“Home” A Short Review Of An Environmental Movie
Home is a tone-poem about the planet. Based on the breathtaking aerial images of Yann Arthus-Bertrand, this visual masterpiece attempts to do Planet Earth justice on the computer screen - for that is where is it designed to be watched - leaving the viewer with a deep desire to retain and heal what there is and what we are destroying.
That seems to be the intention, anyway, and for large parts of it my emotions were pulled from one pole to another, between awe and disgust, love and hatred, peace and anger: let there be no doubt, the message that modern human civilization is a turbulent and vile force for ecocide comes through like a shout.
So, I did wonder why the start of the movie along with the YouTube viewing platform is an advert for PPR. “PPR is proud to support HOME”. That’s what it says. PPR is a luxury goods company, responsible for driving the unsustainable addiction to fashion across the world, eating up resources faster and faster so we can never keep up with the unreachable dream we are constantly sold. And yet, somehow, they support this. What a blatant and terrible piece of greenwashing! I make no bones about how wrong this is - the message is already confused and we haven’t yet started.
But there is more that I need to criticise: First, the narrator refers to hunter gatherer lives as hard, short and “scrabbling for food” when we know that hunter gathering can be completely the opposite if done properly. This is a very unenlightened “enlightenment” attitude, unfortunately. Second, the movie doesn’t acknowledge that agriculture and the birth of cities was the first great downfall for the ecology (it simply says it was the first great “revolution”, in positive terms). There is no mention of semi-cultivated / domesticated food usage and permaculture: both of which are (still) common today. Third, the narrator refers to fossil fuels freeing humans of their “toil” on the land. When non-industrial life is couched in such negative terms, this is hardly likely to encourage people to turn away from civilization. “Comforts” and “human genius” with reference to our use of oil is the reverse, while showing huge cities, these words put a positive spin on our addiction to growth.
This is all in the first third of the movie; then at 25 minutes it gets good - very good. For the next hour, the movie becomes a cutting, and very well argued critique of our current situation: beautifully shot with sublime and frightening images that accompany an inarguable case against our toxic treatment of every ecosystem on the planet. The comment about trees and humans, “Our cells talk the same language, we are of the same family” suggests it wants us to connect with nature. After half an hour of this necessary battering I was feeling pretty down. What we clearly need is to reconnect with the real world and reject anything that refuses to be connected and tries to keep us disconnected. To stop this horrific system in its tracks.
It is obvious that “Home” is no longer a good place to be, if we carry on treating it like our doormat. But my concern is not just of our ecology: some of the language in this film jars terribly. At 58 minutes we hear: “Denied access to daily necessities like water, sanitation and…electricity”. Electricity? There is a residual “need” for industrial civilization evident here, otherwise surely it would have said, “and, because city living has substituted technology for tools, electricity.” Then we are told: “Hunger is spreading once more.” This suggests the filmmakers only see the “good” times as between the rise of agriculture (6000 BP) and the overurbanization of the Earth (now).
With 10 minutes to go I was bombarded with tales of good things that are going on: reforestation, education, preservation, New York getting all its fresh water from the surrounding lakes…hang on. How much water? What would the lakes be like without the extraction? And a log raft is floating down the river in Gabon - written on the side is “Sea Hope”. Or does it mean: “See Hope”?
“Let’s be responsible consumers” - Stop right there! I am not a consumer, I am a human being. Where is the return to the world where we didn’t destroy by default: carbon capture and storage, wind farms, solar panels tumble across the screen. We must keep consuming but let’s do it sustainably; but we must keep consuming because the movie won’t dare acknowledge what is so obvious. After all, what would the sponsors think?
Give me the choice and I would only show the beautiful and frightening middle section, and then ask: “What do you want to do now?” I think at least some of us would come up with something that might actually give us a future.
———-
To watch “Home” go to http://www.youtube.com/user/homeproject
Keith Farnish
http://www.amatterofscale.com
British National Party: It Doesn’t Matter
However you look at it, the British National Party (a.k.a. very right wing, anti-immigration, anti-human rights, anti-equality, anti-environment, pro-W.A.S.P. party) had a good night, last night. In the European Parliamentary Elections they won 2 of a possible 69 seats, which was exactly two more than they previously had. This was accompanied by a swing towards the “centre right” (a.k.a. pro-business, anti-environment, anti-equality, anti-human rights, pro-consumerism) in most of the major European countries, suggesting that the majority of people think the answer to all our woes is to hand control of the world over to the corporations.
Alternatively, it might just mean that a hell of a lot of people have lost faith with the entire electoral system (the turnout was historically low, at 43.1%) and most of these people are to the left of centre. That would make a lot of sense; after all, the so-called democratic systems of government that perpetuate in the industrial West, are little more that a sop to real democracy, masking the real power behind governments: the corporations.
That’s certainly my view. I didn’t vote, not because I don’t think my vote won’t make a difference in the final result; not because I am turning my back on those who fought and died for this right; not because I am apathetic — I didn’t vote because whatever happens to the balance of power in any parliament, the overall plan stays the same. The BNP may have gained a couple of seats, but that says a whole lot more about the people that didn’t vote than it does about those who did vote.
And in a strange way, that makes me happy. It suggests that people are starting to open their eyes and realise that the whole system is terminally corrupt, and destructively unsustainable both in environmental and social terms. In this setup, the best move anyone can make is to reject the entire system — not prop it up by deluding yourself that your vote will change things.
MPs Expenses: Fat Cats Or Victims Of The System?
There is no place in my heart for the British MPs who have been found to have been raking off as much money as possible with which to feather their nests, clean their moats, swap their homes and, in essence, commit common fraud against the people who fund these expenses in the first place. The Daily Telegraph, and in particular Heather Brooke, have done a fine job exposing what, up until now, was merely a suspicion in the minds of the British public; but, as Heather says in the article, the real hero was whoever leaked the data to the newspaper. That person, we will probably never know the name of, and for that we should all be grateful because, as with the leaked documents that exposed the absurdity of the 45 minute Iraqi WMD claim extolled in Tony Blair’s “Dodgy Dossier”, the people who continue to leak documents — letting the public know at least a little about the purile machinations of the industrial machine — have to remain in a position where they can continue to do this.
That aside, the question on so many people’s lips at the moment is: “How could they get away with this?” Simple; they played the system.
You see, Members of Parliament, Representatives, MEPs, Councillors, Mayors — everyone along the political spectrum who purport to represent you, may appear to be representing themselves, but in fact represent something far greater. Expenses are just a perk of the job; a mere wisp of the high life that keeps them in place so they can continue serving their true masters: the system itself.
While we have let ourselves get swept along on the tide of admonishment, our anger being whipped up by the frenzied media shouting machine, we are — as usual — being played with. As Noam Chomsky wrote in “Manufacturing Consent”:
The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function too amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society.
We are made to feel anger at certain MPs because it serves the agenda of the system. Perhaps, though, what started as a drive by the politically-motivated Daily Telegraph to oust the current UK Labour government (given that the system of expenses was presided over by New Labour for the last 12 years), has got out of control. Sycophantic statements by the leader of the opposition, David Cameron, that we must all feel “aggrieved” at the mishandling of expenses and that he is leading the drive for a better system, are hamfistedly leading into calls for an election; an election that the Conservative party would almost certainly win at this point in time. The Old Boys Network, led by the Daily Telegraph has spoken, and regime change is on the cards.
But there is more on the cards than that, because by exposing the details of over 200 MPs “fraudulent” (A.K.A. abusing a fraudulent system) claims, the orchestrated anger at the MPs, the Labour government, and the expenses system, is homing in on the entire “democratic” system of government. Some people are suggesting that maybe it is not Parliament that is at fault, but the system that gives gullible people the feeling of power, when they are merely pawns in a system that plays them in whatever way benefits it most.
You may well think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment…
American Chemistry Council: Balancing Trivia With Toxic Violence
It’s common knowledge that given a choice of two tasks, of varying impact, most people in the civilized world will choose to do the easiest, even if the outcome is of little or no importance. Given the choice of walking a mile to your destination, or getting in the car and driving a mile - regardless of the environmental and social impact of cars - most people will choose to drive. Or rather, “choose” to drive.
I put the word “choose” in quotes because it’s not really a choice at all; civilized society conspires to make the option that is of most benefit to the capital economy the most favourable “choice”, even if it means that the “choice” runs counter to what most people would do given a genuine freedom and an absence of persuasive factors (e.g. advertising, social engineering, lack of alternatives) that steer the individual in the direction of the best choice for the economy. Recycling is a serious offender, not because there is anything intrinsically bad about recycling most materials, but because it is presented by society as an environmental “choice”: you can choose to recycle and be “green” or you can choose not to recycle and not be green.
What other choice is there? What about choosing to do any number of things that are substantially more important than recycling; like reducing your primary consumption of goods, repairing what you already have, reusing what others have no need of, bartering or exchanging goods and services, or just giving stuff away because it means the recipients will buy less of that stuff new. And then there is not filling the skies with toxic gases; not pouring millions of gallons of effluent into seas and rivers; not garnishing the biosphere with a cocktail of persistent chemicals then leaving others to sort out the mess later.
The last three are the hallmark of one of the largest industrial sectors in the world: a sector that provides civilized humans with everything from computer screens to astroturf; plastic packaging to car interiors; printing ink to artificial sweetners; mercury to formaldehyde; titanium oxide to napalm; chlorine to glyphosate. The chemical industry provides the raw materials for the products of Industrial Civilization. It is a monster that needs a phenomenal amount of public relations to look good.
In general, the governments of the world’s industrial nations provide that PR, and for those nasty bits left behind, the private PR companies provide the nice words to smooth over the leaking cracks:
Over eleven billion dollars are spent each year by the business of chemistry to reduce emissions and protect the environment. Federal and State regulations for virtually every piece of our plant operations are in place and more rules are in the pipeline. End-of-pipe control programs have been implemented throughout the industry and the focus of environmental protection is now shifting to addressing any remaining risks that are deemed unacceptable. Continued improvement in environmental performance should focus on spending resources only on those policy decisions that will deliver the most improvement to reducing human health and environmental risks.
Allow me to translate:
“Over eleven billion dollars are spent each year by the chemical industry to ensure it does not kill too many people or destroy so much of the natural world that it becomes impossible to cover it up. Federal and State regulations, which we have fought against in the past and continue to fight against now are being implemented because we have no choice, although we have done our best to drag the process out for as long as possible. Systems that bring the amount of toxic crap being poured into the environment down to the legal maximum (and anything else we can get away with) have had to be put in place; but because our industry produces more waste than we can deal with, and the public are (literally) sick of it, we’ve had to pretend we’re doing something about all the other bad stuff we do. If we’re going to have to spend any more money, then were going to make sure it’s as visible as possible, even if it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference.”
Does that sound more realistic? You can read more of this sanitised bullshit over at the American Chemistry Council’s web site. Bear in mind that the ACC represents just about every chemical company you can name, and lots more you have never heard of (and which I would strongly recommend you look into), and it is pretty obvious that they are not doing any of this out of the goodness of their hearts. Anything they can do to look good, they will: and what better thing than our old friend Recycling:
Beginning on April 21st, 2009, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) will host a blog summit to explore recycling efforts and trends in the United States – focusing on barriers to recycling and innovative programs to increase recycling, particularly of plastic. The blog summit is intended to be a dynamic online conversation; it is open to the public. Among those participating will be independent thought leaders with plastics or recycling expertise, industry executives and established bloggers all of whom will be volunteering their time and knowledge.
Why are we doing this?
Across the country and around the world, significant efforts are underway to decrease litter in all environments specifically near our oceans, rivers and streams. Many of the materials that end up on roadways and waterways are readily recyclable. Yet, recycling rates, particularly in the U.S., remain low. The American Chemistry Council and its member companies continue to work with state and city governments, non-profits and other stakeholders to improve the recycling infrastructure, increase access to recycling and create a culture of recycling for future generations.
Excellent. I hope you’re all feeling the warmth from the last 4 weeks of recycling goodness that the ACC have blessed you with.
No?
You’re a cynical bunch, aren’t you?
[from The Unsuitablog]
Swine Flu Pandemic: A Very Uncivilized Solution
The eyes of the world are turned to Mexico as more than 80 people are killed by a suspected outbreak of H1N1 Swine Flu; and increasingly we look to our own governments to protect us from what could be the start of a global pandemic. The Tamiflu is being prepared; national emergency plans are being updated, and there is a tangible sense of fear sweeping the globe.
We should not be surprised this is happening: but there is no reason it should…
It only takes one person in the vast genetic pool of our major cities to contract a transgenic virus for it then to become a human epidemic. It only takes one flight across the world for an epidemic to turn into a pandemic.
Humans like to fly; it has become one of the key aspirations of the consumer society to take long trips to different parts of the world and experience the way that other nations move to the rhythm of the tourism machine. We travel to distant lands to lie on distant beaches, then come home and tell our distant friends all about it. Tourism is not just big business, it is the primary business of many countries; and God help anyone who tries to stop flights from continuing to feed their economic boom! Air travel, which is excluded from all international targets – and the vast majority of national ones – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is expected to account for 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, up from just 3% in 2006. It is illegal for an individual country to tax aircraft fuel and aircraft parts.
A study published in the scientific journal Nature in 2006 found a remarkable drop in the numbers of early-onset influenza cases amongst humans in the period following the World Trade Center attacks in September 2001. “The 27% drop in passenger numbers on international flights delayed the normal peak of flu deaths by nearly two weeks, from February to March. And the fall in domestic air travel meant that the disease took 16 days longer to spread throughout the country.” Incredibly, and almost certainly due to economic pressure from business and business-friendly governments, restricting air travel does not form part of international plans for preventing the spread of any potential strains of highly pathogenic influenza.
(extract from “Time’s Up! An Civilized Solution To A Global Crisis“)
In order to dramatically reduce the chances of a full-blown pandemic, it is simply necessary to stop passenger flights from the affected area until the epidemic is under control. Simple, yet it won’t happen because money is more important than life in the civilized world.
RSS XML Feed
