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.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
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..
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)