Environmental Final Presentation

One of the final presentations that I enjoyed most was Rachel's and Caroline. I especially liked how Rachel talked about how didn't know what a compost was until we discussed it in class. I think that although many may not admit it, we are unaware of a lot of environmental communication in our surrounding. Similar to Rachel, I never knew what organic and all natural stood until I researched it and learned about through our snack show and tell periods in class. I also find myself noticing and paying attention to the ways that organizations are communicating about their environmental initiatives. The past few weeks I find myself analyzing the packaging more so than I ever had before. I also have become more critical about organic and all natural labeling as it is important to make an informed decision. In part, this is what I liked her Caroline's presentation as well as she talked about how she lost touch with the environmental and is now getting back in touch with it. I feel the same way as I used to be a part of green week initiatives every year throughout high school and now I find myself to be too busy.

Future of Environmental Communication

In class, as we were discussing the future of environmental communication. The idea of reproduction of technology came to mind in regards to Apple products. Apple produces products every year with little changes such as size of the mobile device or ipod (i.e. nano). There's not wasting paper but this can be considered referred to as e-waste. Are they recycling their products? Are they reusing parts from prior devices that were not sold? These are all the question that came to mind. After class, I did some research to see what they were doing about the large amount of e-waste that is or may be produced by their organization.

http://www.apple.com/ca/recycling/

"Apple recycles responsibly.

When you recycle with Apple, your used equipment is disassembled, and key components that can be reused are removed. Glass and metal can be reprocessed for use in new products. A majority of the plastics can be pelletized into a raw secondary material. With materials reprocessing and component reuse, Apple often achieves a 90 percent recovery rate by weight of the original product."

Therefore, it can be understood that organizations such as Apple for taking into account their effects on the environmental and ultimately trying to reduce their e-waste. I think this is something that needs to be explored for other organization as well to ensure that everyone is following the example of Apple and reducing e-waste. For example, Telus just began to review their waste and recyclying in 2013 (http://csr.telus.com/en/environmental_stewardship/waste_and_recycling/). In contrast, companies such as Fido and Wind seem to have no strict program in place to reduce their e-waste. This is something I never knew about Apple products and now because of this class I took the time to research about how the organization of reducing e-waste.

What does the future hold for environmental communication?

Gladwell, Kirilenko and Watersa all talk about the use of social media in environmental communication. Gladwell talks about how Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. The example that came to my mind when reading this was Kony 2012. During the start of the campaign, a 30 minute film was uploaded to YouTube by the non-profit organization Invisible Children entitled "Kony 2012". This kick started the #STOPKONY campaign on social media. Their mission was to use film, creativity and social action to end the use of child soldiers in Joseph Kony's rebel war and restore LRA-affected communities in Central Africa to peace and prosperity. Kony was a short documentary film that was produced by Invisible Children to make Kony famous, raise awareness for crimes that he was committing and hopefully leading to his arrest. I found it interested how Kony acknowledged that they were going to use these celebrities as a tool to raise awareness, inspire discussion and influence culture. The use of the word tool really stood out to me because grammatically it’s a device that is used to carry out a particular function. Therefore, their star persona is being used as a tool to catch the audience’s attention and raise awareness. This relates to the idea of celebrity culture in which celebrities obtain social power in exchange for selling a sense of intimacy with audiences. For example, in the video on the presentation Rihanna talks about how Twitter allows her to interact with fans and it can help them understand who she is. This speaks to the idea of generating intimacy with fans. She then brings in Kony and since it is youth driven, Twitter is the best way to generate awareness among her fans for the cause. The interview is also focused around the idea of her filming and getting in hands deep into the cause of Kony and its victims. However, this also relates to the idea of performed self and authentic self. As she attempts to create an understanding with audiences about who she is through Twitter and her support for Kony, she is performing her authenticity as a person in order to convince the public about who she is. This is evident as she comments on how she feels that not being Twitter creates a gap between her fans knowing who she is as a person and her personality. Therefore, she used Twitter as a tool to talk to fans one on one and create intimacy. However, her comments on Kony can be seen as performed and framed as she works with Kony to relay their messages to her fans. Framing which is a concept we discussed in week one is another aspect to consider for Kony’s documentary. George Clooney mentions in his video that a quote from a previous interview that was actually commenting on Sudanese president was used. Although, he didn’t mention it in relation to Kony, he did think that it related. Therefore, it is evident that Invisible Children used a series of media content to frame their awareness for their cause. Although, documentaries are supposed to represent authenticity with real life spots that are taken in the moment to tell a story, it is evident that the documentary of Kony was performed and staged.

Similarly, celebrities also use their social media to gain awareness about environmental issues. For example Alyssa Milano uses her Twitter account in 2010 to raise $92, 658 for a charity called Water which is a non-profit organization that strives to provide clean water for those who are don't have it. She also shares her love for animals through Twitter. In the article below, it states that she takes her eco-duties seriously as she posts photos, videos and blogs about various areas of interest. Her social media is used to vocalize her love for the environment. As Waters states that communication style reinforces public relations' writing strategies of keeping a message memorable for the audience by using dramatization and humor and comparing environmental issues to situation prevalent in the audience's daily life. This is shown through Alyssa's tweets because using her charity work for Water, she emphasized the idea of how important water is for everyone. Keeping this example in mind, I feel that the future of environmental communication will rely more and more on public figures such as celebrities and politicians to raise awareness about the environment. In doing so, social media the fastest source of communication with a large amount of audience members in a matter of seconds. I think that as social media networks and digital technology becomes more advanced, the use of electronic communication via the Internet will continue to grow. 

http://econewsnetwork.org/2011/12/eco-celeb-of-the-week-alyssa-milano/

Communicating environmental advocacy and activism

Stewart and Clark's article analyzes three South Park episodes and examines the use of adult cartoon media as well as its comical environmental themes. South Park is able to reach a large demographic and raise awareness about environmental concerns in a comical fashion. This paper helps to understand how negative stereotypes of environmental advocacy can be constructed in ways that may inhibit popular support for sustainability initiatives, while serving as a reminder that if environmental advocacy is to be broadly persuasive, its message and delivery must reflect widely shared American values. At first glance, audiences members may feel South Park is offensive with terrible humor but when taking a a closer it is evident that it utilizes offensive humor to encourage audience members to take a second look. The vulgar and offensive humor is actually a catalyst for life lessons, question authority figures and ethical messages regarding political and social issues.

The Simpsons Movie is a good example that relates South Park's idea of environmental communication. The movie starts off with the animated version of Green Day playing at a concert. After completing their performance, they ask the public to allow them to take a moment to talk about the environment. However, everyone doesn't want to listen and immediately decide to throw garage at the band. The band responds by saying that their polluting the water. This is a significant scene to consider when discussing environmental communication because it reflects what the public would do in this given situation at a concert if someone brought up a serious issue while they were enjoying themselves. Similiar to South Park, these types of scenes, provide messages to the public about taking a second look at their actions. The public describes Green Day in the movie to be "preachy" and in most cases this would occur in real life as well. After this Lisa Simpson decides to try and convince the locals to clean up the polluted Lake Springfield after what happened at the concert. She does so by holding a conference at city hall, called "An Irritating Truth" which is of course a parody of "The Inconvenient Truth". At this conference she explains how the lake can't take pollution. The scenes throughout the movie portray the idea of people becoming careless and how it affects the environment. Later on in the movie, Homer (Lisa's father) dumps pig silo into the lake which causes a huge problem for the whole town. Although Homer is an authority figure as a father, he is shown to be careless and continues to neglect the issues that his daughter, Lisa, fights for. Similar to South Park, the show is teaching children to reject authority and think for themselves which is what is shaping the next generation's thinking. As the issue in about the pollution in the lake becomes serious after Homer's actions, the President is shown to be making a careless decision as he randomly picks a plan for the town without reading and carefully considering his options for a solution. As many would argue The Simpsons Movie portrays the idea of selfish attitude being the main concern for the environment. This film goes on to communicate environmental advocacy and activism through the role of Lisa as she looks for public support for reducing pollution in the lake and portrays herself as a activist who campaigns to bring about change in the town.

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Environment-themed_episodes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrodOi72Huo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v09KnqiYi-c

Greenwashing, consumerism and materialism as environmental communication

Budinsky compares the importance of the relationship between advertising and capitalist ideologies. The article argues that, "...major corporations and big media are deflecting our attention away from [the need for on-the-ground activism] and replacing it with the apparently easy solution of green consumerism" (Budinsky, J., (2013), p. 208). The problem with green washing is that companies are more so concerned with making money through the idea of "saving of the environment" but really their main focus is still not the environment. There main focus is about the consumption of their product. 

Greenwashing according to Budinsky is "...the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service" (Budinsky, J., (2013), p. 209). This includes trade-offs, no profit, vagueness, irrelevance, fibbing, the lesser of the two evils and worshiping false labels. 

There are many examples of greenwashing that can used as an example to portray how companies frame their product to portray the idea of helping the environment but really their main concern is money. An example I found really interesting was the Eco Collection bath mitt. Upper Canada Eco Collection states that the bath mitt is made from bamboo. However, many don't question the fact that bamboo is a tough grass that probably takes a lot of harsh chemical processing to turn it into a soft bath pit for consumers to use on their bodies. In this case, I agree with the article is saying that today consumers are urged to help the environment by purchasing eco-friendly products but how can this occur when the environment is still being portrayed as something that can be bought and sold. The Eco collection bath mitt is a perfect example for this. Consumers are buying it because they think that since it's able naturally it cannot harm the environment. However, what their forgetting is that the product is taking resources from the environment to create that initial product. I think the problem here is that companies think that because they are reducing waste and recycling, it is okay for them to take from the environment, even though it's not! CBC also states in their article that when contacted about their recyclable vinyl packaging, the company said their packaging has all the necessary information available for consumers to make an informed decision. This relates to Budinsky's statement about fitting a neo-liberal agenda where the responsibility is placed on individuals to change their habits, rather than corporations. There is no idea of society or a community coming together to make a collective change but rather individuals are blaming corporations and corporations are blaming individuals decision making. Ultimately, I think that what it comes down to is that both individuals and consumers will have to work together to save the environment. However, at the time, it seems that everyone will take what they can take until they are left with no other choice but to stop. 

http://www.uppercanadasoap.com/768500.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/10-worst-household-products-for-greenwashing-1.1200620