For sisters Nadia Conners and Leila Conners-Petersen, the last possible moment for environmental protection and conservation, The 11th Hour, has come upon us. But unlike other cut-and-dry environmental docs that engulf the viewer with consumerist guilt, this film—distributed through Warner Brothers and narrated by its producer Leonardo DiCaprio—provides a much-needed dose of pragmatic optimism. Through a combination of fierce facts, vibrant visuals, and words of wisdom from 54 top thinkers and activists–ranging from physicist Stephen Hawking to Ecology of Commerce writer Paul Hawken–one will not only leave the theater with a better glimpse of how humanity has managed to screw itself over, but also see why it’s not too late for us to reduce our ecological footprints.
In an interview in San Francisco the week before the film hit theaters, the sisters shared their insight into the film’s fast-paced structure, explained what it means to “be green,” and proved the media’s responsibility to faithfully represent it. Both women are minor veterans of the enviro-media scene: Conners-Petersen is the founder and president of the Tree Media Group, served as an associate editor at New Perspectives Quarterly and now is executive editor at Global Viewpoint, which focuses on international politics and social issues. Both co-directed, wrote and produced two previous environmental short films, “Global Warming” and “Water Planet,” with DiCaprio.
City on a Hill Press: Was there a way that you went about weaving the issues and the interviewees together, to put certain issues before others?
Nadia Conners: Yes, because it’s a story. The beginning is the thesis. It’s a visual montage. This is the reality of the world that we’re not looking at. And in the midst of that is this baby trying to be born. That is in essence, what the whole film is about: the intersection of man and the planet, and our survivability in the planet that we are taking apart bit by bit, right now.
CHP: In the movie was there a single most-important environmental issue, or was the point that there is no single-largest environmental issue?
Leila Conners Peterson: I think the largest issue is that we’re using too many resources. The use of fossil fuels has amplified our ability to use up the world. We need to reverse that; we need to go from ancient sunlight to current sunlight, and once you do that, everything changes. Climate change, soil erosion–all of these things are huge problems that are coming at us at the same time.
NC: When Leo’s on camera, he says it’s a convergence of crisis. It’s all of it together that’s making it a tipping point. And all of it, including our behavior. It’s one giant problem.
It’s daunting, but taking it piece by piece we can figure it out.
LCP: That’s what’s interesting too–every single problem we mention in the film [has] a solution. It’s very different than making a film about AIDS. There is no cure for AIDS. But we’re actually dealing with a problem [that] we know how to fix. That’s tremendously exciting. There’s not a lot of problems of this scale that we have solutions for. So we really want to ask the question of ourselves, as a culture, why aren’t we doing this?
NC: It’s like you’re sick with a disease and there’s a known cure, and the medicine’s right there, and you look at it and you’re going, “I’m not taking it.” Why? “‘Cause I’m not sick”–and you’re on fire. [Laughs]
LCP: And something’s burning down and water’s right there and you’re like, “I don’t want to put water on that fire.”
CHP: What do you think is preventing these “sick people” from taking action?
LCP: It’s hard. It’s called denial on one level and it’s sometimes just not knowing. It’s being diverted. There’s a lot of white noise in our culture, so you’re not really getting the information you need.
It’s a combination of disconnect, denial and laziness. It’s not that you’re trying to avoid these things; it’s that your life is so complicated and there’s so much going on that you’re not able to focus. And this is what this [film] is about: “Hey, let’s focus on this [issue] because we have the ability to focus.”
CHP: Was there a specific group that the film was targeted to?
NC: I like to say that it’s targeted to anyone living today, anyone who’s alive on the planet right now, this is for them because everybody can do something.
On some level, it really is a film for America because we are behind in the dialogue. I mean, the film is for everyone in the world, but in America we really need to kick up the level of our dialogue.
CHP: I was reading a recent Gallup Poll on how they rank the level of environmental protection in the country, and only 40 percent said they approved of the government’s efforts in environmental protection.
LCP: I’m surprised they actually know what kind of environmental protection is happening. [Laughs]
CHP: I believe the highest in the world was in Australia where the rate was at 71 percent. So I’m wondering what you think governments can be doing in terms of monitoring water and air quality, and other environmental issues of public concern.
LCP: Government’s a huge part of this, but if federal governments aren’t doing this, then local and regional governments should start. There are lots of layers in this country, and of course it would be great if the federal government got on the program here and decided to monitor and protect our natural resources. If it’s not happening, local governments should do it and make demands.
[And] if they’re not going to do it, we can do it ourselves.
CHP: Through grassroots activism?
LCP: Well, yeah, but also through local governments. Look at what’s happening in San Francisco–the mayor just outlawed [plastic bags] and he’s going after tap water and that’s fantastic. He’s a leader. And other mayors are going to look at that and go, okay, great. If every municipality in the country takes that lead, the federal government won’t miss out on that one.
CHP: Can you comment on one innovation in the film, and explain why you thought it was particularly effective, and how you can see it reaching out on a broader scale?
NC: Not to avoid the question, but I think it’s a diversity in innovations. We often look for that silver bullet–or that one thing that’s going to apply to everything–but [environmental analyst] Lester Brown talks about a diversification of all things. We need to diversify our transportation system. It’s not just about eliminating a certain type of car. It’s about having certain cars for certain types of things. Much better light rail, much better train transport. You have to, across the board, implement multiple things. Even the way you green a building–there isn’t one single way that works for every building, everywhere. You have to take your context into account.
It’s about looking at where you are, and what works best there, and how to do it in the most environmentally conscious way. Leila, I’m sure you have one example of the best green solution...
LCP: Well, I think biomimicry. I encourage readers to find out what it means, look it up on Google, and check out what people are doing there because it’s fascinating; it’s so inspiring.
CHP: One thing that stood out to me in the movie was the building that operated like a plant, using photosynthesis...
NC: Yeah, and then you have a city operating like a forest. If every building rid itself of its own waste, like sewage, there’d be no more sewage systems, which would mean there’d be no more sewage treatment plants, which would mean there’d be no more sewage spilling out into the ocean. I mean, it’s very hopeful with biomimicry.
CHP: You’ve mentioned that the media can misrepresent or underrepresent some environmental issues. How do you feel this has happened in the past, and how do you feel it’s changing, or has the potential to change?
LCP: The earth is your only home, and every life support system that supports our form of life is in decline, and that’s really not known to people. But most people know why Paris Hilton went to jail.
The milennial ecosystem assessment report, which was this multi-year study of thousands of scientists working, slaving away and looking at every ecosystem in the world, found that [Earth’s life support system] is declining.
And at the same time the whole Terry Schiavo case was happening.
Basically the life of one woman was more important [in the media] than the life support system of every human on the planet. It was given priority. Not that you shouldn’t cover that story, but the point is that the press hasn’t brought this issue to the level it needs to be at. It needs to be headline news every single day. This is the challenge of our time, and people need to understand it.
It doesn’t have to be terrifying news; it just has to be new news and it has to be treated globally. And I think what’s happened, especially with An Inconvenient Truth and [Hurricane] Katrina, is [that] these issues are coming up.
What this film does—which no one has done yet in the mass media—is [take] that holistic approach. It’s showing how this all links together:why consumerism impacts what’s going on, why—through the way humans are built genetically—we are challenged by our own biology. Really understanding what we’re up against and what we need to do.
NC: This isn’t a single article issue; this is something that has to be covered every single day. And I think that there are real risks that need to be taken in how we talk about it because it is going to call into question some of the main ideologies of our time. Like endless growth capitalism and consumption at all costs. These are things that are very tricky to start dealing with in the mainstream media.
