GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

TTiger · 08-14-2005, 04:22 PM

about the end of suburbia The intro featured some hilarous old technicolor footage from the late 40's and 50's showing idealized images of the suburban nuke'you'lar family, complete with the paternalistic voice-over, that film from those days often had.

Following much the same thread of his, "The Geography of Nowhere", Kunstler, narrates from the era of the first suburban estates of the 1870's, to the railroad suburbs of the next 40 years and then the 1920's when the economy takes off largely on a frenzy of suburban development rudely interrupted by The Great Depression and WWII. Then there's footage of workers putting up subdivisions like mad from the late 40's on.

Much like Kunstler's authorial discussion of the issue, the film does not touch on the social and racial issues that fueled white flight to the suburbs following the race riots in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Perhaps that would enlarge the scope of the movie beyond a manageable scale, but still I find it annoying how little mention the role of race gets.

The film also did not really delineate the way in which the 1970's oil shocks differ from the coming of Peak Oil (They were a matter of politics, Peak Oil is geology). But there was a mention that in 1979, the Carter administration issued a doctrine stating the U.S. had a strategic interest in maintaining access to Middle East oil and that it should use it's military power to control and protect the oil.

Unlike John Kerry, the film clearly conveys it position on the Iraq war. Ruppert in particular says "Did you think Dick Cheney was kidding when he said ""It is a war that will not end in our lifetime.""?. Afghanistan and Iraq were just the beginning. Another commentator says, "We would not be in Iraq if it had no oil." Heinberg says, "We are living in the age of the most powerful empire in the history of the world: oil". He then unveils the PNAC for what it is - a plan for military domination of the world's remaining oil reserves.

The film also does a good job of discussing the peaking of natural gas as well and it's vital role in electricity generation. They cover the northeast blackout of 2003. The official explanation was that it was caused by a branch falling on a power line. In reality, it occured on the first super hot day of what had been a mild summer, at 4:30 pm when industrial, commercial, and residential AC demand overlaps. Here the film isn't so optimistic about the ability of supply to meet the future energy demands of the hot/cold midwest and super hot sunbelt. People didn't seem to learn anything from the blackout, i.e. how dependent they are on energy.

Without getting bogged down in detail, the film does a good job of explaining Hubert's Peak and why it entails consequences occuring long before we run out of oil. Kunstler says "We have a railroad system that not even Bulgaria would be proud of." He explains that no amount of renewables will allow us to continue running what were running now, the way we're running it. Biodiesel, ethanol etc. are net energy losers. We rely on tons of chemicals to grow large crops of corn. The energy involved in growing the corn and then converting it to ethanol, far exceeds the energy we can extract from the ethanol. The film mentions how the interstate highway system has encouraged sprawl along it's entire perimeter and how much money it costs to maintain it in good service.

The film also touches on New Urbanism with footage of some examples of it. It makes it clear that people will have to live more locally in the future.

Summation: The passivity inherent to a documentary presents the information in a form that American attention spans can digest. If PBS doesn't start playing this movie soon, we can be sure it has been taken over by the neocons. In the words of Carl Sagan: "What are conservatives conserving?" Not the environment or its resources, that's for sure.

For anyone who has read this review and remains skeptical of the urgency of its message:
Ask yourself a question: Do you have a mortgage on a house in the mid-suburbs or beyond that is less than half paid off? If the answer is yes, then do you think the responsibility of owing several hundred thousand dollars more, might possibly be biasing you to tune out any info that conflicts with an - everthing in the future is going to be much like the past - attitude toward reality?

08-14-2005, 04:22 PM
TTiger Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: quebec, canada Posts: 3,030	about the end of suburbia The intro featured some hilarous old technicolor footage from the late 40's and 50's showing idealized images of the suburban nuke'you'lar family, complete with the paternalistic voice-over, that film from those days often had. Following much the same thread of his, "The Geography of Nowhere", Kunstler, narrates from the era of the first suburban estates of the 1870's, to the railroad suburbs of the next 40 years and then the 1920's when the economy takes off largely on a frenzy of suburban development rudely interrupted by The Great Depression and WWII. Then there's footage of workers putting up subdivisions like mad from the late 40's on. Much like Kunstler's authorial discussion of the issue, the film does not touch on the social and racial issues that fueled white flight to the suburbs following the race riots in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Perhaps that would enlarge the scope of the movie beyond a manageable scale, but still I find it annoying how little mention the role of race gets. The film also did not really delineate the way in which the 1970's oil shocks differ from the coming of Peak Oil (They were a matter of politics, Peak Oil is geology). But there was a mention that in 1979, the Carter administration issued a doctrine stating the U.S. had a strategic interest in maintaining access to Middle East oil and that it should use it's military power to control and protect the oil. Unlike John Kerry, the film clearly conveys it position on the Iraq war. Ruppert in particular says "Did you think Dick Cheney was kidding when he said ""It is a war that will not end in our lifetime.""?. Afghanistan and Iraq were just the beginning. Another commentator says, "We would not be in Iraq if it had no oil." Heinberg says, "We are living in the age of the most powerful empire in the history of the world: oil". He then unveils the PNAC for what it is - a plan for military domination of the world's remaining oil reserves. The film also does a good job of discussing the peaking of natural gas as well and it's vital role in electricity generation. They cover the northeast blackout of 2003. The official explanation was that it was caused by a branch falling on a power line. In reality, it occured on the first super hot day of what had been a mild summer, at 4:30 pm when industrial, commercial, and residential AC demand overlaps. Here the film isn't so optimistic about the ability of supply to meet the future energy demands of the hot/cold midwest and super hot sunbelt. People didn't seem to learn anything from the blackout, i.e. how dependent they are on energy. Without getting bogged down in detail, the film does a good job of explaining Hubert's Peak and why it entails consequences occuring long before we run out of oil. Kunstler says "We have a railroad system that not even Bulgaria would be proud of." He explains that no amount of renewables will allow us to continue running what were running now, the way we're running it. Biodiesel, ethanol etc. are net energy losers. We rely on tons of chemicals to grow large crops of corn. The energy involved in growing the corn and then converting it to ethanol, far exceeds the energy we can extract from the ethanol. The film mentions how the interstate highway system has encouraged sprawl along it's entire perimeter and how much money it costs to maintain it in good service. The film also touches on New Urbanism with footage of some examples of it. It makes it clear that people will have to live more locally in the future. Summation: The passivity inherent to a documentary presents the information in a form that American attention spans can digest. If PBS doesn't start playing this movie soon, we can be sure it has been taken over by the neocons. In the words of Carl Sagan: "What are conservatives conserving?" Not the environment or its resources, that's for sure. For anyone who has read this review and remains skeptical of the urgency of its message: Ask yourself a question: Do you have a mortgage on a house in the mid-suburbs or beyond that is less than half paid off? If the answer is yes, then do you think the responsibility of owing several hundred thousand dollars more, might possibly be biasing you to tune out any info that conflicts with an - everthing in the future is going to be much like the past - attitude toward reality?