AliprandoJoannaAnnotation7


 * The 11th Hour

1. Title, director, and release year? **  **2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?** The 11th hour provides a look into some of the complex systems causing global climate and resource crisis. Upon presenting these systems the film presents the central argument that while productions, consumerism and resource usage must be altered, what most importantly be altered is our perception or perceived place in our world. As mankind we are obsessed with ourself as the superior specie and the only answer to fixing or saving our environment. With anthropogenic factors as the leading causes of global climate change it is true we are the source of the problem and therefore contain the capacity and responsibility to fix it. Yet the movie powerfully articulates the importance of understanding the environment doesn't need us to save it but we need to maintain the environment to save ourselves. Nature and the environment will still exist and grow long after we have absorbed the earth's resources and capacity to promote human life. It is important to our existence to protect the environment we know to help sustain our own life. The film comments on this as a common misunderstand that we are nature and we are boundlessly connected to nature. The film asks the question why we think we are so separate from nature and why our culture is structured on the assumption that we are both separate and superior to the environment.
 *  The 11th hour, L ** eila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners (2007)

The //media// is identified as a powerful force in resisting the public conception of humans as a part of, and not a power over, nature. Global climate patterns such as wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricances and tornados are portrayed by the media as isolated "freak" incidents rather than fluid and logical implications of the strain we place over the ecosystem. Media's delivery prevents any and all responsibility for events but rather presents them as entertainment, wow factor. //Media// and //political// forces has also created global warming as a "belief" or religion rather than a collection of scientific evidence. Common statements made by politicians and citizens claiming they don't believe in global warming are humorous because it's not exactly a belief but rather the acknowledgement of the collection of scientific data. Falsely portrayed by the media and politicians as a "scientific debate" citizens are compelled to take a side on the matter when in fact there is no debate among scientist's regarding global warming data. Ice sheets are melting, trapped methane is released, and co2 emissions have risen from 220 ppm to over 400ppm, we are causing the planet to warm, i just can't identify where the debate lyes.
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The film nicely questions are basis for calculating efficient //economic// models. One interviewee argues our economics are all wrong, we ignore the most economically powerful system - the preexisting planet. He argues it would cost our economy $ ** 35 trillion/year to do what nature does for us naturally, for nothing. In reality, I believe that number to be much larger considering the externalities of all the activities we engage in to replicate what the earth already does for us. All our global economies combined gives our human planet $1 8 trillion, we cannot //afford// to loose the globe. If one day it were to start charging us, making us pay the way we make nature pay, the survival of human life would be in serious question. Somehow nature isn’t in the equation of economics. Related to economics is our technological capacities allowing us to exponentially grow in just the past 30-40 years. In earlier times human productivity and energy was generated entirely by a day of sunlight. When the sun goes down at night energy stops until it rises again the next morning. This limits our production and reproduction to a naturally established capacity. However, //technology// has allowed us to produce and grow in an unlimited or unregulated manner. (In fact, we tend to regulate to grow, rather than limit growth to a natural level) We have taught technology how to allow us to use more than a day of sun by hundreds of year's of suns energy. By digging up fossil fuels, burning coals, overbearing land use patterns we are taking more than our day's allotment of energy and thus are over our sustainable limit.

Once again, //organizational// and //governmental// systemic design is presented as a barrier or crutch towards gaining human sustainability. Corporate growth and dominance over our society has perpetuated our "human" nature for greed, property, and ownership of the land and earth. Sustainable solutions have difficultly reaching their full potential to help because they are not fully adopted by corporations. Furthermore the solutions may be tainted in the need for profit and growth rather than the need for a sustainable, productive solution. Our //legal// system based off our Constitution has been manipulated and exploited by corporate structures yet has exhibited little change in the sector for whom it was once created: the people. Even Jefferson, in drafting The Constitution acknowledged it must change as human progress evolves. Yet the governmental bridge between corporations and the public is broken, creating a picture of government + corporate power versus the people. I am most compelled by the human distance or separation from our biosphere. As humans we do not believe to be members of a system but rather suspended dictators. We like to envision ourselves as "floated around in a metallic, disconnected, recreated universe." From this separation I believe we often forget the preexisting and effective economy we inherently belong to called Nature. Nature is such a complex and beautifully designed system. From which waste is food and energy is recycled. The earth's climate system is naturally equipped with natural disasters and responses vital to the sustainable progress (or here's a though...sustainable maintenance. Why is progress viewed as success and maintenance as stagnant failure?) The movies makes an interesting assessment that our (built for constant growth and expansion) is a subsystem of which the biosphere(constant resource, does not grow) is the parent system. A subsystem requiring growth cannot exist limitlessly in a system of of definite boundaries and limitations.
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

A compelling thought, related to our separation from the planet is the concept that the average high school student can identify 1,000 corporate logos but cannot name 10 of the nature plants and wildlife species from their own environment. We have lost the importance of locality and our place on earth. We have replaced this need to belong with the false sense of association through television. We have become members of a media and entertainment sphere, rather than the members of a beautifully complex and perfectly designed biosphere.

Some of my notes while viewing the film..."We numb our senses from morning to night….nobody see’s the beauty, we are looking for substitutes. We’ve lost the beauty of the world and make up for it by attempting to conquer the world, to own the world." Another statement I found drastically compelling is the need to "Break our addiction to fossil fuels." We spend so much money, time and resources on obtaining and processing fossil fuels which only works to feed our serious and deadly addiction. That money spent and knowledge focused towards fossil fuels could be spent solving more important sectors of human health and prosperity such as, education or food aid. We're like the two parents addicted to cigarettes who purchase fruit snacks because we can't afford fresh fruits and vegetables for our children.

I was much less compelled or captivated by the film for about the first 30 minutes. The film introduces itself through vastly different and seemingly unconnected earth disasters, tragedies, and earth-harming human activity. I was concerned the film was just a shallow collection of separate global crisis's and after watching many much more focused films in class i found myself thinking "just pick one issue and tell me about it!" I questioned Leonardo Di Caprio's motives in making this film to satisfy the "green celebrity" trend and began regretting selecting this film. After viewing the entire piece however I understand the message of the film that these issues are all related, the roots of these problems come from the same patch of dirt...Human Activity and Human Nature. I also understand the movie began in such a matter to cater towards the "everyday" viewer, which i believe the movie was produced to satisfy and educate. Green housing and building design was presented as a productive and promising solution to help reduce the massive amounts of energy and waste generated by buildings. We have spoken in class about LEED regulations and waste at construction sites and I would like to look a little more into the feasibility and exact impact those changes could have. As of now i believe the LEED system to be a beneficial step in the right direction yet the system does contain some system design flaws, (like a wobbly point system) that to generate a positive and sustainable change needs further development. ** I believe the film is best addressed towards the everyday member of our society. The film introduces and briefly comments on many different environmental issues presenting a large breath of problems for the viewer to become aware of. Viewers are invited to being thinking about these types of problems and for many viewers I'm sure this would be their first time thinking about such issues. Since the target audience for the film is a less aware citizen I do believe the film has a lot of power in changing actions and more definitely views. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?** The film asks the viewer to live more beautifully, to find your passion and love your place in the universe. "Things are thieves of time." Forget about materialism and consumption and enjoy the time you have with the things naturally given to you. "Understand your passion for place."
 * 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**
 * 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.?
 * 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?

It also empowers the viewer to understand their individual purchasing power; their right to vote as a consumer with every purchase everyday. The film reminds the everyday consumer that no matter what their age, through a dollar they have a vote. (The system does require you have money to vote, but that's another sustainability issue) By reminding consumers of this they can feel empowered to purchase responsibly and more importantly believe they can cause change. An interviewee suggest if consumers demand it "corporations will make a relatively quick and successful switch to renewable energy." This statement is a little far fetched since I'm not exactly convinced corporations respond to our purchasing needs so much as they dictate them to us. But if that statement helps motivate consumers to make smarter (meaning less) purchases then it has some value to it.

Another powerful intervention is suggested for the building construction industry. The movie comments that buildings account for 1/3 of all energy use. Current day off the shelf technology exists that if implemented, can make an largely impact-full change. In fact the film claims by using smarter buildings we can reduce human footprint on earth by 90%.

And lastly..."Live beautifully on the planet with 1/10 the resources needed." value?** The movie had many creditable interviewees from all different sectors of environmental fields so I had difficultly identifying any educational "holes" in the film. Yet I would of liked a little more detail or attention to specific problems for further understanding. Considering the film's argument creates a hodge podge of a picture rather than a story from beginning to end, it would not be a fair assessment to negatively criticize the film for lacking information.
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational