Ahead of Sunday 16th’s showing of “Do the Math,” MCFly reader Nicola Brennan, who went to an earlier screening, tells us what she thought…
1. Is the film exciting?
I would say exciting isn’t the right word, though stimulating as it reiterates the issues fuel consumption being driven by rich lobbying companies who are drawing investment away from the rational sustainable alternatives. It creates a positive spin on the efforts of ‘Divestment’ the 350.org movement which shows increasing passion and the call to action. As as emotional call to action showing the size and diversity of campaigners increased however, the excitement for mathematicians was not sustained as the story was not followed up by ‘exciting’ measureable aim for success to reach the sustainable 350g.
2. Does it explain the issues clearly/would you recommend it for your non-climate-aware friends to watch?
I would recommend it to friends who are not climate aware as the film provides a great introduction into the maths in a simple and attractive way with clear visuals alongside figures. The film also clearly separates the issue of money and green energy alternatives separately in terms of a rational investment for wealthy companies.
3.What interesting questions (and answers!) are brought up?
Especially from an American perspective the film offered an interesting point of view of fossil fuel companies as ‘rouge’ and ‘radical’ due to their insistence on putting millions of pounds into searching for more and more sources to burn away the destroy everything instead of long term sustainable and successful alternatives to not only sustain their business for future generations but the earth and civilisation as we know it.
The big question the film put forward was are you investing in unclean energy? This question was put to churches, colleges and universities in the documentary leaving the viewers to derive at the question of where we as individuals are investing our money in our banks and pensions, and how can we insure we are not investing in unclean energy? Who should we lobby? …
Following the film showing views highlighted that those in fuel poverty were not considered, and how certain areas and communities will be affected changes if energy alternatives take place, especially those who live and rely on energy in areas of extreme climate. Furthermore whilst the documentary did a great job of describing the maths of the problem it did not follow this up in the second half of the film. Thus the calculations on how we will get from the current 400parts per million of C02 to the estimated 350 parts per million which is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.