Daniel Fancher
Film Annotations-Fuel
Word count: 1169
1. Title, director and release year?
Fuel is a film directed by Joshua Tickell and released in 2008. The sub-heading
next to the title is “Change Your Fuel, Change the World”. The writer is Johnny O’Hara and
Joshua Tickell is the main character.
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main theme of this film is that “oil is the life-blood of society.” Now that it is
running out it is imperative to find an alternative so that society can continue on its path.
The film gives reasons why oil is bad focusing on foreign dependency and the health of
American citizens. It goes on to say that it will take everyone to bring lasting change.
People have the power to bring change individually. Bio diesel also has the ability to solve
the United States fuel problems without building new vehicles.
3. What sustainability issues does the film draw out?
The sustainable issues are nicely placed in the right parts of this film. The use of oil
is not sustainable because the world is running out. By focusing on how everyone is faced
with the same imminent problem, this film draws in a wider audience while making no
secret that the main character has strong environmental views. American carbon dioxide
emissions are shown to be almost half the world’s total car emissions. This provides
evidence that we are wasting more then we need to. Evidently Rudolf diesel originally
intended to give power to individuals by making fuel from agricultural products. The film
also teaches that people are part of nature not separate from it. Change is needed so that
the children of the future can grow up healthily.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
This is a well-done film in the way that it tries to explain the problem while remaining
positive. The fact that Josh Tickell has been working on this project for 11 years gives this
film credibility with its viewers. After a short history lesson on both oil and the main
character the film starts by providing a solution of sorts. This takes the form of the “VeggieVan” that Tickell drives across the country on used cooking oil from fast-food facilities. It
immediately makes the viewer ask himself or herself: why don’t we all do this?
Subtlety hinting that our choice of fuel may have led to the death of a lot of
Americans around 9/11 was a nice touch because of the strong feelings everyone has
about it. It shifts the blame of what happened and makes people question why things
happened the way they did. The blame is also shifted to oil companies as the film delves
into “cancer alley”. Children’s health is always a good argument for change. The film is
most compelling when talking about Tickell’s family. It gives the viewers people to relate to
and people to feel emotions for despite the broadness of the issue. Tickell’s mother had
nine miscarriages that were hinted to be from pollution from gas production.
Pointing out how much oil companies put into presidential campaigns was a good
way to turn people against industry. Showing how other countries are dealing with their
energy problems gives viewers an idea about what the United States should be doing. It is
encouraging that people of other countries pushed their governments and got results.
Probably the strongest case for new fuels like bio diesel is that it can be cheaper. People
always respond well to saving money.
The film gains more support as it continues by drawing in the emotions from
Hurricane Katrina. By showing what happened in the oil sector of Louisiana, people are
more inclined to be united against oil. Oil cost also drives up the price of food. The film
concludes with success stories that inspire hope for the future. It is comforting that so many
solutions are being recommended instead of just one.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
It’s hard to believe that one of the main reasons for prohibition was the creation of
an ethanol car especially when fuel grade ethanol is unfit for human consumption. This film
boldly states that the oil companies were behind prohibition to weed out competition. The
timing does fit, but it is still hard to believe. Even though prohibition was lifted right after the
ethanol cars were produced, it is still hard to believe that that was the true cause of
prohibition. The other part of the film that it was easy to be skeptical about was algae fuels.
It has to be asked whether these new algae fuels could have negative impacts on the
environment. This new algae grown in industry could become an invasive species in places
it’s never been seen before.
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.
Bio diesel is the main solution introduced. The film encourages the use of waste oils
and marginal crops so that its production does not interfere with the cost of food. According
to Josh, “The new generation of biofuel has to be made form our waste streams.” Jets can
also run on Biofuels. Not all of the fuel will be able to come from biofuels so other sources
are also discussed. Waste biomass from human processes is a potential source of fuel.
Megaflora is one of the main main biomass solutions. The megaflora also grows on
marginal land and leaches poisons out of the soil. Wind power, solar power, plugin hybrids,
public transportation, and using less energy are solutions also advocated by the film. All of
the solutions together are the real solution. Biodegradable bags are added as an after
thought.
7. What kinds of literacy are cultivated by the film?
One idea that the film provides is that new green energies can create new jobs. The
economy does not have to stagnate when greener technology is implemented. People also
need to remember that they all have the power to make a difference. When European’s
wanted green energy they got it because democratic government is a tool for individuals.
The idea that one solution will not be effective was also added at the end of the film along
with the idea that humans are not rulers of the earth; they are part of it.
8. What would improve the environmental educational value of the film?
The film could include more of big oils side of the story. To prevent
people from saying that the film is one-sided, they could give the oil
companies a chance to comment on what they are accused of. It would
give the film more credibility and keep viewers from jumping to the
conclusion that everyday events have been skewed to fit this particular
cause.
9. 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 learned that biomass is a more viable option then I had previously supposed. The use of
the megaflora in remote areas is intriguing. It only takes three years to grow the trees,
when they are cut they grow back from the stumps, they leach toxins out of the ground, and
they can be grown in areas that will not compete with food production. Megaflora will also
remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere helping to combat climate change. I’m
surprised we haven’t heard more about this “megaflora” in daily life. I’ve done research on
biomass as a viable solution before and didn’t find any information on this (it was probably
too long ago).