FloresJaredCoalCountry

Jared Flores Annotation 4: //Coal Country//  1.  Title, director, and release year? // Coal Country //, directed by Phylis Geller, released in 2009  2.  What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The central argument of the film is in regard to the damage to the environment that is inflicted by coal mining and coal use. The film states the 50% of the US’s electricity comes from coal, which goes to show just how dependent the country is on the stuff. The movie depicts how mountaintop coal mining is having a devastating effect, both on the environment, and on the people. The film addresses how coal mining is polluting the water, destroying natural environmental monuments, and causing the people in surrounding towns to be more susceptible to illness. It is argued in the film that not enough is being done by the government to alleviate this problem. Some solutions to our country’s dependence on coal are offered as well, such as research in alternative energy sources, such as geothermal energy and bio-fuels.  3.  What sustainability problems does the film draw out? The main problem this film draws out is ecological sustainability. The film explains how mountaintop removal destroys wildlife and natural habitats, and how even after the sites are tapped out and restored, they can never be restored to their original caliber. The film also talks about how even though the law requires restoration of mining sites, most miners cut corners and only show minimal compliance with the law. Also, the large amount of waste produced by mining is often dumped in nearby streams, poisoning the water, endangering the wildlife, and making local water undrinkable to the people in surrounding towns. The film also stated that if mining continues in this fashion, over 101,000 miles of streams will be destroyed. Additionally, the mining waste is collected in impoundment ponds, which are mostly composed of coal slurry, which act as a large environmental hazard. Another sustainability problem the film draws out is the economy as a sustainability problem. In mining towns in West Virginia and other states like it, mining provides most of the available jobs. Therefore, mining is the main way most families are able to make a living. However, jobs provided by mining are steadily declining. In the 1950s, over 150,000 jobs were provided by mining in West Virginia, whereas today, only 15,000 jobs are provided, mostly due to the advent of new technologies. Mining still provides a large portion of the jobs in these small mining towns. Because of this, not only is decreasing reliance on coal mining difficult because of the energy crisis that would come as a result, it is also difficult because it would put many people out of a job. This makes cutting the dependence on coal twice as difficult.  4.  What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? One part of the film that I found persuasive was the part regarding how the coal mining was affecting the people in the mining towns. It was interesting to see that even though mining towns depended on coal mining for jobs, it was still having a negative effect on them. For example, the pollution in the nearby streams made it so that townspeople did not have the convenience of drinkable water in their own homes. Instead, they had to go down to the local community center every time they wanted fresh water to drink. This was compelling to me because I am so used to being able to just turn on the tap for drinking water that I don’t even think about what a convenience it is. However, for the people in these coal mining towns in West Virginia, it is a huge inconvenience every time they want drinking water. Another part of the film I found compelling was the part of the film where it explained the health risks involved with living in a coal mining town. The people were much more susceptible to cancer, heart disease, and lung disease due to all the pollution. It was very saddening to see their plight as they researched their health conditions, and realized that they were likely to suffer from these diseases, and their kids would someday as well.  5.  What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Personally, I was not compelled by the part of the film where it addressed alternative energy sources. I don’t feel that there was an adequate amount of time spent on discussing this topic. It is easy enough to say that we can use geothermal energy, wind energy, or bio fuels as alternative energy sources, but there is not a lot of meaning in this unless there is some kind of plan behind it. The film should have given alternatives that would be useful in the more immediate future, as opposed to saying that more research is needed or that we need more time and money to make alternative energy sources more feasible.  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.? After watching this film, I am interested to see what other parts of the country are reliant on coal mining for a typical familial income. The film mainly focused on West Virginia, and I am curious to see just how much coal mining is being done around the country and what wide-scale effects it is having on the environment. I would also like to research if coal mining is having effects on people around the country, as opposed to just the people in the immediate surroundings of the mining sites. It would be interesting to see what impact coal mining is having around the world as well.  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? I think this film best addresses an audience interested in the environmental problems caused by the country’s use of non-renewable resources. This film really does talk a lot about the environmental impact of coal mining. People who are interested in preserving natural habitats such as streams or mountains could learn a great deal from this film. I think the fact that this film not only showed what effect coal mining is having on the environment, but our fellow human beings as well, will change how people think about the dangers of coal. Most people only consider what impact burning coal has, not about the impact of the mining process.  8.  What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? The film suggests protesting coal mining as a point of action. Appealing to the government by way of non-violent protesting is always a good way to try to get one’s point across. After all, the film does bother to mention that the media is on the side of the protesters. The only way we can get the government to put an end to this country’s reliance on mining is by showing them that most people do not agree with coal mining or use, and that coal is having a noticeable negative impact on the people. Also, the film suggests alternative energy sources, such as geothermal or wind energy.  9.  What could have been added to the film to enhance its environmental educational value? I think this film could have added information about the effect coal mining is having on the country as a whole to improve its environmental education value. The film mainly focused on the immediate effects mining has on the local population, but it lacked explanations of the effects mining is having across the country. I would imagine that mining affects environments all around the country, due to the high amount of air and water pollution, and it would have been nice to see that in the film.