Movie Time: The Age of Stupid

[biffvernon]

What's this got to do with Period Property? Well, if we don't look after our survival chances on this planet we won't be able to look after our old buildings.
Anyway a friend of mine is involved in the making of this film and I happen to think the message is coincident with what we are about. Here's your invitation:

Roll out the green carpet: welcome to THE PEOPLE’S PREMIERE

Your average run-of-the-mill film premiere is a glitzy affair which is predicated on the idea that it’s exclusive – only the stars are allowed in.

But The Age of Stupid is not your average run-of-the-mill film. It was financed by hundreds of different groups and individuals using our cunning crowd-funding model, and in many ways, we all star in it (we’re the self-destructive anti-heroes who are emitting all the greenhouse gases).

So in light of this, we’re hosting the world’s first INclusive premiere instead – the People’s Premiere.

Put this date in your diary right now, because this is the night we’ll be making film history:

15th March 2009.

This eye-wateringly cutting-edge film extravaganza will feature a simultaneous launch at 70 different cinemas across the nation, from Plymouth to Inverness, with a solar-powered cinema tent pitched in Leicester Square as the jewel in the crown. We're now expecting so many people - circa 16,000 (!) - that the Guinness Book of Records looks like it's about to confirm The Age of Stupid as the largest ever film premiere in history.

FOR THE FULL LIST OF ALL 70 PARTICIPATING CINEMAS, AND TO BOOK TICKETS, SEE:
http://www.ageofstupid.net/premiere

The People’s Premiere will also be the world’s first truly, 100% eco-friendly film premiere, with a mind-boggling array of genuinely green measures – not greenwash – to make sure we emit sod-all in the process:

o full eco audit of emissions from the event
o solar powered projector
o gas lighting, generated from London landfill sites and Royal Guards horse poop collected by volunteers
o heating from stoves burning discarded free London papers made into logs by volunteers
o Pete Postlethwaite will arrive in an experimental solar powered car
o bicycle rickshaws and electric vehicles for other celebs, charged from renewable energy sources
o biodiesel for other vehicles, made from recycled cooking oil collected by volunteers from friendly local chip shops
o organic chocolate, beer and soft drinks
o no bottled water, disposable cups or other crap like that
o no flying! and no offsetting. offsetting is palpable nonsense


CHECK OUT OUR FULL ECO CREDENTIALS HERE:
http://www.ageofstupid.net/peoples_premiere_ecocredentials

The live event at Leicester Square will be beamed to all 70 participating cinemas - and to news crews - via satellite link (as well as streamed live to the Stupid website), and will include a Q&A with Director Franny Armstrong; stars of the film, Pete Postlethwaite and Piers Guy; climate change expert Mark Lynas; and the Director of Stop Climate Chaos, Ashok Sinha.

Meanwhile, the founder of the Transition Town movement, Rob Hopkins, will introduce the Eden Project Premiere, while the Fulham Vue cinema is hosting a special Youth Premiere for under-18s, organised by WeCAN, with teenage speakers and action packs to take away. No unaccompanied adults allowed!

The climax of the evening will be the official launch of the Not Stupid campaign, when Pete Postlethwaite will start a giant countdown marking the remaining days, hours & minutes until the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December. Copenhagen is being called “the most important meeting in human history” as it is where the successor to the Kyoto Treaty must be finalised. Not Stupid is an epic mission to turn 250 million viewers into climate activists, all focused on making sure the deal agreed at Copenhagen is both just and truly as strong as the science demands. Not Stupid is supported by all the key climate NGOs, including Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, WWF and Stop Climate Chaos.

(It all sounds a bit far-fetched doesn’t it? We can scarcely believe it ourselves. But the UK Film Council have loaned us £100,000 to make it all happen, so there's no backing out now. Gulp.)

 

[skier-hughes]

o full eco audit of emissions from the event

They are going to question each attendee and ask how they travelled, from where, with what, using what fuel?
16,000 questionaires aren't going to be cheap to produce and audit.

I wonder how they travelled to;
FILMED ON LOCATION IN
America, UK, India, Nigeria, Iraq, Jordan, The Alps


The trailers look interesting I'll certainly be wathing it.

 

[Schoolmarm]

I wonder how they travelled to;
FILMED ON LOCATION IN
America, UK, India, Nigeria, Iraq, Jordan, The Alps

..........................perhaps, wonder of wonders, somebody filmed it in those countries who lived there! Gasp! and sent the footage to the UK!!!

 

[biffvernon]

Knowing a little bit about the shoestring that provided this film's budget, I think Schoolmarm's common sense trumps Skier's cynicism.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, they made 48 flights for something:

48 flights, 124,000 miles 68,100 Kg Co2
2 helicopter flights, 105 minutes 735 Kg Co2
http://www.ageofstupid.net/carbon_footprint

Another interesting statistic from their carbon footprint page is that the project's total CO2 emissions (94,270 Kg) is equivalent to "91 people living sustainably for 1 year". That's an interesting definition of sustainable living - I thought it meant zero-carbon emissions.

 

[biffvernon]

Another one missing the point. This is The Age of Stupid.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Equivalent to
8 British people for 1 year

or.............185 gas patio-heaters for one month!!!!!!!!!!




:roll:

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, I read the "8 British people for 1 year" and all the other examples:

Equivalent to

* 8 British people for 1 year
* 4 American people for 1 year
* 1000 Tanzanians people for 1 year
* 91 people living sustainably for 1 year
* 1 of Piers’ big turbines for 6 days
* Recycling 910,000 bottles
* 15 British homes for 1 year
* 18 American cars for 1 year
* 185 gas patio-heaters for one month

They all made sense except the "91 people living sustainably for 1 year".

An explanation would be more helpful than sarcasm.

 

[biffvernon]

No. Just be careful not to see the film. It might disturb your cosy paradigm.

 

[Flyfisher]

Refusing to explain things seems an odd way to reinforce 'the message'. I thought the whole point of such films and publicity was precisely to disturb people's cosy paradigms and engender a change of behaviour. Otherwise, what's the point?

According to their statement, 91 people living sustainably for one year will have a carbon footprint equivalent to 94,270 Kg of CO2, or 1036kg CO2 per person. So this is the target for sustainable living now?

New Scientist review here: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/01/the-age-of-stupid.html (with film trailer)

Lovelock's advice? "Enjoy life while you can": http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

 

[biffvernon]

What's the point? Hmmm. I don't really know.

 

[skier-hughes]

Surely the point is to persuade the waverers, those who understand that something is happening, but are unsure how what little they may be able to do on their own will help all in the long(short) term. I suspect those that are unbelievers are not going to be swayed by such films.

I don't understand why people have to fly loads of people across continents to have meetings that tell people that flying on holiday is bad for the earth.

Same as the film, it's here to tell us what's going to happen if we continue to live our lives as we are, but in doing so, they've taken more flights than I may take in my life, I've now taken 21. Then they preach a message of how green the launch is going to be.

As a guy who thinks things are happening, but unsure if it's just down to humans, so I'm more on your side than against, and I plant trees and grow my own food, cycle much more than I used to etc, I'm afraid that sort of statement just irks me.

If they'd done as schoolmarm said and filmed everything locally, transmitted it via the web, worked on it in one place and then had their INclusive launch as a web video at a set time, I'd be applauding every move.

Graham

 

[biffvernon]

Whether or not a film maker flew somewhere is just utterly irrelevant. Not worth discussing.

This is from the editorial of this week's New Scientist:

DESPITE the numerous warnings about extreme weather, rising sea levels and mass extinctions, one message seems to have got lost in the debate about the impact of climate change. A warmer world won't just be inconvenient. Huge swathes of it, including most of Europe, the US and Australia as well as all of Africa and China will actually be uninhabitable - too hot, dry or stormy to sustain a human population.

This is no mirage. It could materialise if the world warms by an average of just 4 °C, which some scientists fear could happen as soon as 2050. This is the world our children and grandchildren are going to have to live in. So what are we going to do about it?

So, what are we going to do about it?

 

[JoceAndChris]

So, what are we going to do about it?

Well, Biff, I'm going to grow my own if I can, cycle and recycle, restore my old cottage, and watch in horror as the world burns. Which I suspect is the perspective of many on this forum.

Sadly I won't be able to come to see this interesting production as I don't drive and there is no public transport to bring me back to this lonely spot up a dirt track.

 

[Flyfisher]

Good question, and one for which I've not seen any practical answer.

Sure, there are piecemeal ideas and suggestions about reducing our energy consumption, building more renewable generation capacity and all that stuff - which seem to be pie-in-the-sky utopian ideals - but, as far as I can tell, there is no 'grand plan', which I would have expected in the face of a global catastrophe that could be only 40 years away. Or if there is such a plan, it's well hidden away and not exactly 'front-page' news is it? The current concern of world governments seems to be getting their respective economies back into full swing and year-on-year industrial expansion. I'm not really sure how that will help.

So, I'm afraid I find myself in the Lovelock camp of believing it's all too late to do very much about it, especially when population control and nuclear power appear to be taboo subjects.

What do you think we're going to do about it Biff?

 

[skier-hughes]

Whether or not a film maker flew somewhere is just utterly irrelevant. Not worth discussing.

I just don't understand this, if this is so irrelavant then so is the film and so are the rest of the arguements against doing something to help combat global warming, so as Fly says we may as well live our lives to enjoy pourselves and not worry, because if a guy who's telling us global disaster is only a few years away can fly happily aorund the world enjoying himself, I might as well do it also.........

 

[Stephen]

I recently spoke in Brussells at one of the events as part of the EU Sustainability week. The keynote speaker made the interesting point that the construction industry emits significantly more CO2 than flying. I do not have hard statistics, but if true this leads to some interesting issues.

The construction work to expand Heathrow and Stansted could emit more CO2 than the flights of the aircraft the expansions are to cater for - and yet campaigners focus on the flights only.

The government have targets for housebuilding on a major scale and until 2016 there is only token approach (generally) to zero or low carbon technology. However, even if you consider many of the typical zero or low carbon houses being discussed they still involve major amounts of CO2 emission in the construction phase.

Every wind turbine needs a major amount of concrete under it to stop it being blown over. As most turbines have a life of 25 years has anyone compared the CO2 emissions in construction with the savings the turbine makes during its working life - is there a positive or negative balance?

Many measures to improve energy efficiency (and therefore reduce carbon emissions) involve use of new materials and therefore some carbon emissions in production and installation. We rarely take account of the carbon in manufacture and installation and in some instances less carbon would be used by leaving alone than by 'improving' (plastic double glazed windows being a specific case).

Many of the carbon reduction measures being discussed are usually the easy wins and quick fixes that in reality have little real impact. If we are to make a major change we need to revert to low carbon approach on a much wider scale in many industries. For example tell the construction industry to revert to lime mortar and local sourcing of construction materials for all domestic development.

Another major issue is that the works being undertaken to reduce carbon emissions often involve use of resources. Some equate sustainability only with energy efficiency, but if sustainability means leaving a world suitable for future generations we need to look at how we use what resources are left in case we save the world from global warming to find a world with no resources for life to continue.

I do not have answers, merely questions. I am concerned (partly from meetings I have had professionally, but also from the news) that politicians and governments are only interested in measures that look good and provide a quick solution rather than tackling the things that would really make a difference.

There are serious concerns here and serious issues that need to be considered. Our interest here, in historic buildings, could be a part of the answer as historic building technology is by its nature a far lower carbon industry than modern construction.

Just a few thoughts on a Friday tea-time to throw in the ring!

Stephen

 

[skier-hughes]

Some very good thoughts Stephen, another one, why is an electric car zero emmisions and dirt cheap for RFL, when it could be coal that is powering it?

 

[JoceAndChris]

Some very good thoughts Stephen, another one, why is an electric car zero emmisions and dirt cheap for RFL, when it could be coal that is powering it?

It's all grist to the mill of Lovelock's argument. Sorry to be so negative, but most humans live a life that is half as useful as my cat's. It's high time there was a drastic population cull and whoever remains can reassess how to live.

We are like the Roman Empire before the fall. So cheers!

 

[biffvernon]

Stephen, you're right about the building industry being far more significant that air travel. For all it's publicity, air travel is a pretty small contributer of CO2. Worry about the concrete before the aviation fuel.

But don't worry about the windturbines. A typical large turbine will have become carbon neutral within about nine months of operation.