Greenwashing

An advertisement for Mentos gum

How many ads like this one do you see on TV every day from various companies, all claiming to sell the most environmentally friendly product on the market? These marketing schemes all try to make you think that by using their product you will be making a positive difference on the planet. Well when these claims are not as true as they seem, this phenomenon is called “greenwashing”. If you’ve ever heard of “whitewashing” in a political campaign (“a coordinated attempt to hide unpleasant facts”, according to the Greenwashing Index), this is along the same premise.  Sometime a company will spend more money in their media and advertising trying to convince the public that they are environmentally friendly than they actually do implementing the business practices that would make them more green.

And this isn’t a new phenomenon either. Even at the beginning of the 20^th century, according to Maier, people "had already acknowledged that ‘mass media was likely to be of major importance in the selection, transformation and circulation of environmental meanings in modern society’” (166).  Mass media clearly has a lot of impact on the way people think, and can really influence which products the public buys. This picture below is just one from a series of posters which aim to steer customers towards more sustainable behaviors in this gallery. Do you think media tools such as these can help consumers choose an option better for the environment than they otherwise would?

An example of a poster which promotes sustainable
behaviors among consumers from a series of
media campaigns found here.

One example of a company who uses sustainability in their platform is the consumer products company, Unilever. They are one of the more reliable companies in their environmental campaigns, but definitely use “being green” in their advertising campaigns. They have an entire section of their website dedicated to sustainability. Here’s a screenshot of their “Sustainable Living” webpage:

Unilever places a lot of emphasis on their efforts to make their products green. Unlike a lot of other places which are not as reliable, their efforts have distinct goals and they are very transparent about which goals are being met and which are taking longer than they expected. It’s clear that this company, unlike many others, has made a true commitment to producing greener products which help the environment.

What about you? Do claims of sustainable products sway you when you’re trying to decide which household cleaner to use, or do you stick to a certain brand or product regardless of its effects on the environment?

Sources: 

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/gallery/role-green-marketing-inspiring-change#/?picture=413512496&index=1

http://www.unileverusa.com/sustainable-living/

http://ejournals.ebsco.com.libproxy.furman.edu/Direct.asp?AccessToken=5444Q49TRPUUQUJ9WZ4PQB64BZ9YTN4UR&Show=Object

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/about-greenwashing/#what

Read More

Perceived Obsolescence

Last week, I talked about the theory of planned obsolescence and how this increasing the amount of waste that humans produce. Well, there’s another piece to this puzzle called perceived obsolescence, which is a part of planned obsolescence which refers to how an object is no longer identified by the public as “cool” or “fashionable”.

To expand off the last post a little bit, various technologies can a prime example of the fads that quickly pass through our culture. The most prominent brand who this phenomenon is most often attributed to is Apple, as this article in the New York Times appropriately titled “Cracking the Apple Trap” demonstrates.  As soon as a new iPhone model out, our old one immediately seems less shiny and exciting, even if it only six months old itself. When things go out of fashion or something else becomes more popular, we recognize the first object as obsolete.

Another example of perceived obsolescence is the world of fashion. It seems like every month, not to mention every season, fashion shows and magazines are touting new clothes and trends that you just have to try if you have any sense of style at all.  But four months later, all of those clothes are suddenly out of fashion again. But why? They still function as clothing, and they don’t look or work any differently than they did before, but they are suddenly “perceived as obsolete”, just as the technology was.

Above and on right: examples of magazines explaining
new trends and showing consumers where to buy them

Our culture has placed such high importance on trendiness, and “keeping up with the Joneses”. In an article discussing the financial and consumption habits of Millennials, the author writes that “two in three [of Millennials] want to keep pace with peers on where they live and what they wear, and the types of places they eat and the gadgets they carry”. It matters to our society what we are seen wearing or holding, and if it’s suddenly obsolete, we want whatever it is that the rest of our friends and peers have.

In a study published in the Journal of Consumer Culture, the results discuss “psychological [perceived] obsolescence” and how it “prompts end consumers to constantly re-evaluate product qualities, devaluing existing products,  and [contributes to the] disposal of functioning products”. The constant renewal of our “stuff” is killing our environment because the consumer culture we have created in our society. 

"The Story of Stuff Project" is an organization who are working towards making our planet healthier through the consumption habits of society. This is the video they made that sparked their whole project, which has great insights into the issues of obsolescence:

What does all of this have to do with the environment? The media of magazines and new technologies have led us to experience desensitization in regards to the way that we view the planet. We become immersed in all the stuff that’s constantly available to us, and forget that all the resources to make these products have to come from somewhere, as well as be disposed of somewhere. The conceived concept of obsolescence desensitizes the public to the fact that its consumption is not sustainable and it is actually hurting the planet.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/magazine/why-apple-wants-to-bust-your-iphone.html 
http://business.time.com/2013/11/01/millennials-are-growing-up-but-theyre-still-making-one-huge-mistake/ 

http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.furman.edu/login.aspx?

http://storyofstuff.org/direct=true&db=aph&AN=84490660&site=ehost-live 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses  

Read More

A Look at the Amazon

Trees. They're kind of a big deal here on Earth, but we don't always realize how important they are until they start to disappear.  In other words, deforestation happens. This is the removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is converted into non-forest use.

It occurs for many reasons: trees can be cut down and sold for fuel or timber, and the cleared land can be used as a pasture for livestock, plantations, and settlements.  However, the overwhelming direct cause of deforestation is agriculture.  One of the main places this problem is occurring is in the Amazon Rain Forest.

Understandably, the media covers this topic in a negative light because deforestation is bad. We portray it in a tragic way to show we need to do something about this issue. The environment is important to us and we need to keep it flourishing for generations to come.

Reuters shows that efforts to decrease deforestation are not working. I know that timber is needed for many every day uses such as firewood and paper, but we need to be replanting trees at a higher rate so deforestation doesn't become a dire situation. Here is a video to show the time lapse of deforestation in this area:

This issue has important media purposes and economic foundations as well. The point of covering deforestation in the media, is to give out information on what's happening in the environment around the world. When there are stories on this issue, organizations are looking for donations and support from corporations and the government as well.

Some international organizations involved with conserving rain forests and deforestation are:

International Conservation Union

Wildlife Conservation Society

The World Wildlife Fund for Nature

Read More

Planned Obsolescence

(A cartoon depicting the issue of planned obsolescence; originally from here)

How many cell phones have you had in the last five years?  iPods or other type of MP3 player?  Computers?

I’ve personally had 2 computers, 2 iPods, and 3 cell phones in the last five years.  I got my first cell phone entering freshman year of high school (at age fourteen), and have had four since then, six and a half years later. And I honestly think that I’m on the lower end of that spectrum.

Planned obsolescence, also often known as  “built-to-break-down in industrial design” is a term defined on Golden Gate Express as the “policy of planning or designing a product with a limited life span”.

T-mobile’s newest plan is called “JUMP!”, and is a perfect example of planned obsolescence. It uses the slogan “Two years is too long to wait” with funny videos of a man who is struggling to wait the full two years before upgrading from his current dysfunctional phone. Watch one of the advertisements here:

Media has had a huge effect on this societal conception.  Advertising like T-mobile’s assures its consumers that it’s okay, even better, to replace their technology every two years or less. 

The companies benefit immensely from the carefully timed death of your cell phone because companies can essentially guarantee that you will be a returning customer at the end of two years, or five years, or however long they want the product to last.

But it’s not beneficial for everyone.  In fact, the thing most immensely hurt by this industrial “solution” is our planet.  For every time that we upgrade our cell phone or computer, there is a huge amount of waste that comes from that piece of technology. According to this article on The Guardian website, planned obsolescence has “led to such extraordinary mountains of waste is causing untold harm in an era of climate change and resource scarcity, so it's high time we changed it.”

The EPA tells us that excessive amounts of consumer electronics are sold every year, with only about twenty-five percent being recycled:

In 2009:

·       438 million new consumer electronics were sold;

·       5 million tons of electronics were in storage;

·       2.37 million tons of electronics were ready for end-of-life management; and

·       25% of these tons were collected for recycling

(A chart from the EPA demonstrating the problems of technology waste)

In my next post, I'll talk more about how media has created the concept of "perceived obsolescence" and how it affects our planet.

(Originally from Quiet Environmentalist)

Sources:

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm 

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/changing-mindsets-prevent- environmental-disaster 

http://www.goldengatexpress.org/2013/02/24/shortens-longevity-of-electronics/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRi5gMCGaI&list=PL6DDBAB794DC92FAD

http://quiet-environmentalist.com/is-the-earth-doomed-due-to-planned-obsolescence/ 

http://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/po/ 

Read More