Comparing two global warming videos

When comparing two global warming videos, a documentary done by CBC NewsWorld and Al Gore on Charlie Rose- I saw similarities and differences.

The documentary was longer, it gave more detail and explained the topic well. This video was a longer length than the interview with Al Gore. It wasn’t as intense and less threatening. The scientists interviewed explained the study between global warming and climate change. How they’re linked, what climate change has done to our globe already and is causing right now. They talked about computer models and what is predicted in the future. Details we provided including the hockey stick chart and explanations on the green house effect. The scientists were also interesting when asking their own questions about the environment. One mentioned that there must be something missing in the atmosphere that we don’t know yet and another gave the audience something to think about when mentioning that when we look at the past, does the future look so bad? The documentary also gave other views on the topic. They mentioned that they realize there are other views, other studies and that computer models are not in sync with reality. In the last two sections of the video, the sea level evaporating was discussed because of temperature increasing, but then talked about how if somewhere something is evaporating, then somewhere else, something is precipitation- meaning the water level is rising somewhere else. The scientists also mentioned that the ice will melt in Antarctica, making the sea level rise significantly. However, they said that won’t happen for almost 2,000 years I think they said. This documentary was more objective and informative.

The video of Al Gore on the Charlie Rose show, was quite different from the documentary, but similar too. I thought this video had mostly differences from the documentary. Al Gore sent a totally different mood out to the audience. Seemed like his attitude was that he was right and everyone else needs to follow him. What he talked about and his film trailer contained the fear factor persuasive technique to draw the audience in. This drew me out. I was disinterested in what Gore had to say because he was biased. He was the only one that was in this video. Gore didn’t mention any sources he talked to, sources were all basically “off the record,” no one else was interviewed nor did he present a counter argument. The argument that Gore fixated on was that the globe temperature has increased and will continue to increase, until ice in the north will soon melt and basically flood a lot of our land. The other video presented this similar case but seemed to be more realistic about the issue. Gore mentioned that there is no debate left on what is happening, that there is a main consensus. Gore also mentioned that basically no one is doing anything about the issue and that his film will create a sense of urgency. Gore’s video was focused on mission-based framing.

Both videos used computer models to based information off of. Both videos agree that the debate is not that global warming is in existence, but that it’s what is causing global warming.

Some of Ch. 9 of Made to Break summary

Here is the first part of chapter 9, Made to Break -the last chapter.

Electronic components- built to have short lives. Cell phones, computers are only lasting a short amount of time compared to what they could be lasting (a long time) because of obsolescence. After the short use, electronics are thrown away, as a result, the amount of e-waste in the U.S. is increasing. This leads to burning the e-waste, which leads to toxins filling the air, which leads to health issues for residents: air pollution and when buried, seeps in soil and poisons it. Currently, the U.S. exports e-waste materials to developing countries for unregulated disassembly- but as organizations become stricter; the U.S. will soon be prevented from this- which is good. Cause for e-waste: increasing short lifespan of electronics and miniaturization.

Why E-waste occurs: Cell phone e-waste is growing – ppl who already have cell phones are replacing them with newer models; ppl who have a phone are getting a second one. This makes the term “obsolescence” obsolete because “it makes no sense to call a working phone obsolete when the make and model is still available for purchase and continues to provide service.” Cell phones are being thrown away and not disassembled for reuse- which contributes to the many sitting in landfills- a storage problem no program has imagined will be able to solve. E-waste happens becaue consumers value what is new and not old. Advertising makes us believe that what we have now is no good and we need to buy the new item by encouraging dissatisfaction. Rapid evolution of technology has rendered everything ‘disposable.’ Colin Campbell studied consumption and looked at the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that surround the acquisition of new goods. Studied what he called “neophilia,” or love of new things. Three types of neophiliacs. In relation to neophilia is a form of conformity, social cascade. America is participating in a worldwide cascade of cell phones...

Chapter 7 and 8 notes for Made to Break

This isn't near all of the notes for the 2 chapters in Made to Break--- rest will come soon!
So far in chapter 7:

1960’s-America saw a beginning toward an information society. With many products being developed, obsolescence started to take on abstract meanings, not just physical objects: training, knowledge, skills. Obsolescence->miniaturized circuitry->start of e-waste.

Emulation, miniaturization, microchips: Emulation is the ability to run software applications of earlier less powerful computers with losses in processing speed. Convinced consumers to reinvest in IBM hardware because earlier investment in software, data storage, personnel training wouldn’t become obsolete. 1965 – The first IBM System/360s shipped- same yr of the PDP-8 minicomputer and geranium crystal transistor; first integrated circuits ever used in computers. Integrated circuits made compactness possible->miniaturization. Gordon Bell, the architect for the PDP (by Kenneth Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corp) believed that simpler machines with fewer instructions would consistently perform as well as larger machines. Revenues went up for DEC, but nothing compared to IBM so far. IBM missed DEC’s great expansion, corporate model and target audience. Companies went to PDP for their needs, they couldn’t afford IBM’s mainframes. DEC looked at the need for subminiaturization and lightweight circuits. 1958 – government funded research into micromodules for a new level of submin. Jack Kilby designed a single wafer semiconductor of germanium. Robert Noyce designed a semiconductor circuit in 1959 called Micrologic-with silicon – the “monolithic idea”. 1963 – IBM engineers were becoming worried their micro-modules were becoming obsolete because of the invention of mono-lithics. ICs become more available and cheaper but IBM still didn’t want to use them and still used ceramic micro-module circuitry. Many other areas in the U.S. used ICs: Aviation’s Autonetics, NASA...

Dr. Murphy's presentation

Dr. Murphy’s presentation on product obsolescence and e-waste fit in with our first 2 themes of the class, oil and obsolescence by a number of ways. Right away Dr. Murphy talked about e-waste. E-waste is the result of product obsolescence and disposable technology and products. Oil fits in with the presentation because oil is what provides the transportation for the technologies to get to stores for consumers to purchase.

Policies to reduce toxic waste are laws Murphy talked about such as regulations, and packaging policies. Regulations such as being a recycling-based society, and waste management and public cleaning laws are in effect. Packaging what makes up most of America’s waste. Murphy gave suggestions to purchase triple-concentrated detergent for smaller containers. There are container and packaging laws out. There is so much waste created because food and technology have to be packaged in order to be shipped safely. Other laws such as food recycling and laws to promote green purchasing.

Obstacles we face in the future are landfills reaching their maximum capacity and us having to dump garbage in the oceans perhaps. We will need to find more land that we can put our waste on. He mentioned that a container can be invented to wait to disintagrate for a week or two and then when your garbage is ready it does. Challenges such as behaviorial changes and mindset changes are obstacles we will face.

Obsolescence and Made to Break themes

The themes of Made to Break and obsolescence converge by one item being produced and then each item produced after that, plays off the previous item. Consumers and producers find better ways of making products. Consumers then want every new item that is produced and sold. Producers study consumers and produce new items again. Planned obsolescence plays off progressive and technical obsolescence, making older items obsolete. For a couple of examples, when cars were produced each type of car designed after that reflected off each other. Each later model looked better and ran better than the previous model. When AM radio was produced, FM was later introduced and was a better product by sending out a sharper sound.

Capitalism seems that it will not succeed without obsolescence. Without disposable products, planned obsolescence, psychological obsolescence, progressive obsolescence and technical all build off each other to keep our economy moving. Americans make a want, a need. We want a new product because the one we have doesn’t function as well as the new item (or is broken). We naturally want the new, best item out on the market, and with advertising, companies make consumers think that we need the new, best item out there. Without obsolescence pushing consumers to buy new products that are out on the market, the country wouldn’t be making any money at all. We’d have to rely on products breaking for consumers to purchase new items, if producers didn’t come up with new versions of products. Obsolescence is a natural and normal cycle of any business, and economic system. Being part of any business is to make money.

Slade’s approach to obsolescence fits in with the themes, however it seems like his approach doesn’t have another side to it. There are many good facts, and history to back up his approach, but he doesn’t give a different side to the obsolescence idea. Like I said in the paragraph before, the economy can’t function without obsolescence and that’s agreeing with Slade. He says that obsolescence is a positive for the country, but what about it being a negative for the country? Factories mass produce a product. Consumers are buying it. Shortly after, the company comes out with a new product and now consumers want that one. What about all the items still on shelves or sitting in factories not being sold because of the new product taking over? This wastes resources, space and energy. Also, what about the old product owned by the consumer that was replaced? It’s most likely thrown away because it has become obsolete to them. This is a negative because all the now obsolete products are taking up landfill space, or adding harmful chemicals to the land.

Possible topics for "the big paper"

Possible topics for my paper and sources:
1. I wanted to talk about something with the campus going green. I think it would be cool to see what other campuses are doing and what small things UF can do; how it will help our campus grow and be better to our environment; Something I can include would be this Thursday’s speech with Oberlin.

2. I am interested in technology obsolescence. Doing research on what little things actually change in a product to make an advertiser say “All new, nothing like this product!” Technology is growing fast; I want to know what the future is like. What current products now will be obsolete?

3. I’m also interested in fashion obsolete. I think this topic will be fun for me since I’m interested in fashion in general. I would look at the history of fashion and see what is out of date now, what’s currently fashionable and what the future may be like. I’m interested in researching what the short video had said about fat heels and skinny heels changing each year to get us to buy something new. What brings back fashions from the past- flare jeans, skinny jeans, 80’s colors, hair styles… and who decides what’s “in?” Along with the technology topic- what little things have actually changed in a product that makes the previous product not fashionable anymore? Planned obsolescence is definitely a case here because how clothes are made says a lot. I store that makes their clothes cheaply is purposely making you come in and buy more clothes when they tear. Prices are an issue- those cheaply made clothes generally aren’t a bad price, so shoppers don’t realize that they’re being scammed. I want to know why stores then can do the opposite- charge us a butt load of money for one t-shirt. I’m thinking of Hollister. These clothes seem to be in fashion, but they cost so much money and they are little material (atleast for girls). Why do we spend this much money just to stay in fashion? I guess because companies can because they know we like their clothes. Why not go to a different store with similar clothes for a cheaper price. This brings in the topic of branding….

4. I’m not too familiar with the topic of global warming. It may be interesting for me to research about what little things we can do as a country to delay the effects of global warming. My first topic ties into global warming. I don’t really know what an argument would able this other than if we don’t do something now, global warming will hit us fast and hard and we won’t be ready. I’d research about global warming first to get more points down and to come up with a question or an argument.

For now, I’m choosing to research about fashion obsolescence.
I found sources such as in Time magazine:
-An article titled “The look of the new” is a small article, but mentions planned obsolescence.
-An article in Time, “Buyers swing to quality” talks about how we’re now paying attention to quality of products that will last us a longer time that may cost more money now, than paying attention to a product that is priced cheap and made cheap that probably won’t last as long. This ties into my topic by the pricing of a shirt and the quality of the fabric and how it was made. Instead of buying something because it’s “in,” look at the t-shirt in a different way before you buy it.

Something that brings up what changes when and who decides brings up this article:
-“Unpredictable weather 'means seasonal fashion is now obsolete'” from the bnet business network. This talks about how unpredictable weather isn’t letting us get specific clothes anymore for each season. It mentions how “the whole fashion industry will have to change…”

From Lexis Nexis:
-I found a list of articles when searching under “obsolescence.” I’m going to not only search under “fashion obsolescence” but tie in the first search of the general topic with my specific topic.

Reaction to FGCI

Dr. Reed’s presentation on Findlay Green Campus Initiative fits into the themes of the English class very well. The themes of the class are future of oil, technology obsolescence and global warming. One of the things Dr. Reed talked about was lowering our carbon footprint. First, oil is carbon. Second, lowering the footprint means using less of it. It also means using fewer materials, less resources and completely a task the quickest and most efficient way possible to the Earth’s benefit. “To the Earth’s benefit” ties FGCI and the themes of the class together. Lowering our carbon footprint can mean driving to local stores instead of farther away stores. This saves gas and it helps your local economy. Why drive? Save gas completely and ride your bike if possible. Making your tasks more efficient and beneficial to the Earth also means being aware of what you’re doing is doing to the environment. Are you putting toxic waste into the land? Are you using toxic substances that can be harmful to people? Make your tasks and finished products energy efficient, such as heating and cooling insulation and power savers. Being efficient means being smarter with what energy you use. We use energy in many forms and tend to waste it. We use it to drive, take a shower, yard work, cooling and simple things that waste energy a lot such as a garage door opener. To not waste gas and not put harmful substances in the air means slowing down global warming. Plan your trips better to drive less and car pool. This will put less pollution in the air. Watching how you build a product and not put harmful chemicals in the ground will reduce the harmful substances going into the air and land. Technology obsolescence increases because urbanization. We waste land by having spread out suburbs. We waste gas by driving to the city and back to the suburbs for work. It takes more energy to bring materials and products to the many different locations. Driving everywhere increases obsolescence because many new cars are developed each year to accommodate drivers’ tastes. Cars are taking over bikes when it comes to driving to and from the city and suburb. What we can do to help keep the Earth green and what ties into the class themes is: recycling, watch our water usage, lowering the thermostat, turn off the house lights and use energy efficient bulbs, ride your bike and drive less, eat local foods, avoid fast foods, when you shop- bring your own bag, and don’t drink bottled water. All these are not sacrifices, they are bout living differently and looking at the world in a different way.

Obsolete Experience

I've had many instances where products have become obsolete in my life. One that definitely comes to mind are cell phones. I finally received my first one junior year in high school. A number of my friends already were on their second one. There are so many choices of different kinds of phones it's overwhelming. Once I picked one and used it for about 6 months, there were so many new types of phones out there again.

Technology is advancing and it's great but it just seemed like right when I got my phone, it became old news and out of date. Companies just want to create new products so the ones consumers have now, they think are no good and they want the next great thing. Companies are just trying to make more money off consumers making them think the product they have is old, when really, the phones consumers have now are perfectly fine. No one really needs a phone that has a complete internet system, companies just want to make us think we do by producing a product with internet and calling it a "must need product."

A positive from obsolete phones can be good for the economy. By companies convincing to buy these new products, its putting money back to the economy and helping everyone out. By creating these new products, it does help with communication. Faster, more reliable communication is a need for our society now. Companies are simply doing their job and molding to society and making changes that will benefit everyone.

Made to Break - Ch. 2 reflection

Second unit of English class: “Made to Break” and E-waste.

The theme for chapter 2 of Made to Break, is about planned, psychological and technological obsolescence of automobiles in the 20’s and changing the make and appearance annually: “national automobile championship.” It talks about Ford’s and GM’s competition for customers and the difference of values that Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan had. First it was about the quality of the cars and selling techniques and then moving to the style and looks of cars. Beauty became the new business tool. Companies worked on outdating their own models more than trying to compete with other older company models. GM moved to developing dynamic obsolescence- what I call fast obsolescence. Psychological obsolescence was featured by the use of the “out-of-fashion” technique. Not only Ford and GM but movies, songs and books worked on the technique of repetitive consumption.

I was not aware of the competition Ford and GM went through: from quality to appearance to fighting with each other for customers. Ford was ahead but stubborn and stuck with his values while Sloan went with the flow of sales and grew quicker. In just a few years cars grew so much with technology and style. I also was not aware that people analyzed the fall of Ford and success of GM’s products and why everything happened with quality and style. I didn’t know that people took cars so seriously as a need to “satisfy their pride.” People would size up one another based on disposable income and taste (the intro and chapter 1 was about the development of the disposable income).

This chapter is parallel to the e-waste videos we watched in class because by making new models of cars annually, leaves consumers to trade their cars to upgrade or it leaves them to throw the cars away if they don’t run well anymore. Throwing them away is harmful to the environment. Other products that chapter 2 refers to is other electronics and makings of better technology leaves consumers to throw away obsolete products when new ones are introduced. One example is where the book talks about how electricity began to replace steam as the driving force of industry.

The Prize themes

An overall theme to me from The Prize is: how oil production made the world what it is today…
To divide this concept up into 3 main categories I’d say 3 themes are: greed/power; economic growth; and connections.

Many of the characters in The Prize had characteristics of greed. With the discovery of oil, along came the want for power. Everyone wanted land to drill. The search for new land was a big deal. Any new discovery brought everyone a step closer to more products such as clothing, heat, and machines. Oil meant money and money meant more power. For politics, if you had oil in your land, you had power. Countries would pay to have your oil shipped to them. If any country had trouble, a recurring event in the book was war. Countries declared war on each other whenever there was an oil issue. One major part of the power theme is that countries would use oil as a weapon when in war. It was the start of war and then it made it worse by being used as a weapon. Countries would threaten other countries to block their oil supply trades. Just to look like big shots, countries would use oil as something to hide behind. Because of oil and the negative impact on the globe, life became less simple and more about how to get more supply that we rely on so much.

Oil production meant economic growth. As a society, everything expanded. Because of oil, we were able to heat homes safely and not use coal; create cars and use oil for gasoline; more oil companies were discovered and rapidly grew in numbers right away and their building sizes grew; roads and highways were built to get to other cities for goods and services. Gas stations were founded and soon were on every corner in towns. The gasoline market became huge and is the base of advertising, logos and publicity around the world. Suburbs in America were a big part of the growth that America went through. Suburbs and highways changed the way we lived. Traveling was now an option. Residents were no longer standing still in their town, they could move somewhere else. Another reoccurring event in the book was converting the globe’s usage from coal to oil. It gave many reasons why oil was better than coal and the process countries went through to convert.

The third theme of The Prize is connections. I think the book made a great point about countries connecting for goods and services because of oil. The trading industry flourished when we started to rely on each other for oil land. Because of relying on other countries, we had more reason to use transportation to other countries.

Ch. 27- The Prize summary

Chapter 27 summary of The Prize...

Post WWII: consumption of oil massively increased- all over globe. Didn’t even compare to the demand for oil though. Many reasons for switching from coal to oil.

How the world came to use oil so much/how grew rapidly: Rapid economic growth, rising incomes. Oil was used to fuel factories which made all the products consumers bought- cars, package goods, appliances. Oil and natural gas were transformed into plastics. In the 50s and 60s oil became real cheap. Each country that sold oil wanted more volumes of its own oil in order to gain higher revenues- put pressure on concessionaires to produce more oil- pushed oil into new markets. “Bigger is better” theme of world  Oil production, reserves, consumption. Refineries grew in larger and larger in size; new technologies enabled some refiners to up the yield of high-value products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, heating oil) from <50% to 90%. Also in consumers: American cars got bigger- powered by huge engines.

Following WWII was the war between oil and coal starting the U.S: economic and political consequences, impact on international relations, patterns of daily life- for hearts, minds and pocketbooks of consumers. Coal came first, cheap/available, material energy of the country, King. Oil was abundant, cheaper than coal now- and getting cheaper, better for the environment, provided a competitive advantage for energy-intensive industries.

Europe moved to oil: Slow. Because of the Suez crisis, Britain was questioning its security of Middle Eastern oil supplies; decided to push with its first nuclear energy program to reduce dependence on imported oil. Britain struggled with policies that would give coal some protection against cheap imported oil. Concluded that international trade position required growth in oil use.

Another reason to switch from coal to oil- help environment: Clean Air Act-favored. Coal burning creating killer fogs—pollution from open fires in houses. Result- “smokeless zones” were made where burning of coal for home heating was banned.

Japan: slower. Not until 1949 did the American Occupation let oil refining back Japan; end of the Occupation, regaining independence and the Korean war economic growth. Japan no longer was poor- began to run on oil. Gov wanted to reduce foreign influence on its oil industry. More oil consumption was near: The Japan auto export boom was soon to come. End of war- Japan and Germany set great standards for economic performance. Boom years of 50s and 60s were powered by cheap oil.

Europe- most competitive market in 50s and 60s. American companies were limited the amount of imported oil from Europe- had to find somewhere else to get oil.

Price wars/ Competition among suppliers: drove down gas prices. Gas stations advertized lower prices than other stations. Advertisements published. Gas additives.

Suburbs developed. Made car a necessity more than before. Shopping centers, motels, restaurants had opened, theatres, car shows. Became a drive-in society. First highway built in 1949- Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway Bill in ’56 for system.

Six-Day war: Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser wanted to have power again and ordered a blockade against Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba. Jordan, Arab military and Egypt military joined. June 5 war began- Israel defeated opponents after day 3. June 6- “oil weapon”- Arab oil ministers called for an oil embargo against countries friendly with Israel. June 7- no oil shipped to U.S. why cut off oil shipped to sources of revenues?

Flow of oil down to tankers and logistics: flow had to be reorganized. U.S. got oil from other embargoed countries. Development of super tankers. Arab countries calmed down; a month after it was clear that the Arab oil weapon and embargo was a failure.

Result of the Six-Day war: confirm how secure oil supply was, men continue to take petroleum for granted- oil was pervasive, readily available, defined and motivated his life- hardly thought about it. Economic advisor for the Coal Board, Schumacher said oil was finite and not be used excessively. Would not always be cheap, reserves will dwindle and warned about the dependency of the Middle East. No one took him seriously.

Sources for essay

Forgot to put some of my sources in the previous post...

Bloomberg News. “Oil supply to trail demand by 2030, study predicts.” The Boston Globe
19 July 2007. 22 Sept 2008 http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/07 /19/oil_supply_to_trail_by_demand_by_2030_study_predicts/.

Hurd, Dale. “Will America Face an Oil Crisis Soon?” CBN.com 22 Sept 2008
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/060411a.aspx.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). 2008. 22 Sept 2008.
http:///www/opec.org/aboutus/history/history.htm.

Essay Thesis/Outline on peak oil

I am doing my thesis paper on topic #3. This is just a start to the outline, and will be revised during the course of the assignment. I have many sources but to try to organize it, here’s a start.

Thesis statement:
History of oil crises and current events of oil prices fluctuating tell us that peak oil is upon the United States and over the globe. The impact of future crises on America will be long lasting. Americans are learning to preserve our recourses and will continue to, even after we overcome the next crises due to the need of prevention of the next crises.
Main points:

1.Intro/ Par. 1: History of oil production, what is peak oil, what experts are saying. What government and local actions are being done to maintain our well-being and keep our life-style.

2.4 Past oil crises of price increases in 1973 (Arab Oil Embargo), 1979 (Iranian Revolution), in 1986 and then fluctuated again in early 1990’s. Currently, since the start of war in Iraq in 2001, prices are continuing to fluctuate. Will there be another crises in the near future? Sources say that peak oil will happen within the next 10 years.

3.What America and Cleveland, OH have done to prevent peak oil; what actions/ programs have we maintained; how have we adjusted to the prices increasing and decreasing.

A.Car pooling, walking, biking, buses, work closer to home
B.The “going green” campaigns
C.Alternative gas recourses

4.Reasons for our dilemma. What we’ve learned from history of oil crises. What America/Cleveland need to do in the future to prevent peak oil

A.Recourses won’t last, there needs to be changes happening right now
B.We’ve learned to preserve our oil and not waste what we have

5.Impact of a future crises on the U.S.: Long lasting. The amount of life-style changes needing to be made and how long it will take the nation to overcome and get back to normal will take a while. Changes being made need to be permanent so supplies last.


Counter argument:
The changes that need to be made are too severe for the nation or globe to make. We will have to completely change how we get supplies/ oil and start over with something new.

Short Essay Idea: Gas Crises

For my first English short essay, I would like to write on topic #3. This topic discusses the current oil dilemma and will determine if “gas crises” will have a lasting or temp result on our nation’s habits.

It was hard for me to choose just one of the four topics because I want to learn about all of them. This one caught my attention and interest the most because I want to learn about the history of the few other “gas crises” in the past and what we can do to prevent another one. There are a number of questions the topic brings up. Such as whether the U.S. has learned from the crises, have we adjusted at all and learned from them, what government actions have we taken and local actions. What actions should our government and other nations take to prevent long term or even permanent problems from oil usage?

I want to see how my hometown, Cleveland, has handled the crises and what the city has done. I think it’ll be interesting to learn what my city can do to try to prevent long lasting results from the crises.

This topic brings up other points from the other three topics on the essay list. I want to know what we’re doing right now to prevent peak oil. If our country doesn’t do something quick, peak oil will happen in a few years and consequences will be harsh. We need come up with alternative ways of using oil in a more conservative way to preserve our supply. I think that relates to what we discussed in class about wasting oil in the past and us now over using it.

By researching and writing my thesis paper, I’ll get a chance to dig and find out this important history about our nation and other nations. I’ll also get to state what steps we can take to help our nation out.

There Will Be Blood

The film, ‘There Will Be Blood’ showed me visually and made great connections with the book, ‘The Prize.’

First thing that it shows me and connections with the book is that oil production was very dangerous in the 1880’s. The Prize told us it was dangerous and described explosions, injuries and fires occurred. Watching the film this week gave me a visual on how badly it really was. What sticks in my mind still was the scene when Daniel’s son was at the heart of the first burst of the derrick and he became deaf from the blow. The blow turned into oil bursting out and right after huge flames filled the Sunday ranch with fire and thick smoke. A scene just before that showed a man dying in the well from getting hit in the head. Even after the first man died, they still built more derricks to pump oil. It seemed like they didn’t care and they just continued to pump.

The film also displayed how serious people took oil production. The book describes buying, selling, dealing, hunting and transportation plans of land with oil. We still take it seriously, but for the business just getting started, I think they were going overboard. Businessmen lived for the drive, competition and the gain of power. I’m not sure what personality Eli is supposed to have, but he was greedy when he asked for $10,000 for his church when selling the ranch. The way he looked at Daniel all the time, he was only in it for the money….His character just bothered me.

I keep thinking about what was talked about in class today. We were described in the book and shown on the screen how men pumped more oil out of the ground than we knew what to day with it. With all the excess oil around, they just would dump it in a river or lake. Today, the U.S. doesn’t have enough oil and are fighting over it now oversees. This bothers me how we wasted all that oil.

Oil, Smoke and Mirrors

When I first started watching the film, “Oil, Smoke and Mirrors” I was a bit confused about what was being said to me. I soon figured out that the theme of the film was about peak oil and running out of oil in some time.  They talked about issues on why is the oil problem happening, world economy and the evidence that has caused these issues. The speakers were asked a question before each segment to further the topic discussion. Each speaker answered the question but took a little while to get there. Such as the first question: What evidence do we have on why peak oil is happening? All the speakers eventually narrowed it down to one event, which was 9/11. Many countries were running out of oil supply, including the U.S. Just when I was wanting to learn more about our oil problem and maybe how we could fix it, the film took a full turn and just talked about events on 9/11, how it happened, and why. They said that it was the U.S.’s fault and we made all this war up and did it to ourselves on purpose just so we could go to the Middle East and take their oil. My face was almost disgusted from that point on. At first I thought I was misinterpreting the film, until I discussed it with a couple people. The last question discussed was what lies ahead for us. There will need to be change and the American life is going to be over after peak oil.  The speakers discussed the U.S. becoming a dictatorship even. This leaves me to think how far ahead are they talking about? Scary to think about.