of the people, a great deal of our oil (more than 50% by 1990) is imported from other countries. Oil companies don’t care where they obtain this oil, and they also don’t care whose lives they have to endanger. As long as there is a demand, they will be making money, and they will do whatever it takes to make that happen.  4.  What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The part of the film I was most compelled by was the story of Ken Saro-Wiwa. He was an activist, and a leader among the Ogoni people. He was very outspoken about fighting back against the oil company. Because of oil companies, there was little to know clean water for the Nigerian people. They were forced to drink contaminated water just to survive, and succumbed to widespread illness as a result of this. The polluted water endangered wildlife, and made it difficult for the Ogoni people to find food and water. Saro-Wiwa spearheaded protests against the oil companies. As a result of this, he, along with other activist leaders, were arrested and put to death. This was a very real vignette about the devastating effects we can have on our quest for oil. Another part of the film I found compelling was the part where the year of peak oil production was addressed. The oil production in the United States peaked in 1963, and since then has been in steady decline. The same sort of this is true for many oil producing countries. Yet, our dependence on oil has only increased since then. The things we are forced to do to get oil, including endangering the lives of countless people and going to war with Afghanistan, are truly ridiculous. I would have thought that oil dependence would decrease after peak production was reached, that we would be forced to look into other sources of energy. This part of the movie really opened my eyes.  5.  What parts of the movie were you not compelled or convinced by? Personally, there was not a single part of the movie that I wasn’t convinced by. It’s very true that our country is doing some inexcusable things to get oil. The government is using the military to get oil, and oil companies are endangering both wildlife and humans to get the oil that we crave. The movie truly sends a frightening message. We all need oil, and most of us just look the other way from the atrocities that are occurring because of our nation’s insatiable hunger. The movie also brought up some good alternatives to high energy consumers, such as changing to fluorescent lighting. I really think that the film was well thought out, and all of its bases were covered.  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.? This film compels me to seek out more information on oil containing products. The film offered a cursory glance at the products that consume oil, but I want to see if there are things I use in my everyday life that I didn’t even know required oil to make. I want to research any existing alternatives to these products in order to make my way of life more sustainable. Also, I would like to see more about the effects oil drilling has on wildlife. Exposing myself to that information may help to inspire me to make important and sustainable choices in my life.  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 humanitarians. This film offers a good look at all the terrible, inhumane things that our country has done in order to get oil. We have poisoned, killed, and invaded countries in order to get our hands on oil. This goes to show what a truly terrifying prospect it is to some people for us to run out of oil. This film may help viewers to think twice before supporting businesses that extract oil. It may help people to make more informed decisions about their energy consumption as well.  8.  What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? This film suggests many ways to help alleviate the problem. For starters, people could take energy inventories of their households. This would help people to notice any areas where they could reduce their energy consumption. Simply changing one light bulb to a fluorescent light in every household in America would reduce carbon emissions by 10 billion pounds per year. Also, the film explains that people can easily lead the same lifestyle, but with ¼ as much energy consumption. The film also suggests buying organic foods, or making a contract with a local farmer to provide you with food. The film also suggests letting your voice be heard by the government, and always speaking up when you know there is a problem with the way this country does things.  9.  What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental educational value? I think the film could have been more specific about how to reduce energy consumption. While taking an energy inventory is a good idea, I’m not sure if ways to cut down energy consumption would be all that obvious to people. The film should have identified the most common ways in which people over consume so that viewers who decide to take energy inventories would know what big things to look for. That way, it would be a lot easier for people to cut down on their energy consumption.