michaellyonsblindspot


 * Title:** Blind Spot
 * Director:** Adolfo Doring
 * Release year:** 2009


 * What is the central argument or narrative of the film?**

Our society has become immensely dependent on cheap energy in order to operate. Every aspect of our life is based around the use of fossil fuels in some fashion and this is a limited resource that will eventually run out. This film discusses what will potentially happen not when oil completely runs out but when global peak oil is reached and we are faced with the need to reduce our energy use or look for alternative sources.


 * What sustainability problems does the film draw out?**

The primary sustainability problem presented in this documentary was our cultural and industrial organizational dependence on cheap energy and fossil fuels. A significant percentage of those things around us are made from oil byproducts or are produced using oil energy. “Oil is the lifeline of our modern economy” but oil reserves are shrinking which will eventually bring about decreases in oil production. We have been living in a time of continuous increases in oil production but peak oil is eminent. Peak oil refers to the point in time where the oil production of the world is at its maximum. The U.S. oil industry hit this production peak in 1970 and it’s universally agreed upon that the entire world will reach this peak in the near future and 33 of the top 48 oil producing countries have already passed their peak production value. This energy crisis would not only become a leisure or convenience crisis but would also become a food crisis as our agriculture industry has become largely dependent on energy intensive procedures and heavy transportation. The average piece of food on our tables has travelled 1500 miles before being consumed and was likely treated extensively with petroleum intensive pesticides and fertilizers. This type of organization and dependence is not only unsustainable but our society will have a problem perpetuating peoples’ current standards of living and maintaining status quo in our current complex society. This organization of our society will no longer benefit the people within it while it continues to compromise the environment.

Many of the people within this culture are minimally concerned about this problem. This presents a large behavioral sustainability problem. People are simply preoccupied with the routine of life and the problem hasn’t reached a point where they feel the need to become actively involved. If they do acknowledge the problem many have faith however unjustified that someone intelligent is handling it. Economic incentives to sell goods have not helped change our behavior either. 200 billion dollars a year is spent on advertising to influence us to use and consume.

Political and corporate involvement on the issues has exacerbated the problem. Solutions to limiting our oil use have been continually misguided or thwarted by other motives. The automobile coalition claimed to regulate competition amongst competitors in regard to environmental concerns to ensure safe tail pipe emissions. Realistically it has seemed that this environmental joint regulation has allowed for obscureness of the data across the industry. It effectively stifled competition between automakers to develop potentially costly alternatives and advances with regards to alternative fuels and environmentally friendly vehicles. One of the alternatives pushed heavily by government and many other industries is bio-fuel or ethanol based products. This is not a feasible widespread solution but it still receives much of the funds allocated towards bringing about alternative fuels. The energy requirements to produce bio-fuel and ethanol fuel alternatives is energy negative in that the energy withheld by the product is less than the energy required to create it. It eliminates corn crops which even if all the corn produced was used there are simply not enough of to produce our energy needs from this alternative. 14% of the corn production in the United States goes to create only one percent of our energy consumption needs.


 * What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?**

I found a number of the statistics that were mentioned throughout the film to be quite persuasive such as: more people are in prison in our modern economy than there are farmers in our country and children living within one mile of a freeway lose approximately one percent of their lung function every year of their adolescence. These kinds of statistics I found very poignant in summing up some of the larger issues at hand. Some of the professional commentary was also persuasive. One speaker made a link between our problems and archeological study. He pointed out that archaeologists study history to explore why cultures in the past have disappeared and one reason that they cite among others is that an area grow past its capability to grow an adequate supply of food. Without oil to fuel our agricultural system we have grown past our capability to grow adequate amounts of food. Also the commentary during the begging of the film saying homo sapiens are becoming more of a homo colossus in that we are harnessing machines to do things that our physical frame could never do was an interesting thought; we are creating a colossal impact despite our small physical appearance. I found these points among others to be very thought provoking.


 * What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?**

One part of the film I was not convinced by was the comparison made between Jews with the Holocaust and the general population with the climate crisis. It was argued that we make believe that oil will last forever and that thing just aren’t as the facts say in order to keep moving forward in a step like easy fashion. The incentive to resist is simply not there. People fail to see what good will come out of resisting climate change problems just like Jews willingly walked into “showers” that would eventually kill them because to resist meant to be killed for sure. Although I can understand the reasoning behind the comparison and the desire to portray climate change as a drastic issue the relation didn’t convince me and didn’t seem to fit within the documentary.


 * 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 compels me to seek out what my impact is and how dependent my daily activities are on oil and cheap energy. I also was compelled to look at current technology for alternative fuels and alternative vehicles especially the falsities associated with ethanol as an alternative fuel source.


 * 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?**

This film best addresses people who are heavily dependent on cheap oil. This may include people who live in suburbia or have long commutes that are extensively dependent on their cars and on cheap groceries and heating. These people have potentially the most to lose if oil prices begin to increase and their way of life becomes threatened. They also are the group of individuals if influenced by the film will be able to bring about the changes that are needed.


 * What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?**

There was very little mentioned in the movie about what can be done to solve this problem. One point of intervention that was mentioned is attempting to reduce production and attempt to eliminate the growth engine economy that is dependent on oil and energy. “The American way is to produce our way out of problems.” Instead of fixing our behavior we seek to produce things that minimize the effects of our behaviors. This suggests a reduction of energy intensive activities. According the film eventually our population on the earth will have to be less than 6 billion, either voluntary or involuntary. We should be concerned with how drastic the potential involuntary option will be if we don’t alter our behavior.


 * What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?**

The film should have gone more into possible solutions that can be brought about to this problem. Exploration of the potential various alternative energy sources should have been included within the film as technological advancement in this area could hold the solutions to some of these problems. The effect of our oil use in terms of environmental damage and pollution should also have been covered more in depth. The film focused primarily on how peak oil will affect our way of life and little was mentioned on how getting to peak oil has affected the world around us.