The Dallas Green Zine

Monumental: David Brower’s Fight for Wild America, is the story of the greatest conservationist since John Muir. The film begins with David Brower in his early days, with a small local group of mountaineers called ‘The Sierra Club,’ who enjoyed hiking and rock climbing in Yosemite and other areas. As time passes, Brower becomes more concerned about the protection of the earth’s wild places. 

He also becomes friends with the great photographer, Ansel Adams, and through Adams’ work, he learns the importance of using images in the cause for environmental preservation. This becomes evident throughout the film, as you will see lots of short segments taken from films that Brower put together to draw public awareness to specific issues. 

Brower’s proficiency as a climber also continues to evolve, to such an extent that after he climbs Shiprock in the late 30s, he begins training US mountain ski troops at the 10th Mountain Division Training Camp. He and his battalion are then sent to Italy to fight in WWII.

When he returns from the war, the economic boom in the U.S. contributes to large scale development that begins threatening the wilderness areas. More tourists head to the parks and wilderness, wanting changes made for convenience and recreation. New demands on resources begin making it popular for politicians to want to put dams in the parks. Brower becomes an strong advocate in protecting the parks and he is hired as executive director of the National Sierra Club in 1952.

One of the battles that would have a profound effect on Brower was the fight to protect Dinosaur National Monument. As part of the Colorado River Storage Project, there was an attempt made to place dams at Dinosaur National Monument. The region was largely unknown to the general public. He started doing river trips to draw attention so that people would take the trips, gain an appreciation of the region, and return home to write to their Congressional representatives. At that time, he also put together a film called ‘Two Yosemites’ to draw a connection between Dinosaur National Monument and what had happened in the Hetch Hetchy/Yosemite.

Despite Sierra Club efforts, a Congressional Committee approved the dams. However, Brower was then able to prove deception which resulted in Congress dropping the dam projects in 1956. On the same day, a key proponents of the dams, Interior Secretary Douglas McKay resigned. For the first time in U.S. history, conservationists were able to halt a major governmental development project. As a concession, the Sierra Club agreed not to oppose dam sites outside of national parks, resulting in the destruction of Glen Canyon. This would become a deep regret for Brower who said he had been willing to sacrifice Glen Canyon in order to save Dinosaur Canyon, “simply because I didn’t know what was in Glenn Canyon and that was one of the bitterest lesson I ever had.’

After this experience, Brower took a bolder stance on conservation issues with the view that compromise leads to regret. In 1960, Brower and the Sierra Club set 5 goals–all of which are accomplished by the end of the decade. Among these successes, which the film covers in some detail: the establishing of Redwood National Park, the passing of the Wilderness bill, the establishing of North Cascades National Park, the stopping of 2 dams in the Grand Canyon, and the establishing of Point Reyes National Seashore. In addition, Cape Cod National Seashore was also established. These were very ambitious goals considering that in 1960, most of the American public viewed Earth as little more than a resource, and the film is good at illustrating how these efforts were not only resulting in action, but they were also having an effect on the way people were beginning to look at their environment. There was a growing realization that the Earth’s resources were not limitless.

In the late 1960s, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) wanted to put a nuclear plant on the south coast of California at Nipono Dunes. In an effort to save Nipono Dunes, the Sierra Club made a deal with PG&E that it would not oppose construction of a nuclear plant at Diablo Canyon. However, Brower refused to accept the compromise, and consequently, he was fired as organization’s Executive Director. He then started Friends of the Earth which became very active in the fight against arctic drilling. After 13 years of service, Brower was fired from Friends of the Earth–once again on issues of compromise.

In 1980, he founded the Earth Island Institute, and in 1983, the Sierra Club elected Brower to board of directors. He served with the Earth Island Institute and the Sierra Club until he died in 2000.

This film is full of still photos and wilderness film footage shot between 1930-1970. Despite the age of some of the film, there are quite a few scenes that are simply striking. 

Overall, this is very a moving film about a remarkable man who was a great champion for our earth and its wild spaces. 

Monumental: David Brower’s Fight for Wild America
USA, 2005
77 Minutes, color
Directors: Kelly Duane  

[Editor note: Just caught this film at the Dallas Video Festival last weekend.] 

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, Cuba became the first country faced with the peak oil crisis. Suddenly a supply of 13 million tons of oil a year dropped to 1 million. The change was seen almost immediately - within weeks. There were power outages, no air conditioning, and no elevators running. People tried to get to work with whatever transportation was available only to discover that there was no  electricity at their jobs. The Cuban government had to import 2 million bicycles for transportation. Even construction was severely limited because cement production requires high levels of fuel.

However, the biggest and most immediate problem became food scarcity. There was no fuel to transfer food and no electricity to refrigerate it, and the massive use of oil-based fossil fuel for pesticides and farm machinery had disappeared. Within the first few years of this crisis, these constraints, coupled with the continued U.S. blockade on food, resulted in an average weight loss of 20 lbs for most Cubans.

With hunger spreading, people were left with no other choice and resorted to growing food wherever they could, and this led to widespread urban gardening.  Famine was prevented by converting every open space in the city into gardening. Because they could no longer get access to oil-based pesticides, farmers had to resort to growing food organically. This was not easy. After years of large commercial farming with pesticides, the land didn’t respond right away to organic measures. It would take 3-5 years to make the land fertile and productive again with organic methods. Today 86% of Cuba’s agricultural production is organic.

Farmers also began the practice of crop-mixing to reduce pests, and scientists began making and exporting bio-pesticides. Changes also resulted in smaller farms and more privately-owned cooperatives. Decision making became localized with fewer state regulations. Even schools became more decentralized.

Private farmers began having the highest levels of production. A sense of ownership led to greater productivity as more people began moving to rural areas to start private farms. Also, sugar mills began being converted into power plants.

Despite the many problems that Cuba continues to face, the Cubans have managed to find a way to use less energy. Today, the average Cuban uses 1/8 the energy of the average American. They also eat more vegetables, bicycle everywhere, and place a greater value on science and health care. (Although Cuba represents only 2% of the population of Latin America, it has 11 percent of all the scientists.)

Whether you view peak oil as real and inevitable, or as just a `market creation,’ I think that you will still find this film interesting and insightful-and perhaps, inspiring.  

How Cuba Survived Peak Oil
USA, 2006
53 Minutes, color
Directors: Faith Morgan

For more information about this film, visit The Power of Community.

You can also view a 28-minute interview with Megan Quinn who worked on the filming, by clicking here.

Too Hot Not to Handle covers similar ground as An Inconvenient Truth, except that it is more visually interesting and Al Gore is not providing the narration. In other words, if you have some friends who are politically conservative and lack the attention span to sit through a detailed lecture, this might be the DVD to send them.

The film explores the effects of climate change in the U.S. and it looks at the human activity that is making the earth warmer than it has been in millions of years. It points out that almost all of our use of energy is leading us down this path.

There are many activities already occurring such as extreme weather, changes in migration patterns, disappearing snowpacks, increases in forest fires, and increased droughts. in some wet places, it is getting wetter. Since 1970, the average number of class 4 and 5 hurricanes per year has doubled.

Future activities are also examined. For example, if current trends persist, there is the possibility of having millions of ‘climate refugees.’ As warm areas become warmer, many mosquito borne viruses will begin to move north. West Nile virus will not grown in a mosquito above 60F. In 2004, West Nile was found in Lake Tahoe. Also, freed C02 seems to benefit many weeds. Ragweed grows bigger and produces more pollen, and so there is the potential for a hyper production of pollen. An increase in C02 will also increase the resistace of ragweed to herbicides.  
 
There is the tendency by some people, when faced with the shear enormity of climate change, to try to discount it as ’doom and gloom’ or political posturing. However, as this film shows: there is just too much evidence. And it’s to the credit of this film, that the evidence is presented throughout the film by actual high-level scientists who are experts in climate and geology. They are not: 1) actors turned opinion-makers, 2) enterprise institute hacks turned ‘pop’ climate experts, or 3) doctors turned fiction authors.

In response to criticism that the temperature will change only by a small number of degrees, one commenter, Richard Somerville responds: “You can die of symptoms from a fever that is only a few degrees above normal.”

And finally, there is the enormous impact on living things and serious concerns that 1/4 of all plant and animal species could be extinct by the end of this century.

The overwhelming message is that something has to change. Bigger, bigger, and bigger is not going to help. The world we live in tomorrow is going to be different than the one we’re living in today, and it will require changes.

Too Hot Not to Handle
USA, 2006
53 Minutes, color
Directors: Maryann DeLeo and Ellen Goosenberg Kent

[To read an interview with executive producer Laurie David, visit this HBO page or click here for 25 Things You Can Do.]

Kilowatt Ours addresses the relationship between electricity use and the environment, focusing specifically on the southeast U.S. where Amercians use the most electricity and problems are most severe. The film begins with the destruction of mountains in West Virginia, which are actually being blown apart to get at their coal.

Over half the electricity consumed comes from coal and a typical home in the southeast burns six tons of coal.

1 kilowatt hour = 1 pound of coal = 10 lights bulbs per hour

Vice President Dick Cheney tells Congress, ‘With current electric trends, we’ll need one new power plant every week for the next 20 years.’ But the film moves on to point how how ‘adding just another power plant’ is not only backward but can have devastating consequences.

One of the more shocking images in this film is the explosion and destruction of the Appalachian mountains. One resident looking from his backyard said, ‘People ask me why I didn’t take a picture. Well, you just don’t expect a mountain to disappear.’

The less visible effects of coal is what you can’t see in the air. When coal is burned, the mercury, which is very volatile, escapes into the air. Mercury is highly poisonous and it’s a developmental neurotoxin. When a woman is pregnant, the fetus is very susceptible, and there is a great risk that the baby could be born with neurological defects that it never recovers from…effects that can later result in poor behavior in school, learning difficulties, difficulties to find a job, future low earnings, etc. 

In addition to causes poisoning in fetuses, the pollution from coal power plants also creates asthma and impairs lung development in children. Children who grow up in clean air have 10% better lung development. When you look at all these factors, can we really afford this kind of coal burning?

In the same region are the Smoky Mountains, and most of their smokiness these days comes from a haze of sulphate particulates originating from power plants.

The ultimate message of Kilowatt Ours is this: Every time we turn on a light or use electricity, we contribute to these problems. Throughout the film, Barrie and his wife, Heather, show how they take steps in their home to reduce carbon and on a limited budget. And the film’s latter half focuses on what individuals and businesses can do to reduce consumption.

One step is to switch to compact fluorescent bulbs, since lights devour 40% of electricity. 

Given that schools spend more on energy bills than on PCs and textbooks, Smith Middle School at Chapel Hill, NC switched to ‘daylighting’ (using skylights and other natural lights to replace a lot of electric lights). They say they saw an improvement in student performance, test scores, and behavior. Sumner County Schools had a 260,000 sq ft school using geothermal which will save $5000 per month. Thousands can be saved just by turning off computers before weekends and holidays.

The film also highlights examples of specific cities’ efforts to conserve and save money. For example, Birmingham changed its traffic signals to LEDs and saved $220,000.

Note: The DVD has a 38-minute version and a 64-minute version. For more information, go to: http://www.kilowattours.org/

Kilowatt Ours
USA, 2004
version 1: 38 Minutes, color
version 2: 64 Minutes, color
Director: Jeff Barrie

Oil on Ice is about the threat that oil exploration poses to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Estimates are that there may be 3.2 billion barrels of oil under the coastal plain - enough oil to supply China for 71 weeks or the U.S. for 23 weeks. Throughout the film, there are scenes of wide coastal plains and caribou grazing. There are polar bears, grizzlies, musk ox, wolverines, wolves…  

These scenes are juxtaposed against an image of Republican Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, standing in front of Congress holding a blank sheet of paper and saying, ‘This is what ANWR looks like 9 months out of the year… It’s flat… it’s ugly’ This shallow impression might be what Murkowski sees from a plane at 3,000 ft high, but as the film points out, there is much more to lose.

There are over 130 species of birds that migrate through that area. Over 8,000 Gwi’chin people live in that area and depend on the caribou and fishing. The prime caribou calving areas are in the northernmost part of the refuge.

One doesn’t have to speculate on the effects of oil exploration. Back in 1989, former President George H.W. Bush tried to get the Arctic refuge open for drilling, but along came the Exxon Valdez disaster, which as the film points out, did not end in ‘recovery.’ The fishing industry never recovered in Prince William Sound. Herring, a cornerstone (i.e., what other animals depend upon), began declining a year after the spill. Many deposits of oil were never cleaned up.

Riki Ott, a marine toxicologist, explains that the oil companies basically hired a bunch of people ‘to sit in Prince William Sound and wipe off rocks to make them look busy…’ Ott said that after the fish crashes in 1992-1993, scientists began looking more closely at polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These are the compounds left on the beach after an oil spill that don’t evaporate. Exxon calls them benign, but according to the National Fisheries Service in Juneau, they cause long-term reproductive damage to fish and mammals. Some areas of Prince William Sound have not changed for 10 years and the film shows oil still being found within inches of the ground surface.

Exxon said it would pay the people living in the spill zone $5 billion awarded by the court. Exxon appealed and has yet to pay the damages.

Now George W. Bush wants to pick up where his daddy left off, and is trying again to open the region for drilling. He speaks about oil as though it’s ‘American’ oil; that it has something to do with America’s security. But oil is owned and sold by companies, not by countries. A pristine part of the country’s natural heritage is at risk because large corporations want to make lots of money selling oil to anyone anywhere in the world who will pay the highest price.

The film also looks at alternatives–something that is not being explored by the current administration. As Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute said, “When we’re addicted to drugs, we’re told to cut off the supply. But when we’re addicted to oil, we’re told to increase the supply. There’s something wrong here.”

Oil on Ice
USA, 2004
57 minutes, color
Director: Dale Djerassi
Available through http://www.oilonice.org/ and Netflix.

Who Killed the Electric Car? runs like a Who Done It, beginning with a mock funeral for the victim: the EV-1. In 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) introduced a Zero Emissions policy and three car companies began developing cars to comply. GM introduced the EV-1 electric car and made it available for lease.

The EV-1 was clean, quiet, and could be fueled at home. It could get 120-150 miles per charge–well within most commuters’ daily drives. Thousands leased the car, including celebrities like Tom Hanks, Mel Gibson, etc. At least 800 people leased the car and were very happy with it.

However, GM did very little to try to promote the car and in some cases produced negative advertising for it. GM and other car companies also began pressuring CARB and after much lobbying, CARB eventually caved in and the 1990 Zero Emissions mandate was repealed.

GM then proceeded to round up every EV-1 (except for one that is in a museum) and destroyed them–despite a large of people with leases wanting to complete the lease and buy the car. Obviously, if a company leases their cars and wants their cars back, so be it. But what is disturbing in this film, even as one tries to resist any stabs at conspiracy theory, is the great lengths that the auto manufacturers go through to not only retrieve their cars (despite offers to pay for them in full), but also to kill the technology itself, to push back clean air initiatives, and to then turn around an heavily market inferior technologies like the Hummer and several SUV models. The EV-1 cost $35,000, but the Hummer costs 2-3 times that. There was also a sudden push for the hydrogen car, which director Paine describes as a ‘bait and switch’ tactic because affordable hydrogen technology is at least 20 years away.

In the end, a list of potential suspects (car companies, big oil, the consumer, etc.) are presented with arguments for why they were or were not responsible for the car’s killing. One suspect that is still questionable are the batteries. In the film, a husband-and-wife team discusses the battery technology that they invented that could get 300 miles per charge. However, there is some debate as to whether this was actually possible.

Who Killed The Electric Car?
USA, 2006
92 minutes, color
Director: Chris Paine

 Read more at Amazon.com…

The film, An Inconvenient Truth, presents a logical well-constructed argument on the effects of global warming. It is based largely on a presentation that Al Gore has been presenting to audiences for many years. Although global warmings and coolings have occurred many times throughout the earth’s history, they have always been on a slow geological scale of millions of years. However, the case made in this film, is that human activity has caused global warming to accelerate within an exremely shortly period of time. Consequently, there follows: extreme hurricanes, ice cap melting, unusually high temperatures, lakes reduced to over 1/3 or 1/2 their size, etc.

Juxtaposed against this, Gore shares his feelings of growing up on the family’s Black Angus farm in Tennessee and his relationship to the land. His family also grew tobacco, and at a time when the links between tobacco and cancer were being made, his sister died from cancer. The family stopped growing tobacco. This account provides a strong segway into a key point: that there are sharp parallels between the earlier public uncertainty about the harmful effects of smoking and the ’still lingering’ uncertainty about the harmful effects of human activity on global warming. Although medical researchers were able to show scientific evidence that there was a causal relationship between smoking and cancer, intense lobbying by large tobacco interests continued to perpetuate doubts and managed to maintain the cancer-tobacco link as a question in the public mind for a long time. Similarly, there is considerable evidence that global warming is a fact and an overwhelming majority of the scientific community agree. Yet again, corporate interests are lobbying to make it sound questionable.

Equally disturbing is the fact that the U.S. is one of only two countries (the other is Australia) that has not signed the Kyoto agreement–putting corporate profits above potentially devastating changes that could affect the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Yes, throughout the film, there are the annoying ’senior statesmen’ headshots of Gore being a politician, but if you overlook these, the message of this film is a difficult one to argue with.

An Inconvenient Truth
USA, 2006
94 Minutes, color
Director: Davis Guggenheim