Over the years, eco-friendly products have been manufactured in response to our increasing environmental problems. Now they are known around North America to be the all-natural and nontoxic versions of merchandise such as soaps, lighting and even clothing. This is a way for us to contribute to the environment, but people have started questioning the credibility of these products in wondering if this concept is a scam. This claim is made by Alan Caruba in his article Greenwashing America where he refers to environmentalism as “absurd”, “insane” and “controlling”.
One of the first arguments Caruba makes is that all Green products are significantly more expensive than regular products that have the same function. Firstly, this statement would be more effective if examples were provided. It is true that most regular products are cheaper in price, but how is this a believable claim when he can only back it up with an opinion? Standard cleaning solutions are easily and more feasibly made, which would make them less expensive to produce and sell than the safer products. Without experimental data, Caruba cannot have a strong enough argument that eco-friendly products do the same thing as regular brands and are not better for the environment whatsoever. It is a known fact that these regular products contain chemicals that could impact the air, water, soil and health depending on its location of use. With the only disadvantage being cost, why not spend that extra money on maintaining a natural environment? The author does not account for any research that has been conducted in the field and therefore cannot argue that normal brands do not have negative impacts on the living planet as a whole.
Caruba states that everything is initially made from natural products and consequently do not differ from those that are eco-friendly. I think this is a very naïve thing to say because evidently man-made products are originally formed using natural ingredients, but it is what these natural things are made to become that can negatively affect the environment. Chemicals are active ingredients in a variety of products and many of them have been proven to harm the Earth. Studies have shown for one example that the toxicity in pesticide use and fertilizers can become integrated into the ecosystem and travel through the food chain. He cannot effectively argue that everything is natural and therefore no product has a negative impact on the environment without providing any proof of experimentation. Simply reading the ingredients on a laundry detergent bottle can show you the unnatural substances used in the product.
Another point mentioned is that environmental groups will find a way to profit from companies who are concerned about the environment in selling Green products. Again Caruba fails to provide any proof and if I were making this claim, I believe that some form of quote from one of these companies would be appropriate in this case. Incorporating the work of independent testing companies is a good approach in backing up his thoughts and opinions, but details are not provided and this cannot be used as evidence. Furthermore these independent companies cannot be certain of their own claims, “…there is no reason to believe any Green product claim, particularly since TerraChoice has announced it is probably a scam.” (Caruba 2010). As always in the world of science, more research and experimentation is required in order to make stronger claims.
In this blog it is explained that people are being “greenwashed”, believing unproven environmental claims and Caruba compares this term to “brainwashing”. This is an extremely bold and controversial idea in relating society’s attempt to help the environment to prisoners of war who were forced to be re-educated by their captors. First of all, we are not being forced to believe anything. Rather than providing an image of extreme environmentalists locking people up in Green concentration camps and murdering them in eco-friendly gas tanks if they don’t buy fluorescent light bulbs, why not provide some scientific proof of these claims? He then goes on to compare “greenwashing” to communism in that they were involved in the re-education process. “Communism murdered more people in the last century than all its wars combined.” (Caruba 2010). I feel as though he is going off topic here and that all of his arguments thus far have been emotionally driven.
Alan Caruba evidently has much to say about his beliefs on environmental problems. Although in order to prove his point, some evidence of experiments and statistical data would need to be mentioned and incorporated into his arguments. There is no way to prove such a bold claim that environmentalism is a scam based on blunt emotional comments and opinions. Creating these accusations requires detailed research into the Green product manufacturing companies and some insight to whether they really do care about the environment.
References
Caruba, Alan. "Greenwashing America." Emerging Corruption. November 2010. 9 November 2010 <http://emergingcorruption.com/2010/11/greenwashing-america/
Le Page, Kate. "Eco-friendly household cleaning products - pros and cons." Suite 101. October 2010. 9 November 2010 <http://www.suite101.com/content/eco-friendly-household-cleaning-products---pros-and-cons-a293878>.
By Stephanie Masina
No comments:
Post a Comment