A~
I believe plastic bags are difficult on the environment due to the lengthy period it takes for them to degrade. I have felt this way for many years, but was reinforced in this by the knowledge that there is currently an island-size mound of plastic bags in the ocean (I believe the documentary Trash deals with this). Personally, I use reusable bags or, occasionally, paper bags that I repurpose for household use.
B~
Plastic bags are inherently airborne and difficult to recycle. They easily become litter in natural areas, and are not cost effective. The San Jose recycling center spends a million dollars a year fixing recycling machines jammed by plastic bags. Most waste facilities must pay to have the bags removed. There are exceptions to plastic bag bans. For example, in Austin, restaurants can use plastic bags for items where leakage of moisture is a concern and charitable organizations that supply food and clothing to the community are an exception.
C~
Plastic bags have a much lower carbon footprint than paper or reusable bags. Recycling plastic bags is a better solution than banning them as it provides jobs and economic opportunities. Plastic bags represent a small amount of the litter stream and what is present in landfills. This is supported by several government-funded and private industry funded studies. For instance, the heavier weight of paper or reusable bags requires more in transport costs and fuel use. Economically, more than 30,000 Americans are supported by recycling plants.
D~
This study finds that the production factors used for paper and reusable bags generate a significant amount of wastes that negatively affect the environment, and plastic bag manufacturing produces much less. It also finds that repurposing plastic bags decreases their negative affects on the environment. Two surprising facts are the transport costs due to where each type of bag is manufactured and how little it is estimated that reusable bags are actually reused (how effective or scientific these estimates were are up for question).
I personally found a lot of pseudo-science in this report and there was evidence of interested parties funding and reviewing it (check out the board of reviewers and their Stakeholder invite-only group). Much was assumed/estimated as opposed to investigated. Plastic bags as they stand are not efficiently biodegradable. In terms of the other types of bags, the reusable bags I use are made in the US of organic cotton and I use them daily, and have used the same ones for years. The bags they presented that were reusable were from other countries and had to be shipped, and were not made of sustainably crafted materials and assumes that people are not reusing them much (who did they ask? How do they know this?). In addition, it failed to address the fact that part of the reason that plastic bags are "easy" to manufacture is because they are by-products of petroleum manufacture- of which we do a lot. So yes, we are not having to harvest "raw materials" from the environment, but our entire petroleum industry is an environmental disaster. I think that needs to be taken into account as part of plastic bags' environmental impact. In addition, the recycling process itself has a carbon footprint that goes unacknowledged.
E~
Belgium has instituted a tax on plastic bags and plastic film, and the revenue generated goes to a recycling firm.
In Germany, consumers pay a fee for plastic bags, which has encouraged the use of reusable bags. In addition, over 97% of plastic bags are recycled.
GREENWASHING- MONSANTO
The ad misleads with words-1 point
The soothing female voice tells us that Monsanto is working with farmers when they have a dire record of shutting down all negative feedback from farmers and ignoring their concerns and health impacts. In fact, their use of terminator seeds creates economic dependence of farmers (especially in developing countries) on Monsanto. She tells us that they are having conversations everyday at Monsanto about using natural resources. That's nice, but what exactly does that mean in terms of what they are doing to our natural resources? The entire ad is designed to have us believe that Monsanto is open to our concerns. In fact, legislation has been passed that prevents any individual from suing Monsanto for any reason, and they are known for suing small farms that speak out against them. Not much of a conversation.
The ad misleads with visual images-1 point
The use of families in natural settings and lighting implies a commentment to "the common folk". Monsanto instead is one of the richest and most powerful companies in the world. The people portrayed are of varying ethnicities, again hiding the fact that Monsanto has specifically targeted people of non-white ethnicities in developing and rural areas to "test" some of their more questionable products. Beautiful, clean-looking food belies their huge production of damaging chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
The ad makes vague claims-1 point
Apparently, people at Monsanto are having the same kinds of conversations about sustainability that you and I are having. But they don't seem to be doing anything about it. There is nothing actually here about a single genuine green practice or product, just the assertion that Monsanto is working hard on it. Working hard on what? To feed us all apparently. Just don't ask for specifics.They might sue you.
The ad overstates how green the company is-1 point
Monsanto is probably in the running for one of the least green companies on the planet. From terminator seeds, to untested GMOs, to dangerous chemical pesticides and fertilizers, they are high on the list of negative impacts on the environment. In addition, they have bought out and closed down many small farms that served the local community. They have done the same with many organic farms. Any statement of greeness on their part is an overstatement (probably why you won't find too many specifics in any of their green adverts).
The ad leaves out important information-1 point
See all of the above. I believe most of their green ads (and they are putting a lot of them out there right now) are designed to divert attention from growing public awareness of their dastardly deeds. Specifically, they spend an awful lot of money getting governments to support legislation in their favor. The FDA is notorious for putting high-level Monsanto employees into important positions. Not only are they diverting attention from their environmental impact, they are seeking to appear as non-threatening as possible (female narrator, soft lighting) and to identify with everyday people-two things that are not remotely true.
Points Total: 5 points- a total "Greenwash"
Monsanto."Dinner's Ready". YouTube, 5 Nov 2014. Web. 3 Dec 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment