Check out the current issue of SEED Magazine (Science is Culture) for a sharp analysis of the universal consequences brought on by our consumption of meat.
Carnivores Like Us is by journalist Paul Roberts, a Harper’s regular. His last book, The End of Oil, highlighted problems with the energy economy, chastised American energy (over)use, warned of global implications and encouraged a shift in the way we approach energy. Here, he does the same thing with food. Read on»
Greenwashing is a term that’s been catching on in the media. Seems to me, it’s about ready to enter the public lexicon, too, just by virtue of its increasing applicability as consumers become simultaneously more eco-conscious and less trusting.
Here’s a simple definition: When a company makes a green claim that’s either false or misleading, it’s greenwashing.
Thanks to Rob Walker at Murketing for linking to The Greenwashing Index, what is already an interesting resource that has the potential to become the go-to guide for navigating green claims in advertising. I’m not a fan of the ratings system as it stands — the criteria is good, but I’d love to see numbers based on more informed reviews from advertising and environmental professionals — but I like the sharing of information that occurs in the comments section of each ad.
On a very basic level, it’s been helpful to consider their criteria (assembled by “advertising academia,” according to the site) when I come across any new “green” ad.
1. The ad misleads with words
Do you believe the ad misleads the viewer/reader about the company’s/product’s environmental impact through the things it says? Does it seem the words are trying to make you believe there is a green claim when there isn’t? Focus on the words only — what do you think the ad is saying?
2. The ad misleads with visuals and/or graphics
Do you think the advertiser has used green or natural images in a way designed to make you think the product/company is more environmentally friendly than it really is?
3. The ad makes a green claim that is vague or seemingly unprovable
Does the ad claim environmental benefits without sufficiently identifying for you what they are? Has the advertiser provided a source for claims or for more information? Are the claims related to the company/product?
4. The ad overstates how green the product/company/service actually is
Do you believe the advertiser is overstating how green the product/company actually is? Are the green claims made by the ad believable? Do you think it’s possible for the product/company to do the things depicted/stated?
5. The ad leaves out or masks important information
Do you think the ad exists to divert attention from something else the company does? Do you believe the relevant collateral consequences of the product/service are considered in the ad? Does it seem to you something is missing from the ad?
Millions of ink jet, laser and toner cartridges are thrown away each and every month. But why? My guess is there’s a lack of knowledge when it comes to deciding, “What do I do with this empty cartridge?” And by all means, I’m at fault too.
Today I stumbled across a unique resource that has the answer to our question: www.RecyclePlace.com
How it works?
1.Register. It’s quick and free.
2. Collect empty ink jet, laser, toner and fax cartridges.
3. Return the cartridges using one of the pre-paid UPS labels sent to you after registration. Enclose a copy of the completed Cartridge Return Form.
4. A check will be sent to you.
5. Yes, Recycle Place pays you for empty cartridges.
Why recycle ink cartridges?
1. More than 3 quarts of oil are used to produce each laser cartridge.
2. The plastic used in each printer cartridge takes more than 10 centuries (that’s 1000 years) to decompose.
3. 25 million printer cartridges go to land fills each month.
4. Toner cartridge remanufacturing saves over 38,000 tons of plastic and metal from landfills.
5. Stacking 125 laser toner cartridges end-to-end equals the height of the Statue of Liberty.
I’m sure we all own at least two pairs of shoes, right? Today’s links are provided to encourage you to stop your regular shoe shopping routine and check out some shoes that really matter. Each of the follow shoe companies are doing great things for the environment and humankind. Maybe you’ve never thought of buying an eco-friendly shoe. Maybe you’ve never heard of these companies. Maybe… you have no clue what an eco-shoe is. Today, none of that matters. Take a few minutes and check out these fantastic options when it comes to shoes that really matter:
Simple Shoes - Shoes made from recycled car tires, organic cotton, recycled plastics and hemp.
Have you ever thought about your clothing and the effects on the earth? What if I told you that the way cotton is currently grown and harvested, it endangers lives? Conventional cotton is causing extreme concerns and here’s why.
Tons and tons of pesticides are sprayed on cotton fileds every year to eradicate a little bug known as the boll weevil. The problem with using poison to kill one bug is that it kills all the other beneficial insects that keep nature on track.
In cotton’s natural habitat, the shrub is drought-resistant. It originally grew in dry parts of the world and was able to cope with those climates. Because of our consumption of cotton, the plant has been brought into environments that it is not equipped to deal with. The result is more natural predators that the plants can’t fight. Even in the US cotton farm workers are exposed to pesticides during spraying, or shortly after. The effects translate into long-term illnesses and other effects we aren’t even aware of.
Everything about this crop that was once naturally harvested is now a contaminated product. A quarter of the world’s pesticides are used to grow cotton. In order to make cotton safer, Monsanto Corporation developed a genetically modified cottonseed that had a built in pesticide that was lethal to the boll weevil. They sold the product to farmers who were looking to save money on their crops and make a better profit. But the well-intentioned seed had the opposite effect.
One name that keeps popping up is methyl parathion. Farm workers exposed to it suffer long-term health effects. In California, which by the way is doing great things to limit carbon emissions and taking steps to clean up the air, is not doing so well when it comes to pesticides. Cotton farmers are dying because of their exposure to pesticides. 20,000 – 40,000 deaths worldwide all year are caused by pesticide poisonings. Millions suffer the effects of minor poisoning.
Leukemia in children is increased in families that used pesticides in their houses. Across the world, over 90% of people exposed to pesticides all day suffer illness. Symptoms can range from vision disorders to cell death. Chemicals sprayed by air drift. There are no government regulations set-up to protect the families, farmers or babies that live and work in adjacent areas. If a crop plane dumps a load of pesticides for one field and they get carried into the next field over and sicken or cause illness to the people there, they have no recourse. Winds carry pesticides to fields, trees and into the water we all drink from. Read on»
Especially interesting from a marketing point of view, here is a short summary of the recent Dove –> Greenpeace –> Backlash –> Social Change chain-of-events.
First: Dove, in an ongoing move to position itself as a “positive body image” brand in a beauty-focused industry, created an ad. The spot, titled “Onslaught,” powerfully illustrates the way media images in culture bombard women from a young age resulting in unrealistic perceptions of beauty.
Then: Greenpeace saw a chance to loudly call ‘foul.’ They created an “Onslaught” parody ad depicting the destruction of Indonesian rainforests for palm oil, a key ingredient in Dove (and many other company’s) products. This segment, which swaps a cute, dark-haired (presumably Indonesian) girl for the cute, red-haired one from the Dove original, is titled “Onslaught(er).”
Within a week: “Onslaught(er)” was viewed over 250,000 times after being posted on Youtube. Perhaps speaking to the power and quality of the ad, response was strong.
Today: The Wall Street Journal reports that Unilever, the parent company that owns and operates Dove, has pledged to only buy palm oil from suppliers able to prove they haven’t cut down forests.
While it’s fantastic that Dove is changing its ways, many companies use palm oil in their products. The assumption is that at least some (maybe a majority) are getting it from forest-destroying suppliers. So while it doesn’t provide the full picture when Greenpeace singles out Dove as a target, it is amazing to stand back and watch a campaign like this work so quickly and effectively.
How many of you drink from a Nalgene bottle?What’s the number within the triangle on the bottom?If you’ve got the wrong number down there you may be putting yourself at risk.
You’ve probably seen something in the news lately that some plastics are getting a lot of negative press; most notably, drinking bottles made with hard plastic. This all surrounds a chemical known as Bisphenol A to the chemists and engineers or “BPA” on the streets.This chemical has been shown to leach out of common plastics and cause health issues ranging from behavioral issues to irregular breast growth.
What can we do about it? Be aware that the Nalgene that most of us are drinking out of is probably contributing to our BPA intake.Also know is that not all Nalgenes are created equal.The hard polycarbonate plastics are what we want to stay away from (#7 on the bottom).The soft cloudy plastic Nalgenes (#2 in the bottom) are considered to be the safest and you’ll be happy to know that in light of the elevated attention to BPAs Nalgene is discontinuing production on their polycarbonate bottles.
BPAs are found in more places than water bottles though. Food cans, baby bottles and the fillings in our teeth also contribute to BPAs in our body.Check out the resources below for more information.
Millions of ink jet, laser and toner cartridges are thrown away each and every month. But why? My guess is there’s a lack of knowledge when it comes to deciding, “What do I do with this empty cartridge?” And by all means, I’m at fault too.
