annotation6

**Director:** Ian Connacher **Released:** 2008
 * Title:** Addicted to Plastic

**What is the central argument or narrative of the film?** The film's main argument is that we rely too heavily on plastic in our daily lives and because of that we are not only damaging the environment but that the plastic is damaging us as well. Plastic can not be decomposed and in most countries is rarely recycled. The film takes place around the globe, showing both problems and solutions to our Addiction to Plastic.

The documentary shows the problems surrounding plastic both with their impact to the environment as well as with their impact on humans. With relation to the environment we learn that of all the plastic in the ocean 20% of it comes from the fishing industry, which, for one industry, is a pretty large percentage. The documentary follows Ian as he travels to the Pacific ocean's garbage dump, an area of ocean in the middle of the north pacific gyre that, due to currents collects plastic that has been floating around the ocean. In this area there is ten times the weight of plastic as there is food in the water. Not only does this mean that many fish are eating plastic instead of food but due to it's chemical nature plastic tends to collect dangerous chemicals on it. These chemicals, mostly herbicides and pesticides then go through the food chain to us and due to bio-accumulation we get the short stick in this situation. This accumulation of chemicals on the plastic is not a minor thing. According to Dr. Hideshige Takada the amount of PCB on collected samples of plastic is 1 million times the amount of PCB in the water surrounding where they were collected. If plastic were able to decompose it would not be as large of a problem, but since it is only able to break down into smaller pieces it gets harder for us to clean up as time goes on.
 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out? **

Not only does the plastic harm the environment but it also harms us. Ian Connacher interviewed geneticist, David Busbee, who, through his studies has discovered that some of the chemicals that are found in almost all plastic are able to change the expression of genes in living cells. Sadly this is seen as anecdotal data by some and therefore cannot be used by lobbyists. The same goes for the studies of Antimony. Although it has been shown that antimony is plastics leaches into our water systems there is no proof solid enough for our government to see it as a real health hazard. Although the American government has not banned it many other countries do not allow it in their plastics.

I found that the visual impact of how much plastic has been thrown into nature really compelled me the most. When they were in Holland with Dr. Jan van Franeker he shared that there is about 8 kg of plastic that washes up on every kilometer of shore each day. As if that figure wasn't enough I then realized that if that much is coming ashore each day, how much more is instead caught up in one of the ocean's gyres? How much of the chemicals that are attracted to plastic gets into the food chain? Although the film did not explicitly make the connection it did include the evidence to show that our sea-based food resources were bio-accumulating various chemicals as well as plastic.
 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? **

Another argument that shocked me was that we are incinerating some of the plastic so that it doesn't take up land space. This sounds like a horrible idea considering how bad the plastic is to the environment as one whole piece. Burning plastic only releases the chemicals from the plastic into the atmosphere for us to breathe in.

I also really liked the recycling program that Denmark had instituted. I feel that if other countries followed suit that we would be a much more sustainable planet.

**What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?** I didn't notice anything that was noticeably bad in the film. What I didn't like were the people who were claiming to recycle plastic when they were really down-cycling it. Although down-cycling is better than simply throwing the plastic into the ocean, it does mean that there will be a time when the plastic either needs to be thrown out or when it cannot be down-cycled any further. Although some would argue that the local programs that were started in emerging countries don't actually make a large impact. I find that although they aren't as effective as regulating the production of plastic, they do help those that live in the area and the effort of many local projects can add up to make a large difference.

**What additional information does the 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?** The film mentioned a town in the Himalayas which banned plastic bags and in my town they had considered doing the same (although sadly it didn't pass). This made we wonder how widespread this phenomenon was. To my surprise this was a pretty widespread idea. Not only did California plan on passing plastic bags (until it too got struck down) but Oregon is planning on banning them in 2011 if nothing goes wrong. Many towns have banned them on a local level, including Brownsville in Texas. As it turns out America and India aren't the only two countries doing this. China banned the use of plastic bags, saving them 37 million barrels of oil a year and Mexico city banned them as well. [] [] []

**What audiences does the film best address?** The company that produced the film says that it is meant for people in 10th grade and up. I have to agree because they need to be old enough to accept the fact that we are destroying our planet and that it is up to us to change. They also should be able to understand that there is a difference between the opinions of the owner of a plastics corporation and the findings of scientists.

**Does the annotation describe points of intervention suggested by the film?**  The end of the film covered a plethora of ways that we can intervene with plastic's sustainablility problems. Although Ian states that he is not advocating that we stop using plastics he does believe that we should work to find a way to change the way that we get rid of plastic items. The documentary visits various companies that are working on solutions to the problem of reusing plastics. These include Interface carpet, a carpet company that recycles the plastics on carpeting. Plantic, an Australian based company that makes edible plastics that can be dissolved in water as well as Natureworks which makes corn based plastics. Patagonia which creates jackets from used plastic. Tietek which is a company that makes railroad ties from recycled plastic in Houson. Then there is Agroplast which down-cycles plastic into flower pots and other cheap items. And Wasteaway a company who creates a 'fluff' from used plastic. They then use this fluff as a soil substitute and who are looking to use it as a form of alternate energy.

On top of visiting the companies that are starting to work on points of intervention he also visits local projects in both Africa and India which are working on changing plastic trash into art and fashion accessories. These projects not only help the environment but also provide jobs for locals.

Other solutions that are mentioned throughout the film are companies that are attempting to revert plastic back into their petrochemicals. As well as scientists who are working on bacteria that is able to decompose plastic naturally.

**What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?** **The film could have covered ways that individuals can help steer our way towards a more sustainable future. The film does cover ways that other companies and governments have begun addressing the problem but I don't think that that is enough. People see these films and want to be able to do something themselves, not to sit there at the end of the film and think about how they or their children are going to be screwed over by the problem. **