Reflection Blog: Being a Blogger Isn't So Bad

Being a Blogger Isn’t so Bad


Looking back through my blog posts and comments I see a drastic change in my engagement and interest in the blogging process. The first blog was short and I wasn’t very interested in the topic or blogging. As the blogs became more based on the readings I notice that I’m much more interested in writing about my feelings and reactions to the the book. In the beginning my comments were short and didn’t have much content to them but the later comments actually reflected what that person’s blog included and what I thought about it.
There are one or two blogs that are weak because I lacked interest in the topic of this posts but for the majority I usually wrote a detailed blog about my position on some issue. I think my strongest blogs were the ones that I was most interested in. These include the readings on Lost Mountain, the films, and the readings for Food Inc. I think I was so intrigued by these topics because it was a new area for me that I hadn’t knew a great deal about. The things we read were often disturbing and heart-breaking and I think that’s why I had such a strong reaction towards them when writing my blogs. These blogs were longer than many of my other posts because it is hard for me to stop when I’m trying to describe how I feel about something that really sucks and my anger shows in a lot of these posts. I don’t think I’m a negative person but when something really bothers me I really want to express that the best way I can.
I think it was easiest for me to blog when we weren’t given questions to answer or had to write something specific. I liked to “free” write and give my opinions on what had just read and my reflection of those readings. It was hard when we had to post our outlines because I wasn’t exactly sure where to begin. It was really nice being able to look at other students’ blogs to see how they were getting started. Those were my longest and most annoying posts I think but having to do that really prepared me for our assignments.
Many of the comments on my blogs shared similar points of views and often just there because we were told to comment. I do think that commenting on other students’ blogs allowed us to review what we had written and given us something to compare our work with. I actually enjoyed receiving comments, it was kind of exciting to see what others thought of my blog. There wasn’t much negativity in any comments and I think that people’s comments were either constructive or gave another point of view on what I was writing about. It was an interesting tool used for learning but I think that it was helpful in giving us the opportunity to speak our minds and give our opinions on others’ opinions.
I also liked how we could read the other class’s blog posts because it expanded the range of perspectives we can see and it’s also interesting to read and comment on others’ blogs when you don’t even know who they are. That sort of anonymity brought a little more comfort knowing that there are so many blogs to read and compare with that no one will feel like they are being put on the spot with only a few students reading their posts.
When writing my blogs I imagined both the professor and my class peers reading over it and at first this made me a little uncomfortable. I got used to it and began to enjoy reflecting on our classwork in this way instead of quizzes. It was an easy and different way of learning and improving our writing skills. Knowing that others would be reading my posts made me a little more motivated to write something that really meant something instead of just writing it with no care. Even though I shouldn’t care what others think, it still went through my mind that I would be critiqued on my work by my peers. It wasn’t as painful of an experience as I had expected and I actually ended up enjoying that aspect of class.
Overall, the blogs were really helpful with increasing my understanding of the material. Getting a chance to review my classmates’ work was nice to have different ideas and perspectives on things that I never would have thought of otherwise. It’s interesting how different and out-spoken people can be when writing and I’m sort of one of those people who is sometimes better at writing out how I feel rather than saying it in person.

argument draft

Greenwashing is a technique used by companies that presents an environmentally-responsible image to the public without actually making environmentally-responsible changes in their production. As our global warming situation worsens, the right thing to do seems to be to go green. Simple changes in our consumption can add up, especially if we are consuming products that we are deceived into believing are green. It’s important for companies to change their production processes because our society relies on them to meet our needs and if they don’t go green they face losing costumers and more importantly, losing money. Greenwashing is used as a public relations technique and causes a great deal of confusion among consumers. The problem exists when companies are more concerned about their public image than their carbon footprint. Companies spend millions or billions of dollars on advertising their new green revisions when that money could be going towards helping the environment elsewhere. There are loopholes in almost every guideline and regulation regarding what companies can and cannot do and it’s difficult for those in charge to prosecute such powerful companies. We aren't going to get very far if consumers are being lied to and don't know which product is actually recycled, sustainable, and eco-friendly. If people knew how often they are being lied to and misled by large corporations they probably wouldn't be so supportive of their products.There are alternative options to every product and it's important as consumers to understand the origins and processes of what we buy and consume and how it can affect the environment, global warming, and our bodies.

Going green is a positive and easy way to get into the habit of thinking about the environment and what effects our actions can have. The companies that are actually “greening” themselves are making changes to be “more environmentally-friendly, to reduce pollution, to improve renewable and non-renewable resource-use efficiency, and to conduct an activity in a sustainable manner” (Greening of Agriculture). Companies that claim to have made such changes but haven’t actually done any greening are guilty of greenwashing.

There are several factors that affect how we consume, one of the most important being the media. Advertisements are created with the consumers’ desires in mind. These companies know what to say and how to get around the loopholes in order for consumers to support their products. The media gives us access to a huge amount of information and public relations companies use misleading and ambiguous information that usually contradicts scientific consensus to raise consumer doubts and prevents public awareness and action (Holcomb). It’s also common for corporate polluters to use ads that promote an eco-friendly image to sell their products or to “rehabilitate an image after being the subject of controversy” (Holcomb). It’s difficult for consumers to have confidence in the products they purchase because of all the inconsistent information. Every area of consumption is claiming to have gone green and in each area there are those who have truly changed their productions and those who just want that green image and support.

The idea of going green has expanded into the food industry and small steps can be taken towards helping the environment by supporting local, organic foods. When you think of organic you think of something natural and chemical-free. The benefits of growing and buying organic products include: reducing the harmful toxins in the soil, air, and food, reducing farm pollution, building healthier soil, and promoting biodiversity (organic.org). Aside from the ecological benefits, organic products have become a huge financial advantage for the companies that provide them. The issue is not that organic products are usually more expensive than non-organic food, rather, the concern is that more companies are claiming to be organic or using misleading descriptions such as “natural,” when their products are the same as they were before they added the new green labels and packaging.

Several complaints and concerns have been raised about the USDA organic guidelines and the numerous ways companies are finding to get around those guidelines, yet still able to use the USDA organic label on their products. According to Terrachoice Environmental Marketing group’s 2009 Greenwashing Report, “98% of green-labeled goods were found guilty of greenwashing” (www.blog.buzzflash.com). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible to enforce the laws and consequences of misleading advertisements and complaints should be sent to them, but according the Greenpeace, “the FTC has not taken action against any greenwash ads since 2000” (stopgreenwash.org). The USDA guidelines state that the organic product can contain 5% of non-organic substances. These non-organic ingredients must be approved by the National Organic Standards Board. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Agriculture decided that the synthetic ingredients found in organic baby formula, DHA and ARA, violated the federal standards and stated that such formulas should not be allowed to have the certified organic label. Even so, it is estimated that these same synthetic additives are still present in 90 percent of baby formulas today (treehugger.com). Places such as Whole Foods, which sells only organic foods, are also being criticized for their touches of greenwashing. The supermarket encourages consumers to shop at Whole Foods because it saves energy and supports the “small farmer”, yet only “five or six big California farms dominate the whole industry” (slate.com). Whole Foods also ships a large amount of their products from all over of the world, using airplanes and other modes of transportation that emit greenhouse gases. The organic food sector initially encouraged individual production and supporting local food systems but it has quickly started to become a part of the global, industrialized food system.

Many of the cosmetic companies use greenwashing by using terms like “natural” ingredients or “pure minerals” while not explaining what these vague terms actually imply. The criticism comes in first by blaming the loose and unclear guidelines of the public health laws. A big problem is that everyone comes in contact with cosmetic products daily. Whether it is eyeliner and blush, or shampoo and deodorant, we all have a way of keeping up with our own personal hygiene. As consumers, if we see that something is organic, or all-natural, we assume that it must be safe. A huge worry that draws even further criticism comes from the fact that these products are not required to be tested before putting them out on the market. There are no safety measures taken to ensure the product has no side effects; “Nearly 90 percent of the 10,5000 ingredients FDA has determined are used in personal care products have not been evaluated for safety by the CIR, the FDA, or any other publicly accountable institution” (cosmeticsdatabase.com). There have been several studies conducted to measure the effects of personal care products that seep into our bodies. Results have shown that the ingredients of these products are often found in human tissue and fat, as well as in breast tumor tissue. It also showed that a common ingredient added to these products for fragrance, diethyl phthalate, has been linked to the feminization of male infants born in the US. The part where this greatly affects our environment is that these products are continually washed off and travel through the pipes into the waterways of streams and rivers where wildlife is affected. From the 2004 publications, the study conducted by researchers at Stanford University showed that “mussels lost their ability to clear their bodies of poisons when exposed to parts-per-billion levels of common fragrance musks” (cosmeticsdatabase.com). It has been discovered that these toxins affect the hormones of the wildlife also, feminizing fish and other organisms. Thanks to the world wide web, there are many sites committed to giving consumers safe and actually organic products while revealing the those products which contain such placenta, animal parts, lead, mercury, petroleum byproducts, and other mystery components that the producers fail to mention (cosmeticsdatabase.com).

It’s important to understand that there are agencies that are in charge of checking in on companies and are responsible for attending to complaints and concerns from the public. The Environmental Protection Agency enforces the domestic laws to protect the environment. The only problem being that these laws are very difficult to enforce because they are more aimed at risk reduction rather than punishing acts that have already been committed (Holcomb). Another issue is that the EPA often sets unrealistic goals and time frames, and also has to keep in mind the roles of federal, state, and local governments in administering statutes (Holcomb). When a company has been accused of breaking the law it is very time consuming and requires access to resources and effort in order to investigate and prosecute the offender. These companies are often very large and powerful and have the necessary financial resources to fight a conviction which can prevent authorities from taking action. In addition to the previous obstacles mentioned, economic and political pressures may also discourage prosecutors from filing charges against big corporations and juries often view CEO’s as providing jobs for the community (Holcomb). So it’s not that people are simply turning their heads but their are so many other forces involved that it makes punishment for these companies seem almost impossible.

Since company policy has no legal commitment it is easy for companies to get away with going against their own policies and misleading the consumers. The only way to be punished is if the company has made a legal agreement. Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) began operating in 2003 and was the world’s first and North America’s only “voluntary, legally binding rules-based system for greenhouse gas trading with a goal of reducing emissions” (Greening of Agriculture). Companies that become members of the CCX agree to meet an annual reduction target of the greenhouse gasses they emit. If the company exceeds the reduction goal then they have “surplus allowances to sell or bank; those who emit above the targets comply by purchasing CCX Carbon Financial Instrument contracts” (Chicagoclimatex.com). This cap and trade system motivates businesses to reduce the amount of damage they cause on the environment and allows the consumers to trust and support the company with legal proof.


Corporate greenwash can be addressed by the public by voicing concerns through the media and by boycotting companies and their products. Environmental activists struggle to bring awareness to consumers and continue to fight for these industries to be held accountable and suffer the consequences for deceiving the public about such an important issue. Many of us would very much like to change our consumption in a way that can lessen the harm done on the environment and it’s difficult to make changes when suppliers and producers cannot be trusted and are not willing to change themselves. There are products that have less effect on the environment but as consumers we are responsible for looking into the background and origin of products in order to determine which would be the greenest choice.









































Works Cited


Beder, Sharon. "Manipulating Public Knowledge." Metascience 7.1 (1998): 132-140. Print.

Chicago Climate Exchange. N.p., 2007. Web. 25 Feb. 2010. .

Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database. Environmental Working Group, 2010.
Web. 6 Feb. 2010. .


Exxpose Exxon. Convio, 2010. Web. 6 Feb. 2010. .


"ExxonMobil." International Rights Advocates. N.p., 2007. Web. 11 Feb. 2010.
.


Francis, Charles, et al. "Greening of Agriculture: Is It All a Greenwash of the Globalized Economy?"
Journal of Crop Improvement 19.1/2 (2007): 193-220. Print.


GreenPeace Greenwashing. N.p., 27 Jan. 2010. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. .

Holcomb, Jenna. "Environmentalism and the internet: corporate greenwashers and environmental
groups." Contemporary Justice Review 11.3 (2008): 203-211. Print.

Maloney, Field. "Is Whole Foods Wholesome? The dark secrets of Whole Foods." Slate Magazine. Washington Post. Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC, 2010. Web. 6 Feb. 2010. .


Merchant, Bryan. "Has the 'Organic' Label Become the Biggest Greenwashing Campaign in the US?"
TreeHugger. Discovery, 3 July 2009. Web. 9 Feb. 2010. .


Organic.org. Foerstel Design, 2010. Web. 4 Feb. 2010. .


Smith, Margaret. "Green is Good." How Far Has Greenwashing Gone? The Conflicts of Natural and
Organic Food. N.p., 30 Dec. 2009. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. .

Food Inc 3

The chapter written by Joel Salatin "Declare Your Independence" made several good points and was very detailed in his descriptions of the industrial food companies. The only part I didn't like was that the author used a lot of information that he expected the reader to already understand. A lot of his information went right over my head and I had to read some parts a couple of times before understanding. It's not that his information is hard to understand but the way he writes is a bit confusing and hard to follow. I like how he compared the diet of our ancestors to the way we eat and how we've become helpless when it comes to deciding and creating our meals. I like his proposal that we should "opt out" and stop supporting large industrial food companies that care about making money, not about their consumers' health and safety. He made a really good point that we can start with small steps and learn to cook for ourselves again. The only thing that Salatin doesn't take into consideration is the fact that a large majority of U.S. citizens don't have the financial means to purchase ingredients for a meal, let alone purchase local, and often more expensive, ingredients. It's really hard for families to rely only on local farmers and to be able to afford local foods on a regular basis. Overall I think Salatin has the right idea and he put it perfectly when he said "The people who sit on the throne tend to like things the way they are. They have no reason to change until they are forced to do so" (pg 190). It all comes down to us and our decision to opt out of supporting large industrial food companies that have no interest in the health of their buyers.
In chapter 11 I really like the layout and the simple suggestions. It is very straight-forward and helpful in giving us good advice on what to look for and what to ask the farmers. By listing the questions and giving information on each issue really helps us understand that there are much better options out there and some farmers care more about their product and customers than larger industries. I think chapter 11 is aimed at the average American who is looking to improve their consumption.

Argument Outline

Greenwashing is a method used by companies to present themselves as eco-friendly to increase sales but fail to make the necessary changes. Greenwashing can also be used as an attempt to compensate for past environmental damages caused by the company. There are many reasons why consumers and companies are looking to support green products. A main reason is to better our efforts in decreasing global warming. Another reason is for the profits these industries obtain and for consumer support. Food, personal care items, household items, and even oil companies have claimed to have turned to the green side. The biggest issue with greenwashing is that it deceives consumers who are actually trying to improve their carbon footprint and causes confusion. It is important to separate the companies that are honest about their products and those who want to attract costumers and only interested in covering up what goes on behind closed doors.
The companies that spend millions of dollars to advertise their green transformations could be using that money in areas that will actually benefit the environment. We aren't going to get very far if consumers are being lied to and don't know which product is actually recycled, sustainable, and eco-friendly. If people knew how often they are being lied to by large corporations they probably wouldn't be so supportive of their products. It's important to understand the origins and processes of what we buy and consume and how it can affect the environment, global warming, and our bodies.


I. Intro
II. Examples of Greenwashing
a) ExxonMobil
b) Personal Care Products
c) Georgia-Pacific
d) Shell
e) Monsanto

III. Agriculture
a) Organic Food- guidelines, loopholes, benefits
b) Local Farmers vs Large Corporations

IV. Enforcing the Laws of Environmental Protection & Problems
a) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- often unrealistic goals, time frames, complex & technical
b) Interplay of federal, state, and local governments in regulating statues
c) Difficult to prosecute offenders- extremely time consuming, effort and resources needed for investigation and prosecution
d) Economic and political pressures dissuade prosecutors from filing charges against large corporations

V. The Media's Role
a) internet- abundance of information; can cause confusion
b) advertisements

VI. What We Can Do as Consumers
a) investigate products, search options
b) talk to local farmers
c) boycott products out loud

VII. Conclusion


Bibliography




Exxpose Exxon. Convio, 2010. Web. 6 Feb. 2010. .


ExxonMobil Corporation. N.p., 2010. Web. 6 Feb. 2010. .

"ExxonMobil." International Rights Advocates. N.p., 2007. Web. 11 Feb. 2010.
.


GreenPeace Greenwashing. N.p., 27 Jan. 2010. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. .


Foster, Pamela. "Globalizing Greenwash." New Internationalist 365 (2004): 20-21. EBSCOhost. Web. 19
Feb. 2010. pdf?vid=4&hid=11&sid=5189437c-e21b-4e4a-b71d-2a6c3060faa7%40sessionmgr12>.


Francis, Charles, et al. "Greening of Agriculture: Is It All a Greenwash of the Globalized Economy?"
Journal of Crop Improvement 19.1/2 (2007): 193-220. EBSCOhost. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
.


"Greenwashing Screens and Green Program Development." Terrachoice Environmental Marketing. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. .


Holcomb, Jeanna. "Environmentalism and the Internet: Corporate Greenwashers and Environmental
Groups." Contemporary Justice Review 11.3 (2008): 203-211. EBSCOhost. Web. 21 Feb. 2010.
pdf?vid=9&hid=11&sid=489cdf68-aa12-4fdb-ac78-69e2dc298466%40sessionmgr14>.



Loux, Renee. "Health And Beauty Products That Tread Lightly." Women's Health Magazine. N.p., Feb.
Web. 6 Feb. 2010. .


Reynolds, Mike. "How does Monsanto do it? An ethnographic case study of an advertising campaign."
Text 24.3 (2004): 329-352. EBSCOhost. Web. 19 Feb. 2010.
.

Food Inc 2

The readings for today had plenty of interesting facts and continued to describe our horrible situation and how we seem to just continue to make bad decisions in relation to global warming issues. The chapter on the ethanol scam was interesting because it basically talks about how wasteful the U.S. is and how we have dug ourselves into this deep hole. This type of industry is not likely to change or stop what they've been doing. I enjoyed the previous readings much more than this week's. These chapters were extremely boring to me and I think it's really annoying that there are so many problems that I don't even know where to begin. It just makes me think that there is little hope when so many companies aren't willing to change and if they have millions or billions of dollars it doesn't really matter what small change I make because people will continue to support oil and other sources of fuel and these companies have the financial resources to back their company up.

For the argumentative essay I am taking the side against the use of greenwashing. I would focus on the obvious signs of greenwashing and the not-so-obvious greenwashing techniques that are common among almost every industry. As in my previous paper I want to present cases of greenwashing in the oil industry, food industry (including organic), personal care products, and hopefully find some more in-depth sources of greenwashing in other areas of consumption. After watching and reading parts of Food Inc, I could probably search more and use their information about how companies can get away with greenwash and the available options for choosing more ecologically-friendly items. I think it's important for this paper to have a strong voice against the deceiving companies and reveal what they are hiding or what they are trying to compensate for. I also really would like to find sources that are reliable and helpful in educating people on what to look for and how to avoid the "fake" products and choose the product that isn't hiding anything.

Food Inc

There were many aspects of the film that really stood out and impacted the way I see our food production. First, I was amazed that these large corporations have such dominant control over the farmers that run the chicken houses, cattle, and soybean farms. I was disgusted that no one could even show the inside of the poultry houses because they feared what the company might do to them. I was shocked that these farmers invest so much of their money and time into raising chickens in this horrible way, yet they barely even make enough money to live off of, let alone keep up with the new regulations demanded by the corporations. It was really sad seeing how much the one lady struggled financially and then hearing that the company dropped her because she refused to give in to the complete dark & ventilated houses.
I was also really disturbed by the footage of the chickens helplessly lying on the dirty ground because their organs and bones can't keep up with the body's fast growth caused by the growth hormones. Also, the footage of the cows covered in thick coats of each other's feces and also struggling to get up onto their feet. I cringed several times throughout the movie but seeing animals treated that way just to make a large amount of meat is sickening and completely unnecessary.
The film continued to increase my knowledge and disgust for these companies and the government for allowing this to go on. Another big thing that stuck out to me was that our own government and FDA aren't doing anything about this. A large handful of those in charge in the FDA and other organizations responsible for overseeing our food and cattle production are former employees of these horrible meat industries, and even worse, we aren't allowed to criticize any company for their products or the way they handle it! I think the most disturbing aspect of this is that these meat companies seek out and transport illegal immigrants to work in the horrible conditions at a meat packing industry and then years later they are arrested for entering the country illegally and working here but the companies who hired the illegal immigrants who knew very well they were illegal, never get penalized or threatened for doing so.

The book includes all the aspects that were covered in the movie and more. I like how each chapter is structured differently and even though some chapters slightly repeat what was said previously, it doesn't seem repetitive at all. In the first chapter I liked how it was an interview and allowed Eric Schlosser to go in depth with his reasonings and motives behind his research. I was interested in his description of how illegal immigrants are treated like unwanted pests yet they are they ones doing the work that no one else will do and they are willing to do it for little pay and horrible working conditions. Schlosser really makes it hit home when describing that every single strawberry has to be carefully hand-picked and none of us even take into consideration the hard work put into feeding us a fruit.
The section on Food Safety Consequences of Factory Farms was really troubling but it was hard to stop reading. It pulled me in by the descriptions of all the health risks and horrible conditions the meat producing industry is causing. The movie touched on the unsanitary aspects of the poultry farms and cattle houses but this part of the book goes deeper into the risks we are taking by consuming such products. The horrible conditions they live in is really sad and what amazed me was the fact that "a dairy farm with 2,500 cows produces as much waste as a city of 411,000 people." This hurts our environment and can definitely hurt our bodies if we continue to consume fece covered animals.
What really made me queasy was the fact that these poor helpless animals are fed parts of other animals such as brains, spinal cords, and other disgusting animal tissues. It's not just the health risks that make me sick it's that these farm animals are not carnivores and are fed the lowest, cheapest, and unhealthiest feed that the farmers can come up with. It was also upsetting that pigs are forced to live in cages and often bite the tails off one another so the farmers end up cutting off their tails! Similarly, it is disgusting that many farmers cut off the beaks of chickens to prevent pecking. The chapter just really made me feel for these creatures and I was glad that it provided websites that can tell you where to get "sustainably raised meat and dairy products."

Research Prospectus and Bibliography

As we are continually faced with the increasing issues of global warming, many people are seeking ways to improve our situation by any means possible. However, as more and more people feel the urge to “go green”, companies are coming up with ways to present themselves as an ecologically friendly business, whether they are ecologically friendly or not. Not every company is misleading but an increasing amount of businesses are either stretching the truth or overemphasizing their minor changes to mask the larger problems at hand. Even several companies that are making changes often spend much more on advertising their minor improvements and use misleading words and labels.

Everywhere we go we see a label or advertisement that has some claim of being recycled, natural, organic, eco-friendly, etc. Some companies have made changes to their products and have good intentions. But the problem is deciding which claims are the most truthful and which claims have a financial motivation. According to Terrachoice Environmental Marketing agency, greenwashing is “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” There are many different ways a company can greenwash a product such as showing off their newest eco-friendly product while ignoring the fact that they are polluting the air elsewhere on other products, or just flat out making false claims. Other ways to greenwash products is by using vague words to describe how “healthy” something is or by making up a third-party endorser that doesn’t exist.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible to enforce the laws and consequences of misleading advertisements, and complaints should be sent to them. But according the Greenpeace, “the FTC has not taken action against any greenwash ads since 2000” (stopgreenwash.org). There could be many reasons for this but one might be that there are so many “green” advertisements that even the FTC is struggling to provide guidelines and regulations on how companies should advertise because they don’t know how to judge the benefits and consequences of each companies’ claim.

Just because a large majority of companies are greenwashing their products doesn’t necessarily mean that we shouldn’t support “green” items or that none of these attempts really matter. Companies are in control of our basic needs; we are surrounded by advertisements and choices need to be made. Every measure counts when trying to reduce our damage to the environment and companies should make it easier for the consumers to understand what they are buying. On the other hand, as consumers we have a job to do our research and file complaints when we feel that an advertisement or label is misleading or vague. When it comes down to it, consumers that are genuinely concerned with helping the environment should choose products that have trusted “eco-labels” and/or descriptions of their ecological benefits. We have to take action in order to hold companies accountable for deceiving us as consumers or else little will be done to end this trend of greenwashing.

Avasthi, Su. "Greenwashing Junk Food." Lime. Life Balance Media LLC, 3 Jan. 2007. Web. 30 Jan. 2010.

<http://www.lime.com/blog/savasthi/7189/greenwashing_junk_food_>.

Deen, Shireen. "Don't Be Fooled: America's Ten Worst Greenwashers." Greenwashing.net. N.p., Aug.

1. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. <http://www.greenwashing.net/>.

"FTC Cites Kmart, Tender, Dyna-E for False Green Claims." Environmental Leader. N.p., 10 June 2009.

Web. 30 Jan. 2010. <http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/06/10/

ftc-cites-kmart-tender-dyna-e-for-false-green-claims/>.

GreenPeace Greenwashing. N.p., 27 Jan. 2010. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. <http://stopgreenwash.org>.

"Greenwashing Screens and Green Program Development." Terrachoice Environmental Marketing. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2010. <http://www.terrachoice.com/>.

Smith, Margaret. "Green is Good." How Far Has Greenwashing Gone? The Conflicts of Natural and

Organic Food. N.p., 30 Dec. 2009. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. <http://blog.buzzflash.com/greenisgood/ 030>.

Walsh, Bryan. "Eco-Buyer Beware: Green Can Be Deceiving." Time. N.p., 11 Sept. 2008. Web. 30 Jan.

2010. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1840562,00.html>.

A Forest Returns

The film, A Forest Returns, was really interesting and brought a lot of things to my mind while viewing. I was surprised to know that all of the woods had been logged and had all grown back and multiplied in size. The entire story of how they did this really made me think. First, if they can take such a negative thing and make it into something positive why can't we do the same thing with the issues we read in Lost Mountain? They bought land from poor farmers and then hired young men to rebuild an entire forest and other things. I think that if they can do something this amazing so long ago then we can definitely do something too. I think that coal companies could and should compensate the people who are directly affected by their mining and even create jobs for these people in the areas to help them out financially and help their community. I think if coal companies were more sensitive towards those that are affected and provided opportunities for work then the situation could improve greatly. The fact is that mountaintop removal and such happens in poor rural areas and these people don't have the money or resources to file complaints and go through legal processes to prove their point. I think to make lemonade out of lemons these companies should provide job opportunities that will decrease the negative effects of their mining such as building things in order to prevent erosion and chemicals getting into their drinking water. This would help the people out financially, keep them busy, as well as helping their community by keeping their water clean.

The movie made me realize that when we don't have simple solutions to big problems we should first work with the problem and then try to find ways to help everyone out and make it a win-win for everyone instead of companies controlling the land and the people.

David Maywhoor

David Maywhoor was surprisingly laid back and was helpful with putting some things into perspective for me when it comes to our forests here in Ohio and the US. I never thought of our woods as belonging to the people or as public property. Thinking about it this way makes me wonder why more people aren't taking action. I don't understand why such a small handful of people are in charge of making the decisions about destroying our land and we have no say.

I had no idea that we intentionally burn acres of woods and it doesn't even seem like these people know what they are doing. Maywhoor even told us that many times these prescribed burnings get out of hand and cause much more damage than intended. It makes me cringe at the idea that people go out into the woods without even attempting to move any animals or take any precautions to minimize the destruction. It's disturbing that animals that can't fly or are innocently eating or sleeping are burned alive just because. I don't really understand the entire idea of burning woods just so other types of trees can grow. Don't we have any land where they can plant the type of trees they want? Again, I think it's really unfair that a group of people get to decide what happens to the land that is public property and belongs to all of us.

I think David Maywhoor was very intelligent and knowledgeable about this topic but at times his descriptions and information went right over my head. A lot of the stuff he was talking about I barely have heard of before so I think it would've been nice if we have a brief session on BFC for "dummies". Overall I enjoyed his presentation and I'm glad he brought this to my attention because it's yet another thing going on right now that I was unaware of.

Research

For my paper I want to deal with the newest trend of Going Green. Companies use terms like "organic" and "eco-friendly" to sell their products but what that really means to the seller and the consumers could be two different things. I think this is an interesting topic to go into because almost everywhere you go there are either items that are said to be recycled or eco-friendly and places where you can get your organic food and drinks.

This idea of "going Green" has become more of a trend than a step towards helping the environment. It also seems like many people fall into buying things that are "eco-friendly" as a way to ignore the fact that they could actually BE eco-friendly rather than just buying products as an easy way out.

I want to know what it really means to be organic and what other terms companies use to mislead the consumers about the quality of their food and the processes that go into its production. I also want to look deeper into food chains such as Whole Foods that use only organic foods to see if there are more benefits than consequences from supporting such places.

Another issue deals with places that claim to be getting their products from small farmers and urge people to support their local farmers. I would like to find out how places such as Whole Foods affects small farmers and their local businesses and where their products come from.

Overall, I want to find places and products that actually do benefit the environment and support/participate in recycling items. What I'd like to take away from researching this issue is finding out what we should stay away from in order to reduce pollution but more importantly, taking steps to change the way we consume and preventing ourselves from indirectly supporting the destruction of our atmosphere, earth, and economy.

I do think it matters what people buy but they should be more aware of what products are recycled and benefiting the environment instead of being misled by companies that claim to be helping the environment. Once searching for "green washing" I got thousands of hits so I think I'm going to go with this topic. I am still interested in researching the costs/benefits of organic foods but I don't know if I could fit all this in my topic. Something that caught my eye about Whole Foods is that even they are green washing their items and use descriptive words to describe each item to appeal to the consumers. Whole Foods also receives a large amount of their products from around the world. Even though the food is "organic" the company is still using airplanes to transport items across the world which is NOT environmentally beneficial.

I think I can focus on this issue of green washing and use examples like Whole Foods that claim to be helping out the small farmers and what not just to appeal to eco-friendly customers. The website that stood out to me is called "The Seven Sins of Greenwashing" which simply defines the misleading techniques that companies use. The seven sins are: Sin of Hidden Trade Off, Sin of No Proof, Sin of Vagueness, Sin of Irrelevance, Sin of Worshipping False Labels, Sin of the Lesser of the Two Evils, and the Sin of Fibbing. These "sins" can help guide me to decide whether or not a company is using green washing techniques to deceive us.

End of LM

The rational mind uses facts and analyzes the situation in terms of what can be done to increase profit and material gain. The rational mind thinks of the quickest and cheapest way to get what you want, not taking other side effects into account. The sympathetic mind uses emotions and empathy to make decisions that are best for the whole. The sympathetic mind is selfless and doesn’t just focus on the here and now but also the effects on the future and everyone involved. Throughout his story, Reece tries to demonstrate the the “rational” minds of the coal companies and the “sympathetic” minds of those who are directly affected by mountaintop removal. One example of Reece’s sympathetic mind is where he criticizes the way we cover up the damages created by mountaintop removal the cheapest and quickest way, instead of taking other factors into account and we ignore the long term consequences because we only care about getting cheap energy. He makes a good point when he says “But the current price of coal tells nothing near the truth about the cost of air pollution, water pollution, forest fragmentation, species extinction, and the destruction of homes. Natural capital is destroyed and monetary capital is exported as quickly as the coal” (pg 187). Reece explains how we value technology and money much more than we value our wilderness and community. He makes it easy to understand by saying “No one who felt a responsibility to other citizens within a community would destroy its water, homes, wildlife, and woodlands” (pg 212).

I felt that Reece’s conclusion is full of meaningful quotes but one that really stood out to me is where Reece says “We too seldom see value in the natural world, whether aesthetic or intrinsic; we only see something we can use, even if that means using it up. We no longer see ourselves as part of a greater whole, a world so vast and mysterious that it deserves our reverence alongside scientific probing. In America today, the “environment “ is almost wholly other. We are over here, and it is over there” (pg 230). Reece sums up exactly what has become of us, not just America, but also other large industrialized nations. Most of us don’t relate to the wilderness and wildlife as part of our history and our ancestors’ history. It’s just there. And when we find something we can use out of it we will, without planning the future consequences or even short term side effects. We take everything that the earth has given us for granted and we give nothing back. We take its mountains and destroy wildlife communities for our own benefit. We act like we cannot survive without removing huge chunks of our land in order to get energy. How did our ancestors do it then? I understand that we can’t just stop everything we are doing but we should start giving back and taking responsibility for our actions. Nothing lasts forever and we are all too ignorant to accept that fact because we feel entitled to “resources” and refuse to take time to think about our actions and consider what will become of our country and planet by the time our great great grandchildren are here.

LM 85-162

This section of Reece's account still shows several other perspectives of the people who were strongly affected by the mining near their towns. I think this is a really important aspect of Reece's style of writing because it isn't just giving the reader one point of view or just retelling a story. He pulls the reader in by his descriptions of the situation each person he interviewed was in. The section on flying squirrels was sad because Reece really describes the fact that there is so much wildlife and diversity that we don't take the time or ever get the chance to see and species are gradually disappearing because of humans.

Reece continues to use statistics and research results to further support his point and this is a nice touch he adds to the reading. It was really sad and disturbing that one study found that "children in Letcher County suffer from an alarmingly high rate of nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and shortness of breath that can all be traced back to sedimentation and dissolved minerals in their drinking water." It makes me feel bad and even guilty for being so oblivious to these kinds of situations that is happening so close by. We learn about people suffering in other countries more often than we learn about those in our country who suffer and they are suffering because of our own country and the things we allow to go on here which is pretty sad. Throughout the reading it's hard to put myself in these people's shoes because it is so incredibly miserable and it isn't fair that these people are put into these situations. It easy for college kids and wealthier people to ignore these situations because they aren't negatively affected by mountaintop removal.

A really important part of this reading is where Reece describes the prayer Reverend Peake gives and says that one of our biggest problem is thinking that we aren't big enough to make a difference but we really should start by taking one step at a time. It really is true that so many people don't even want to try to help out because we underestimate what influence we can have on the issue.

LM pg85

Erice Reece is strongly opposed to mountaintop removal because of the damages it causes to the nearby wildlife and citizens and because it is destroying and eliminating chunks of our earth that are pretty much impossible to replace. There are several effects of mountaintop removal including the fact that the Appalachian mountains are home to a diverse group of trees and animals and by bringing in heavy machinery and causing total devastation to the area, it is ruining the wildlife and also makes it difficult for scientists to study certain species that used to be native to the area. His main point is that coal companies are demolishing large areas of land (the Appalachian mountains in particular) without providing any compensation or replacement of the wildlife that is ruined. Another huge problem is the fact that laws have been either ignored or revised in favor of the mining companies and pretty much allows companies to dump the matter from the explosions into the water and nearby areas. This has also caused many illnesses and deaths from the chemicals and toxins that are leaked into streams and the water supply of the people who live close to the area.

Reece mentions the various reasonings that companies and supporters of mountaintop removal, such as providing an abundant amount of energy, cheap coal, the wildlife return after the mining, and several other claims that ignore the aversive side effects and praise the highly “efficient” mode of extracting coal.

By putting myself in this situation the problems seem much larger than by just thinking about it happening miles and miles away. It’s scary to think that cheap coal and this way of mining is supposedly good for the state and that it should be beneficial to the Kentuckians. This is not the case at all and it makes me sick to think that these people are still so poor and can easily get ill from this and no one is doing anything to help them. I also can understand where Reece is coming from when he describes the beauty and life that fills the Appalachian mountains and how mountaintop removal is ruining everything there is to appreciate about the wildlife and scenic views of the Appalachian mountains. He also makes a great point when he mentions the fact that the Mayan civilization used up all of their resources and only thought in the short term and what we are currently doing today will horribly affect us in the long run if we don’t stop to think logically about what we are doing and what problems we are causing.

Clean Coal

I thought that the site for “America’s Power” seemed to give information and sources that supported their stance for clean coal but the further I read I noticed that the website seems to be sugarcoating the issue of using coal to generate energy and makes it seem like coal is our only option. The site claims to have “facts” and that its opponents have no proof or reasoning behind their claims. This site doesn’t seem to be giving as much information as I would expect and doesn’t seem to be as honest and straight-forward as the website for “This is Reality”. I felt that this site gave much more information on what clean coal is and is not. I also think that this site had a more open view and discussed different ways on reducing greenhouse gases than the other site had. Clean Coal is supposed to be a new way of using and creating energy without emitting greenhouse gases.

“This is Reality” is giving a stance on how to generate energy and power for our country with as little pollution as possible. This site also discusses the fact that no plant in the US uses clean coal or permanently stores CO2. “America’s Power” focuses on the fact that the US has such an abundant amount of coal that it is necessary for our country to obtain and use coal to generate power. “This is Reality” suggests that we take smaller steps in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by using/taking part in the available technology that is proven to reduce emissions and to wait until we are sure that clean coal technology can be produced and will be effective and beneficial towards reducing the harmful gases into our atmosphere.

It seems that the site for “America’s Power” is aiming towards an audience that is either unaware or uninterested in the problems of pollution, such as wealthy people and those who care greatly about technology and obtaining energy in order to do what they want. The other website seems to be aiming towards people who aren’t really sure of the position our country is in but want to help and raise their awareness of the situation. “This is Reality” is sponsored by MIT CO2 Capture and Storage Project, Center for Global Development, IEA Greenhouse Gas R&G Program, and Sierra Club Environmental Law Program. I think that the support from these groups provide a lot of credibility because they study this for a living and see this issue as very serious because they are taking the Earth’s and the citizens’ future into account. “America’s Power” on the other hand, is sponsored by companies that produce/use coal and have no sponsors from organizations that deal with the environment or greenhouse gas emissions.

“America’s Power” uses emotional appeal by discussing the large amount of coal our country has and how this supply could sustain us for the next 200 years. The site is trying to appeal to those who take part in using and/or supporting companies and products that require pollution in order to gain what they want or “need”. I think that “This is Reality” is more concerned with informing us about what clean coal really is and uses facts and resources that are really effective in getting the reader to understand our options and our current position.

“This is Reality” has an important visual representation of the canary dying because of the pollution we are causing. The other site is quite plain and unappealing.

I believe “This is Reality” is more persuasive because it covers almost all areas of the issues and is out to help our environment and atmosphere from further deteriorating. “America’s Power” only focuses on why coal is so great and ignores the other serious problems that surround the process of getting and using coal.

Introduction

I'm Kerry and I'm from Cleveland, Ohio and I am majoring in psychology. I want to go to graduate school after I'm done here and hopefully earn my phD and eventually have a career as a child psychologist. I love to watch shows about crime & forensics and food. I don't go out much and just like to hang out with my two room mates and boyfriend. I hate public speaking and giving presentations and I love chipotle.