The signs that there is something wrong with our system are everywhere and with the internet we can easily see each new environmental or humanitarian catastrophe around the world happening in real time. When I stop to consider the amazing things the human race is capable of and then compare that to the world we have created I see this massive gap. There is so much unnecessary destruction and suffering.
Ethos, in many ways a distillation, was an attempt to draw an overview of the systemic mechanisms that shape our world and how they connect. None of the ideas in the film are new and I am not so much standing on the shoulders of giants, but rather crawling humbly at the feet of the many great thinkers and filmmakers whose work contributed to this film. But hopefully, for example, drawing a direct line between the manipulation of consumerism portrayed in Alan Curtis's Century of the Self, and the Military Industrial Complex of Eugene Jarecki's Why we fight, thus connecting the dots between corporate foreign plundering and our societies insatiable consumer appetite, was useful . I think we can begin to see the part that each and every one of us plays and the responsibility we all bare.
When I began the film I wanted to point the finger, to blame, and while it is easy to do that it is still 'our' consumerism that drives all of this, that causes the wars, the pollution and the waste. Yes, we have been and are still manipulated but I find this is a very weak defense for an adult in the 21st Century. It is our responsibility as adults to learn the facts and act accordingly and hopefully this film will provoke these questions and keep the debate rolling.
Lastly, I wanted to try and defeat the helplessness that so many people feel and offer a tangible way for people to get involved and make a real difference. Right now money is all powerful in our system. Once you understand that all money/wealth/power is derived from consumerism it is only a small leap to recognize the incredible power of our consumer choices to bring change.
Showing posts with label sustainability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainability. Show all posts
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Q&A WITH FILMMAKER JOSH TICKELL OF FUEL
Q: What inspired you to make FUEL?
A: I made FUEL to show that there is a way for us to have all the energy we need without compromising peace and freedom.
Q: What were some of the challenges and obstacles in making this film, and how did you overcome them?
A: Ten years ago, when I set out to make this film, the biggest challenge I had was getting people to buy into the idea that a movie could make a significant contribution to the world. But my green community saw the validity of these ideas, and with their encouragement I have overcome many obstacles along the way. Until recently, documentaries weren’t seen as vehicles for social change. That rapidly changed with Fahrenheit 9/11, Supersize Me, Born into Brothels and especially with An Inconvenient Truth. Suddenly, the little energy documentary I’d been working on for a decade became hot. By the end of this year when the film will be presented in theaters all over the country, the ideas and concepts in FUEL will become mainstream. That’s a powerful shift.
Q: How did your vision for the film change over the course of the pre-production, production and post-production processes?
A: I wanted to make a film about the serious challenges we face and ultimately about the power of every individual to make a difference. The biggest challenge came after we won the audience award at Sundance. It was at that time that two camps emerged - those that loved biofuels and those that thought biofuels were awful. I made the difficult choice to re-cut the movie to incorporate not just the controversy around biofuels, but also the other energy solutions that exist. Like any renovation, we started re-cutting with an eye toward repairing a few flaws and ended up knee deep in a complete re-edit. The film that emerged kept the heart of the original movie, but was different enough in content and scope that it merited a new name and a new launch. Hence FUEL was born. Everyone who has seen both films agrees that it was worth the risk, the time and the energy to make the new movie.
Q: What is next for you?
A: My team and I are taking the film on a 25-city tour across the United States this year. We will travel in a convoy of biodiesel vehicles that will go to universities, schools, town halls and political events. Our goal is to “green the vote” of America by getting everyday people, along with politicians and energy companies, to sign onto a 10-year plan that will transition America to renewable energy.
A: I made FUEL to show that there is a way for us to have all the energy we need without compromising peace and freedom.
Q: What were some of the challenges and obstacles in making this film, and how did you overcome them?
A: Ten years ago, when I set out to make this film, the biggest challenge I had was getting people to buy into the idea that a movie could make a significant contribution to the world. But my green community saw the validity of these ideas, and with their encouragement I have overcome many obstacles along the way. Until recently, documentaries weren’t seen as vehicles for social change. That rapidly changed with Fahrenheit 9/11, Supersize Me, Born into Brothels and especially with An Inconvenient Truth. Suddenly, the little energy documentary I’d been working on for a decade became hot. By the end of this year when the film will be presented in theaters all over the country, the ideas and concepts in FUEL will become mainstream. That’s a powerful shift.
Q: How did your vision for the film change over the course of the pre-production, production and post-production processes?
A: I wanted to make a film about the serious challenges we face and ultimately about the power of every individual to make a difference. The biggest challenge came after we won the audience award at Sundance. It was at that time that two camps emerged - those that loved biofuels and those that thought biofuels were awful. I made the difficult choice to re-cut the movie to incorporate not just the controversy around biofuels, but also the other energy solutions that exist. Like any renovation, we started re-cutting with an eye toward repairing a few flaws and ended up knee deep in a complete re-edit. The film that emerged kept the heart of the original movie, but was different enough in content and scope that it merited a new name and a new launch. Hence FUEL was born. Everyone who has seen both films agrees that it was worth the risk, the time and the energy to make the new movie.
Q: What is next for you?
A: My team and I are taking the film on a 25-city tour across the United States this year. We will travel in a convoy of biodiesel vehicles that will go to universities, schools, town halls and political events. Our goal is to “green the vote” of America by getting everyday people, along with politicians and energy companies, to sign onto a 10-year plan that will transition America to renewable energy.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Filmmaker David M. Edwards talks about his film Sprawling from Grace
Sprawling From Grace; Driven To Madness is a documentary feature film about the unintended consequences of suburban sprawl. It illustrates the importance of altering the course of how we develop our nation’s cities. It communicates the dangers of continuing to invest in the inefficient horizontal growth patterns of suburban communities, and details how they threaten to bankrupt the remaining wealth of our nation. It explores how the depletion of fossil fuels will impact this living arrangement, and investigates the viability of alternative energies that are currently available. This film sounds the alarm that the cheap fossil-fuel-dependant suburban American way of life is not just at risk. It is in peril!.
After interviewing close to thirty experts on the subject, one reoccurring theme has revealed itself. We can no longer continue building our cities in the same way we have over the last half-century. The suburbs, while being an integral part of our nation’s maturation, contribute substantially to our problems of air and water pollution, increasing our health risks, and decreasing our quality of life. Suburbia has trapped Americans behind the wheels of their automobiles, as they commute further and further distances to find good paying jobs. Given the inevitable depletion of non-renewable fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, it’s clear that this 50 year suburban experiment has created a host of unintended, unlivable consequences. Consequences we will have to find solutions for if we want a sustainable future in a post-fossil-fuel world.
This nation and its citizens have been lulled into a false sense of security. We are blissfully unaware of the impending ramifications of continuing the patterns of growth that have locked us behind the wheels of our cars. Like Nero, we are fiddling away, confident that tomorrow will be as promising as today. We don’t realize that with each new suburban subdivision, with each new strip-mall, each new corporate office park, that promise slips further and further away.
Wrestling with these emerging realities, state and city governments are finding that they can no longer encourage these patterns of growth by further investing in highway and utility infrastructures. They are now forced to find viable alternatives by investing in public transit in the form of BRT (Bus Rapid Transit), commuter rail, and light rail to serve their community’s transportation needs. Through this process they are gaining an historical understanding of the relationship between land use and transportation. They are rediscovering how well designed, walkable, mixed-use communities, that are served by transit can build and support local economies, aid in defining and creating communities, provide for diversity, improve accessibility, provide transit choices, reduce pollution, and improve health. These many benefits ensure a successful and sustainable solution to the problems associated with their growing populations. In our interview with former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, he quoted Albert Einstein saying, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and each time expecting a different result." He clarified this quote by adding, "Continuing to develop our cities in these ever increasing suburban sprawl patterns will increasingly diminish our quality of life, both physically and mentally. We simply have to stop building more highways!"
How we build our cities will determine the future of how we live our lives, how we form our values, and will determine what we leave for our next generation. It’s time we answer the wake up call.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Farm Facts
Farm Facts
Re-printed from Miranda Productions.com
Only 0.2% of U.S. population is producing most of its food. The average age of U.S. farmers is currently fifty-six.
US Census Bureau
We suffer a net loss of 32,500 farms a year. 88% of average farm household income is derived from off-farm.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
U.S. farmers apply nearly 45 billion pounds of synthetic fertilizers each year. From 1990-1994, food processors and manufacturers showed an annual average return on their investment of 17.9%. Farmers during the same period showed a 1.98% return on their investment.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
In 1971 a new tractor cost $20,000 and wheat was $1.71 a bushel. In 1994 a new tractor of the same horsepower cost $100,000 and a bushel of wheat was $2.66.
Des Moines Register 7/16/94
Soil loss costs the U.S. economy around $44 billion a year. Worldwide, the number is well over $200 billion.
Dr. David Pimentel, Science magazine
Every pregnant woman in the world today has chemicals in her body that disrupt the endocrine system. These are transferred to the fetus as it grows. She also has measurable concentrations of endocrine disruptors in her milk that are transferred to the infant.
ERICE Statement 5/30/96
The World Resources Institute reports that, measured by traditional methods, the average farm shows an $80 per acre profit. If we calculate in all the costs of soil loss, water contamination, and environmental degradation caused by conventional farming practices, the average farm would show a $29 per acre loss.
Food in supermarkets travels an average of 1300 miles between production and consumption.
Out of every dollar Americans spend for food, ten cents goes to Phillip Morris, and six cents goes to Conagra.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
In a USDA study of twelve common food crops, from 35% to 80% of all samples tested had residues from one or more pesticides. This was after the samples had been washed, peeled and cored. In these residues were 12 different carcinogens, 17 different neurotoxins, and 11 different endocrine disruptors.
Environmental Working Group
Tree bark gathered from ninety sites around the world, from the tropics to the treeline, bears traces of chemicals related to DDT, lindane, chlordane, aldrin, and to 18 other pesticides and fungicides. Some chemicals used decades ago are still affecting the environment, often thousands of miles from where they were sprayed.
Associated Press 9/30/95
4.7 billion pounds of pesticides are annually applied to food crops worldwide. 1.25 billion pounds of pesticides were used in the U.S. in 1995, an all-time high.
EPA draft document June 1996
Assault rifles kill an estimated 250 people each year and pesticides kill an estimated 10,400 people each year, yet assault rifles have been banned while the use of pesticides is expanding.
Environmental News Weekly
Every spring, 18,000 pounds per day of herbicides wash down the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico.
Environmental Working Group
Between 1950 (the beginning of the Chemical Age) and 1988, the incidence of all forms of cancer increased by 43.5%, adjusted for age. Mortality rates from cancer rose by 2.9%.
Environmental News Weekly
In the United States, despite the use of pesticides, 35% of potential crops are lost to insects, diseases, and weeds. In 1945, before synthetic pesticides came into use, crop losses were 33%.
Dr. David Pimentel, Cornell University
Sales of U.S. organic products increased from $2.31 billion in 1994 to $2.8 billion in 1995. This is a 22% increase, and the sixth year in which sales have grown by more than 20%.
Natural Foods Merchandiser survey, June 1996
The USDA states that total organic cropland is approximately 1,127,000 acres in 1996, up from an estimated 550,267 acres in 1991. The number of organic farmers almost doubled between 1991 and 1994, increasing from 2,841 to 4,060.
Re-printed from Miranda Productions.com
Only 0.2% of U.S. population is producing most of its food. The average age of U.S. farmers is currently fifty-six.
US Census Bureau
We suffer a net loss of 32,500 farms a year. 88% of average farm household income is derived from off-farm.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
U.S. farmers apply nearly 45 billion pounds of synthetic fertilizers each year. From 1990-1994, food processors and manufacturers showed an annual average return on their investment of 17.9%. Farmers during the same period showed a 1.98% return on their investment.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
In 1971 a new tractor cost $20,000 and wheat was $1.71 a bushel. In 1994 a new tractor of the same horsepower cost $100,000 and a bushel of wheat was $2.66.
Des Moines Register 7/16/94
Soil loss costs the U.S. economy around $44 billion a year. Worldwide, the number is well over $200 billion.
Dr. David Pimentel, Science magazine
Every pregnant woman in the world today has chemicals in her body that disrupt the endocrine system. These are transferred to the fetus as it grows. She also has measurable concentrations of endocrine disruptors in her milk that are transferred to the infant.
ERICE Statement 5/30/96
The World Resources Institute reports that, measured by traditional methods, the average farm shows an $80 per acre profit. If we calculate in all the costs of soil loss, water contamination, and environmental degradation caused by conventional farming practices, the average farm would show a $29 per acre loss.
Food in supermarkets travels an average of 1300 miles between production and consumption.
Out of every dollar Americans spend for food, ten cents goes to Phillip Morris, and six cents goes to Conagra.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
In a USDA study of twelve common food crops, from 35% to 80% of all samples tested had residues from one or more pesticides. This was after the samples had been washed, peeled and cored. In these residues were 12 different carcinogens, 17 different neurotoxins, and 11 different endocrine disruptors.
Environmental Working Group
Tree bark gathered from ninety sites around the world, from the tropics to the treeline, bears traces of chemicals related to DDT, lindane, chlordane, aldrin, and to 18 other pesticides and fungicides. Some chemicals used decades ago are still affecting the environment, often thousands of miles from where they were sprayed.
Associated Press 9/30/95
4.7 billion pounds of pesticides are annually applied to food crops worldwide. 1.25 billion pounds of pesticides were used in the U.S. in 1995, an all-time high.
EPA draft document June 1996
Assault rifles kill an estimated 250 people each year and pesticides kill an estimated 10,400 people each year, yet assault rifles have been banned while the use of pesticides is expanding.
Environmental News Weekly
Every spring, 18,000 pounds per day of herbicides wash down the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico.
Environmental Working Group
Between 1950 (the beginning of the Chemical Age) and 1988, the incidence of all forms of cancer increased by 43.5%, adjusted for age. Mortality rates from cancer rose by 2.9%.
Environmental News Weekly
In the United States, despite the use of pesticides, 35% of potential crops are lost to insects, diseases, and weeds. In 1945, before synthetic pesticides came into use, crop losses were 33%.
Dr. David Pimentel, Cornell University
Sales of U.S. organic products increased from $2.31 billion in 1994 to $2.8 billion in 1995. This is a 22% increase, and the sixth year in which sales have grown by more than 20%.
Natural Foods Merchandiser survey, June 1996
The USDA states that total organic cropland is approximately 1,127,000 acres in 1996, up from an estimated 550,267 acres in 1991. The number of organic farmers almost doubled between 1991 and 1994, increasing from 2,841 to 4,060.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
