BarnardSarah_Blue+Gold

  //Blue Gold: World Water Wars // | Sam Bozzo | 2008   //Blue Gold // is “a film about saving ourselves,” a film that focuses on the future of water on our planet, during a time in which water will be treated like oil, with bloody conflicts arising over the fight for clean water. As Earth is presently the only planet we know of with water, a water crisis will affect everyone worldwide, not just those in underdeveloped countries. There is already a history of attempts at privatizing water supplies, and it is expected that one day, every drop of water on this planet will be privately owned. With over 97% of Earth’s water as salt water, desalination by private companies will become a necessity as fresh water becomes scarce due to industry, agriculture, and growing populations. Water contamination is also a large problem, killing more children than either malaria or AIDS in underdeveloped regions. We must closely examine our use of water, or one day, we will all face the consequences.   //Blue Gold: World Water Wars // draws out many sustainability problems related to this essential need of human beings. Political, legal, and economic implications will result from the attempts at privatization of water, and technological and organizational problems slow any progress towards fixing the water crises of contamination that already exist. Culturally and behaviorally, people have become accustomed to a certain quality of life, and need to realize that there is not enough water on this planet for everyone to sustain this unsustainable usage of water. Finally, ecologically, chemicals that pollute ground water and clouds affect many different water sources, as well as many other environmental reactions to the human impacts on our planet.  There are multiple historical examples of cultures that completely destroyed their interactions with nature and water, and these examples always led to a decline of these civilizations. The Mayans, for example, may have been force to leave many of their cities after they completely exhausted the fresh water available there. The Spanish also cut off the water table when the colonized in Mexico City, causing many problems. Today, we continue damming water, paving vast amounts of surface, and seeding clouds, further interfering with Earth’s natural cycles. If these prior civilizations had major problems with fresh water availability due to their lifestyle, what makes our generations think we can sustain a similar, or more highly impacting, way of life and still have enough fresh water to go around?  Political, legal, and economic implications all become entangled as the fight for fresh water prevails. In 1992 at a Dublin Conference, water was officially named a good, making is a tradable commodity. The United States and Canada presently have a fair trade agreement over water, treating water as just another good to be traded across borders. The major problem that results from this is the privatization of water, where water companies can begin buying the water for different cities and countries, even going so far as to own the rainwater as it falls. Even worse, as desalination becomes a more viable process for creating more fresh water, someone will have to create large scale desalination plants. Who will own the water then? The company who owns the desalination plant of course, and as with all other commodities, it will be another profit making venture. Companies could be set to make high profit yields for cleaning water, from 15-30% profit. Water companies can also buy water under other names, disguising the true ownership of the water. For example, in Africa, Dasani is the only brand of water available, and it has even been suggested that parts of the continent, one of the driest places in the world, sell their water as a way to get out of debt. As water becomes simply another profit making machine, Water Wars will replace oil wars and economic wars. Already many water wars are presented as religious conflicts instead of water conflicts, and it will only continue to worsen as water becomes more scarce and companies with more interest in bottom lines than human beings come to control one of our most valuable resources.   //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Blue Gold //<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> was quite successful as an educational documentary, and I was quite convinced by a lot of the topics covered. The information about the privatization of water in Bolivia and the country’s fight to regain power over it was quite compelling. The scenes of violence were very emotional and eye-opening, and it was important to see the citizens band together to protect what they viewed as their natural right to water. It was not only important to understand the process of the privatization of water that is currently gong on worldwide, but also to see that there are people who understand they must stand up for their necessities, and the people of Bolivia were very encouraging. Additionally, the possible solutions were very persuasive, and I especially like the coverage of the Ryan’s Well Project. At first glance, the world water problem may seem unsolvable, especially on an individual level, but this young boy is having a large effect through his compassion and caring for his fellow human beings. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> One of the scenes of the film that was not as compelling to be had to do with the Great Lakes being given to a private company, which was later overturned. I wasn’t entirely sure of the entire process, similar to the section on Nestle and their pumping. These scenes were not as clear as much of the rest of the movie, and I think they could have been better presented. I also that that the mention of contaminated water killing children was quite compelling, but I feel the film could have focused more on the effects of contaminated water, both in humans and in damage to the environment. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> I found that I was left wondering about the legal implications of water as a commodity when the film was over. I was quite please with some of the suggested points of intervention (see question 8), but I was still curious about the legal importance of companies privatizing water. This will be covered more in question 9, but it seems strange that companies could one day own all of the water on the planet. I wonder if there are any laws in place to protect public access to necessary items such as food and water, or if there aren’t, what type of people it might take to begin implementing such actions. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> I feel that //Blue Gold// was an excellent film for many audiences. Its solutions were directed toward the individual and local level, helping the viewers understand that they do have a place in this global problem. While the water shortage will affect the entire globe, it will affect each person individually as well, and the film did a good job addressing viewers as people with personal interests in the problem. I think it makes those who may not ever question their right to water think twice as they see images of underdeveloped countries fighting over water that we may not even see fit to drink. The film certainly has the capability to change the way viewers think about the environmental consequences of our water usage, and I believe it could be important to show high school students to begin changing our cultural ideas about how we believe the world “should be” and recognize how it “must be” if we all wish to survive. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> As eye opening as //Blue Gold// is to the high risks at stake with our current water situation, it also offers some optimistic points of intervention and kinds of actions that can be taken. On a small scale, permeable pavement solutions can help to keep water tables stable, and reduction in building can improve water absorption. On a larger scale, we need to move away from a globalized water system toward a more local use, as well as limit growth to reduce the amount of water necessary for everyone to survive. It is important for people to know where their water comes from, and who owns it. Whenever possible, people should fight to keep the water in public hands. Additionally, the film suggests continuing education on the world water crisis to better understand how individuals can help at a local scale. Ryan’s Well Project is an excellent example of a small scale project that can bring change to a great amount of people, all started by a young boy, not a politician or a corporate executive. <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> I found //Blue Gold// to be a successful educational film on the implications of our world’s water and its future. I thought the emphasis on the privatization of water was an important educational point, but perhaps the film could have spoken a little more about the legal implications of water as a commodity. It mentions the Dublin Conference of 1992 in which water was first named a good, but it never talked about when this became a legal concern. Similar to patent law and rights to living cells and things like that, it would be helpful to talk about the legal implications of water as a commodity to help viewers better understand their options as to the kinds of actions they can take.
 * <span style="color: #404040; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Sarah Barnard | Film Annotation 8 | //Blue Gold// ** <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">
 * <span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">1. Title, director and release year **
 * 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**
 * 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**
 * 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**
 * 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?**
 * 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**
 * 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?**