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.