Jane Edgington
Wynne Hedlesky
Environment and Politics
11 November 2014
Word Count: 1025
1. Title, director and release year?
Garbage Warrior was directed by Oliver Hodge and released in 2007.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The central argument of the film is that the United States, both our government and
our society, should embrace completely sustainable housing. Architecture, as the
documentary’s protagonist preaches, should be planned around the needs of the
person. This is exactly what Michael Reynolds’ architecture is founded upon: the
needs of the average dweller, such as food, electricity, water, and heating. The film
argues not only for the practicality of Reynold’s work, but the necessity of the
government’s embrace of sustainable housing.
3. What environmental and political problems does the film draw out?
This film addresses the very serious problem of climate change that the planet is
currently facing and highlights the lack of significant action by the United States to
decrease our nation’s carbon footprint. The film also brings up the issue of waste
and presents a solution for this issue through the use of waste in the building of
sustainable housing. Reynold’s housing, for example, reuses traditional waste such
as plastic bottles and tires as building supplies for his “earthships.” These
“earthships” are not only built sustainably, but these houses can completely sustain
the inhabitant; the houses provide heat, cooling, water, electricity, and food. I also
found that this film especially drew out political problems with the United States
government. The film illustrated the painfully slow and nearly impossible task of
getting a bill to pass in a state congress. The extreme inefficiency of the government
was difficult to witness in this film, and the stubborn slowness of our government
made me cringe as I watched Reynolds continue to struggle with the state legislators
and politicians. As an interviewee in the film aptly put it, “the American government
is a dinosaur that just won’t make it.” We, as citizens, will probably not be able to
rely on the government to properly deal with the urgent threat of climate change in
a timely fashion.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I felt very compelled when Reynolds spoke about the “freedom” he acquired upon
finishing his own “earthship”; the house provided everything he needed in order to
survive, and Reynolds therefore did not rely on anything outside of his house. In
today’s world, where we are all so dependent on one another and the systems of our
society, this concept of complete independence and self-sustainability is a unique
and powerful idea. I was also very moved by the footage of Reynolds helping the
disaster-stricken communities of Thailand and Mexico; it was incredible to see how
Reynold’s building plans were so openly and gratefully received by the
communities. Reynold’s housing project for the tsunami survivors brought the
entire community together; in the midst of the destruction and tragedy from the
tsunami the building plans brought the community an astonishing sense of hope,
togetherness, and forward thinking.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not compelled by section of the film that highlighted the lives and stories of
Reynold’s construction crewmembers. While their stories were very intriguing and
interesting, even Reynold’s wife referred to them as “freaks.” I believe that the film
characterized the crewmembers too much as “hippies” or members of a sub culture,
and environmentalists are already stereotyped as precisely that. I believe that many
Americans who are not very informed about the environmental movement are
turned off by environmentalists and do not take them seriously simply because they
come off as “hippies,” alternative, or anti-government.
6. 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.
The film strongly suggests a change in our system of government. To put it in the
words of a speaker from the film, “American government is a dinosaur that won’t
make it.” The film effectively illustrates the extreme inefficiency and slowness of the
American government in our contrastingly very fast-moving and advanced modern
age. The film hints at the necessity of improving our government’s law making
system by somehow making it more accessible and speedy for the average
American. The film also suggests that our country’s current housing industry is
completely unsustainable and our nation must therefore start using sustainable
housing methods, such as those used by Reynolds, if we plan on inhabiting this
planet for at least another couple hundred years.
7. 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).
I was compelled to learn more about earthships and their inner-workings; I am
fascinated with the systems that allow for the sustainability of these buildings. As
Earthship.com explains, the sewage system within an earthship is extremely
different from that of a traditional house. Earthships receive their water supply
from precipitation. After collected, the precipitation is then filtered and ready for
use. After used, this “gray water” is then used to flush the toilets (which are
designed to flush using a fraction of water that traditional toilets use), and the
sewage from the toilets is then used to water and fertilize the earthship’s gardens. I
also was compelled to look at some of the possible issues associated with
earthships. According to the Earthship Pros and Cons article on Archinia.com, there
could potentially be serious issues with building a house out of tires. Tires, as they
naturally degrade, emit toxic gases that can actually make inhabitants of earthships
sick. Encasing these tires with plaster may temporarily block the toxic gas, but the
gas will eventually and inevitably find its way into invisible pockets, making it very
likely that this gas will then leak into the interior of the earthship. So while
earthships may be very cool in theory, there are still some issues that must be
addressed to guarantee their safety for inhabitants. This, as Reynolds would argue,
can be accomplished through government support of sustainable housing testing
and experimentation.