AliprandoJoannaAnnotation9

Blue Gold, Sam Bozzo
 * 1. Title, director and release year?**

The film argues access to freshwater as the most abused and overlooked but yet the most important natural resource. It argues that many ignore it, but our globe is experiencing a water supply crisis. Currently we pump out 15 times more water from the ground than we put back into it. Of what little freshwater supply available to us as humans, we destroy and pollute most of it. Side effects of industrialization and capitalism, the movie shows rivers and streams polluted both with yucks of visible trash and frighteningly invisible, high toxin levels. Besides through pollution and waste disposal corporate influence has affected our water supply in another way, privatization. Foreign (usually) corporate purchase of country's water supply has affected what water access costs and who is able to get it. The film argues water has become a commodity and from this absurd movement, many are deprived and many more will be deprived of this basic need. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The film first draws out the ecological discussion that we have a limited supply of freshwater. Our available water source is depleting due to numerous anthropogenic causes including overgrazing causing soil depletion and rain forest reduction both resulting in less fresh water stored on land and more stored in the salty ocean. Since industrialization we have used half of our water supply, suggesting we can expect an ecological resource crisis within 50 years.
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

Of course, organizational sustainability issues were a big part of the film's presentation of our global water crisis. The film suggests through corporate privatization big water companies will own every drop of freshwater on earth. Suez and Vivendi were two corporate identities discussed in the film, interestingly enough those two identities are actually under one corporate organizational structure. As the film progresses we begin to understand the connection between Suez and government. Suez bribes politicians in countries or regions where they wish to buy the water supply. Naturally, this type of interaction between corporate and governmental affairs leads right into legislation and legal issues. In which those corporations who support and bribe regional governments are able to have a hand in passing legislation in Kenya for example making it illegal to limit rose exportation. Or the tragic event in Bolivia where the local government is harming the people to support foreign corporate interests.

Also very relevant is the cultural/behavioral aspects of water as a commodity. Ever since water has been put in a bottle and placed on the shelf people have agreed to pay for it. Now that we view water as something to be paid for and sold by another company for money, society will have difficulty switching back. The film says we have "changed the way water is perceived as a public resource. We can't go back." And it's true we cannot return back to a civilization where water is a basic right for all. It is amazing how a single company was able to put something we are used to getting for free into a bottle and consumers will still buy it!

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? By far, the most compelling presentation throughout the entire film was the rioting in Bolivia. After being denied funding for a water co-op Bechtel bought Bolivia's water supply leaving many unable to afford it. Even rainwater was privatized, deeming it an illegal activity to collect rainwater. Somehow this company owns water before it even touches the ground. Law enforcement officials and over 20 snipers flooded the streets to control the community's protest for water. Absolute chaos and blind shooting filled the streets, a 17 year old boy sniped in the face and his mourning father were just some of the compelling images from this segment. This scene made me realized the absolutely twisted world these Bolivians are experiencing. Their own government established to protect the people are shooting their own citizens to protect corporate interest. It's astounding these officials are using their own resources shooting their own people to protect the profit line of some company not even local to their country. They are shooting and destroying their own economy to protect a foreign one. By far the most compelling segment of the entire film.

5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? The story about Nestle purchasing the great lakes and the discussion of SLAPP lawsuits was hard for me to understand. I would have liked to understand that story a little better yet, I thought the presentation of that issue was confusing. From what I could understand it seemed like a compelling story yet I would have liked a little more detail or background information on the court case and decision.

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.? Recently after viewing this film I attended a seminar given by an environmentalist Olympic swimmer from University of Michigan. Appropriately so, this speaker is primarily an activist for water conservation and presented a very interesting fact about the Beijing Olympics. I had no idea this was even possible but apparently the Chinese government shooed away the rainy day forecasted for the opening ceremony. Named Cloud Rockets, these devises actually alter the evaporation and precipitation levels in the atmosphere that can actually divert rainfall patterns. [|China alters Rainfall for the Olympics] This is just an incredible development, with frightening consequences. We learned from the film that the globe operates on a perfect system working to sustain our water supply, yet our influences on that system alters natural supply levels. If now, we can change how often it rains or where it rains we have another, highly pervasive method of altering water levels. Now that these rockets allow the ability to decided how much rain falls and where it falls i can only imagine a world where along with excess pollutants and waste, lower income communities will bear our planets rain as well.

I also drew connections between this film and Darwin's Nightmare. Once again, we see countries abundant in resources are forced to export. Some of the driest continents on earth export water to other countries to help ease national debt. Kenya for example, grows and exports roses while many in the country are starving and thirsty. 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? The film sends a strong and literal message to viewers, by plaining asking viewers to reduce their water consumption. The film states that Americans can easily reduce water usage down 20-30%. It may seem elementary but telling people to turn off the water when brushing their teeth (a message I usually would ignore but simply no longer can after seeing images from the Bolivia crisis). The message that really gets me is "if your local climate doesn't grow a lawn, then don't have one!" Lawn maintenance is such a huge issue from the thousands of gallons of freshwater and the pounds of pesticides lawn care adds to our ecosystem, i just can't understand how American's don't make this simple trade off. I would not be surprised however, if after viewing this film viewers reduce their own lawn care. It just doesn't make any sense. 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? Through citizen action, Uruguay was able to pass their own constitutional amendment banning water privatization and kicking SUEZ out of their country. Through this success story i would say the film suggests citizen action alliances working with their own governments to prevent water privatization. Though we understand this is an extremely complex and difficult feat to achieve (especially in America, i'm willing to say this would be impossible in America) that is a main intervention point the film suggests. 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? Also from attending the water conservationist's speech I learned of the efficiency of desalinization projects, one of the solutions presented by the film. The speaker told us that for 100 gallons of salt water desalinization plants can produce 15-17 gallons of freshwater. A highly inefficient and much less sustainable solution to the problem. I would have liked more information from the film during the segment on water solutions. **