This animated 20 minute film has a modern feel and is very professionally produced. Annie appears in film and is our narrator throughout. Apart from her image the rest of the screen is white with black cartoons appearing behind her. Very much in the school teacher in front of white board fashion, which actually neatly sums up how Annie's manner comes across - very teacherly. This isn't a bad thing, per se, but it does make it a little hard to engage with the film as you do feel a bit like you're in a lecture.
But focusing on the content, this is very sound. The film is based upon the five stages of the consumption society: extraction, production, distribution, consumption and disposal. Each stage is considered in turn and Annie has a wide view on the impacts of these taking in the impact on the third world, on immigration, on workers and on health. She also discusses the relationship between government and big business and the power dynamics that exist presently.
Some very interesting facts in the film, though I can't see anywhere on the website where you can get source information or check dates etc. One that was fascinating was that 99% of 'stuff' purchased in the US is thrown away within six months. That's shocking, even if you did think it was likely to be high.
The concepts of planned and perceived obselesence are discussed which I found enlightening. Both terms I've heard of but not really considered in the context of my own purchasing habits. Can be helpful in terms of taking a step back 'do I really need this...' I think the suspicion that one is being manipulated can really help to take the cosy shopper-shopping feeling away and make you a bit more thoughtful about these things. She also recognises the bigger sense of self aspect of the shopping bug and how this validates us as people. She responds that we need to break the habit of sitting in front of tv, getting told we need to buy stuff, so we work and shop and end up knacked in front of tv, etc etc. Her focus for the solution is on friends, family and leisure time. I was particularly pleased that the film acknowledged that recycling is not the answer, which is a fairly brave stance to take when many people might say focus on the smaller more achieveable aims.
I was disappointed however that the film doesn't focus that much on the potential solutions, just two minutes or so of a total of 20. Perhaps this is to keep it more factual so it can be shown in schools etc, but for me it was a bit of a missed opportunity. Apparently over 4 million people have viewed the film but I imagine much less have browsed the site for the recommendations for alternatives to this problem. The film contents itself with calling for us to base our new society on sustainability, justice, health and community. Very laudible but a bit more on this might have been good. The website itself includes some quite focused items on the alternatives, including a page on ten options for another way. These are all good and range from personal lifestyle changes up to encouragements to march and demonstrate to get changes in your community.
All in all a good short film, ideal for kids and young people, but in a similar vein to Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth in that it identifies the problem without doing much to set out a way forward.
- JA
5 Comments
I found this to be extremely low-brow and alarmist. The author presents assertion as fact without exploring alternative arguments. The author appears to reject transition models as a means to survive the oil shocks and suggests praying instead. If, as I think his argument for the failure of transition is based on an analogy with the ‘tragedy of the commons’, then my feeling is that he doesn’t fully understand the game-theoretic and evolutionary mechanisms that can resolve commons dilemmas. He cites the argument that self-regulating and cooperative communities are subject to predation to the point of extinction. In this analogy he means the transition community. This is only half of the story, and nature demonstrates that it simply not true because every (successful) group has mechanisms to resist and deter predation. An example of this in nature is dialect. An example in transition might be local currencies. Read it with a pinch of salt. RJT This book begins well but the author is dazzled by the bright lights of hydrogen as the fuel of the future. He doesn’t seem to understand where the hydrogen and the power to make it come from (David Strahan provides the calculations to refute this in his book). Classical economics will always provide the answer: it is a ‘business as usual’ approach to peak oil that lacks any intellectual integrity. If I were a cynic I might think that this was written on the back of the publishing bandwagon for personal gain rather than a heartfelt treatise. RJT. This is an excellent piece of guardianesque British investigative journalism, apart from an unfortunate public spat with a government minister in the middle. The book provides much detail on how oil reserves are estimated and possibly in some cases fabricated. The book also explains why hydrogen is not a viable alternative fuel and why there is no alternative to energy decent. Great cover. RJT. Monbiot does a number of important things in this book. He first sets out the importance of tackling CO2 emissions now rather than later. He then proceeds to examine how in about 20 years time the actions of enlightened governments could have introduced new technologies that enable CO2 emissions to be reduced to be reduced by 80% (I think), while at the same time allowing us to maintain our current lifestyles. We can keep our cars, shop at supermarkets, produce waste, tumble dry our clothes, and live in an economy predicted on economic growth. In Monbiot’s future the only thing that we can’t do is go on holiday. The technical solutions include biofuels including wood from Scandinavia, hydrogen from natural gas, benevolent supermarkets, buses on the motorway, and possibly even nuclear power. My feeling is that the premise of the book is wrong. I can see that a plan in which business continues as usual and people just continue to live their lives as they are with technological changes occurring in the background, is the most palatable solution to many people (apart from the holidays). Two things. Doesn’t this require benevolent and visionary governments to be both elected here and abroad and to spend large sums of money on results that are by definition invisible. Doesn’t it also require that these technologies actually work (I’m thinking hydrogen here)? In this plan the only thing we need to do to ameliorate climate change do is elect such a government. I’ll turn the light off while I wait shall I? |