Title: 6 Degrees Could Change The World
Director: Ron Bowman
Release year: 2008
Word Count: 995
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of this film is probably one of the most talked about topics in the environmental
field: global warming. Basically, this film tells the world that if we do not change the way we are living at
this moment, then we could see catastrophic changes. These catastrophic changes range from no
rainforests to seeing almost the entire world as a desert. Unfortunately, the film brings about the
potential dangers of how we live and the real time effect they will have; and the effects could arrive very
shortly. It begins by talking about how 1 degree Celsius could bring about basically an extreme version of
what we have today. At 2 degrees, glaciers begin to melt; 3 degrees would bring about an ice-less
summer for the Arctic, and so on. The film is very informational on what could happen at each degree
the world warms up by.
What environmental and political problems does the film draw out?
As you can imagine, the environmental problem this film brought about was the global warming crisis.
As previously stated, the film narrates what could happen at each degree Celsius that the earth warms
up by. It begins at 1 degree, and ends with 6 degrees. Environmentally, it highlights the things that the
world does today that contribute most to global warming such as emitting CO2 and other greenhouse
gases. Politically, it attacks the USA and criticizes everything we do. It tells us how we are the leading
contributor to global warming and essentially tells us that we could possibly decide the future of this
planet depending on what action we take to protect the world. The film points to the fact that our
country needs stricter regulations on how we produce our energy in order for our planet to remain
healthy.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The most compelling part of this film was how drastically the world could change and just how quickly
that change could happen. Between 1 and 2 degrees, we went from global warming to seeing some
glaciers disappear and small islands being washed away. To imagine that that is only 2 degrees away is
astonishing. At 3 degrees, the film tells us that we could possibly be looking at the Arctic having an iceless summer. Think about the beautiful, white tundra that we imagine when we see the Arctic in our
minds. In the summer, that imaginational Arctic is gone. By 4 degrees the film basically tells us that
there is no turning back, where we see the oceans rise drastically and most of what we know by the
ocean is gone. It’s just so surreal that this dangerous of a change is just 4 degrees away from happening.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
Even though the film did a great job of telling us the disasters of what each degree could mean to our
society, I was not convinced that they could narrow it down to exactly what would happen at each
degree. I’m sure there is some scientific reasoning behind it, but I just cannot grasp the fact that they
have pinpointed the exact disaster that we will see at each step we go further into global warming. Also,
the film kept telling us how awful each degree was, and then how at 4 degrees the world would see a
point of no return. After this point of no return, they go on to explain a 5th and 6th degree. At this point
in the film, I felt that they were just guessing and pretty much dragging it out. If there is no return after a
4th degree, why would it be necessary to go on and explain a 5th and 6th degree?
What kinds of corrective action are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective
action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
One of the major downfalls to this film was the fact that there was absolutely no corrective action
suggested to try and solve our global warming problem. The main thing the world needs to do is to cut
down on unnecessary energy consumption. Often times we see unused buildings and shopping markets
with their lights on overnight. For those companies that truly do not need those lights on, we should
have them shut them off. If they don’t need the lights, then shutting them off shouldn’t be a problem.
Also, bigger and more developed countries need to produce better gas efficient cars. There are still too
many cars on the road today that have awful gas mileage and require a fill up way too often. Being a
leading contributor to CO2 emissions, regulations on gas efficient cars should be mandatory.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Describe what you learned in a
couple of sentences, providing at least two supporting references).
This film made me curious on what exactly global warming could do and how we’ve contributed to it so
far. According to sources, we’ve made the earth’s surface temperature rise 0.8 °C, with about 67% of
this rise happening since 1980. Obviously, the recent boom of technology and energy has been a major
contributor to this stat. This is where the regulations on energy consumption should come into effect
and change the way we use our energy. Another source indicates that if global warming continues, the
economy of the northeast region of the Unites States could be greatly affected. With a lot of the
economy coming from fishing and other sea jobs, fishing is a great necessity to the economy. Global
warming threatens the fish in the northeast which could ultimately lead to a disaster for the northeast
economy.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming