To receive full credit, these blog assignments must be posted by SUNDAY night, April 4th at midnight. If you post late, please email me your post directly at sdebross@uvm.edu as soon as you are able, and I'll give you partial credit.
1. Toxic Sludge is Good For You!
Please read chapter 8 & chapter 9 (hard copy handed out in class) and share FIVE KEY OBSERVATIONS (concepts, personal stories, research) you learned about the PR industry in EACH chapter, and one question you have after finishing EACH chapter of the reading. (Be sure your questions begin with these three words on your blog post - "My question is...")
2. Public Service Announcements
PSA GROUP BLOG POST #1: List the names of your team members (exchange email and phone contact information offline), and post your CONCEPT in 2-3 sentences on each of your personal blogs. Start thinking about what roles - producer, director, back-up/support crew, researcher, digital editor - each of you will adopt/share for the project. REMINDER: Be flexible and communicate with each other!
Toxic Sludge is Good For You
ReplyDeleteChapter 8:
1-The vast list of chemicals, bacteria, and toxins found in this sludge, or "biosolid,"is staggering. What I really love is the hard sell that the WEF is trying to make to the American people. Selling it as a "nutrient-rich, organic by-product," well that's just priceless. No wonder there has been so many food recalls.
2-It is disturbing too me that the motive behind the spreading of this waste by-product on farmland was just came down to it being a cheaper option. Really? Is human health that low on the list of priorities?
3-Now the most upsetting thing for me is to know that these "biosolids" are already being spread all across America. California fruit orchards are fertilized with this stuff,but didn't the WEF say not to place this junk near food sources?
4-I can't believe that the ICPABUMWSLRBP is an acronym that exists.
5-The vendor in Islip, NY who died within a year of coming in contact with this sludge. So sad.
My question is: How can the EPA legally be in support of this sludge disposal?
Chapter 9:
1-In the introduction by Mark Dowie, he says that 40% of all news comes to us unedited from a PR firm. Between this statement and that from "The Corporation" which basically showed the corrupting of the first amendment by news outlets I am done with journalists.
2-The E. Bruce Harrison Company refers to the issue of the environment as being just some minor complexity to be worked through.
3-PR person Kathleen (scumbag) Marquardt has chosen the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, and Humane Society as her enemies. She goes on to call the Humane Society a "radical animal rights cult." This woman is making tons of money lying to people for corporations. Shame.
4-It is chilling to discover that many of the large environmental organizations have been corrupted by greed. They have been bought out by some of these bad guy corporations, and their non-profit status is paying employees large sums of money.
5-Monsanto's SWAT PR stunt. Spraying inner city neighborhoods with Round-Up is just another sign of environmental injustice.
My question is: Why has our government not stepped into monitor these corporate PR blitzes?
Chapter 8
ReplyDelete1. Toxic sludge companies know that public opinion is against them and their campaigns so they employee passive public relations so that the public doesn’t really hear about anything that is happening. This is terrible! These toxic waste companies know what they are doing is bad and they know that the public will think that it is bad so they use passive techniques to introduce sludge farming! Good Lord!
2. Only 1% of sludge is useful to plants and the other 99% should not go where people live and or eat. I can’t believe that something that is entirely made of harmful chemicals is putting spread out over the land where we live. “Land spreading of sewage sludge is not a true ‘disposal’ method” - I agree!
3. If we wanted to really research the bad effects of this sewage stuff, we would not have the proper money to do so. The EPA is giving money to people (millions of dollars) who want to people who want to research the benefits of sludge but not to anyone who wants to research the bad effects. This is not fair to the public. What can we do? The EPA is supposed to stand up for the public, not for the companies.
4. What the hell is with Institutional Constraints and Public Acceptance Barriers to Utilization of Municipal Wastewater and Sludge for Land Reclamation and Biomass Production warning that there are irrational components to the public’s attitude about sludge!!!! I’m irrational? Last time I checked having toxic sludge in clean water is irrational!
5. “sludge that was too contaminated to be placed in a strictly controlled sanitary landfill was promoted as a safe fertilizer and dumped on farmland without anyone having any responsibility.” What is this? Seriously? I cannot believe this!
My question is why is the Environmental protection agency on the same side as the toxic chemical companies? How can we take back our environment from them and put it in the hands of someone who actually cares about it?
Chapter 9
1. PR executives are “mediating” our lives! I don’t want someone to tell me what is good for me with the interests of a company in the mind. I want my interests in mind! I don’t like that PR is mediating what I think.
2. “The best PR ends up looking like news.” This makes me think about to the video when we heard that it wasn’t against the law to produce news that wasn’t true. This is just like that, it is not illegal to lie and say that it is news - which essentially what PR people are doing for the companies that they work for.
3. “Environmental PR seeks to fix these ‘misperceptions’ by convincing the public that ecological crises don’t exist.” Well it’s not working. I’m very aware that environmental crises exist and are happening all over the place! We need to put an end to these, those environmental PR people should probably just step down and let the truth be known.
4. How on earth is McDonald’s one of the highest environmental rated companies!?! I feel like companies I use everyday must be part of this environmental conspiracy - if McDonalds can get an environmental reputation that is good I’m sure other companies can too - probably companies I even use! OH NO!
5. Even worse, companies will advertise the “very qualities they do not have” - does this mean when I buy products from a company that is supposedly caring and environmentally friendly, they are probably not!? Now what am I going to do.
My question is if all the companies I use are just pretending to be environmentally friendly, where am I going to buy from? And, If I start only buying locally to avoid the whole scam, who is to say that the soil is not be fertilized with toxic sludge being masked as fertilizer!
Chapter 8
ReplyDelete- The list of sludge ingredients was surprising and led me to think of other options that people could use when disposing of these items….which led me to no answer. It’s sad that we have to resort to just dumping and mixing everything together and then disposing it in those horrible ways which are hurting our environment.
- The fights of what to do with the sludge caught my attention. The fact that New York had to persuade other towns and states to take their sludge is depressing because it’s so awful to think about how much waste we really have in this world.
-I laughed to myself while reading when I got to Institutional Constraints and Public Acceptance Barriers to Utilization of Municipal Wastewater and Sludge for Land Reclamation and Biomass Production" (imagine the acronym: ICPABUMWSLRBP). I just thought it was entertaining and sad that an acronym like that would even exist.
-The part on New York City’s new “weapon” was interesting to me, the fact that they have to hide permits is sad because they have this dangerous advantage over everyone else.
-With the fact that cows were getting and sick and dying, it just shows how this is an issue. The fact that they were getting sick from this makes complete sense, but it seems like people don’t want to admit to it.
My question is why would sludge even be considered for farming, especially organic farming??? With all the talk of illness, I don’t understand how this could even be an option in this day and age.
Chapter 9
-I had no idea that people tried to fight the publishing of “Silent Spring”. Even though it seems they tried so hard, the book still had a lot of success and has build up so much of the history in the environmental world.
-The fact that “Environmental PR” are trying to make it seem that ecological crises don’t exist, which is amusing, but awful at the same time.
- To think that we are to blame for despoiling our natural environment, is so untrue and is an easy way for corporations to take all the hate away from them. They are trying to blame us and by giving this simple solution of how if we just will puck up after ourselves, the problems will go away. … but this is so wrong and there is so much more to that, especially regarding corporations.
- The idea that “Pr-industry citizen activist groups can do things the industry can’t”, makes it seem that this is the way to get anything you want. This doesn’t seem like the smartest way, because it just seems like it will cause even more problems down the road.
-“Whenever a environmental group tells lie that have an economic harm against anybody, that is a civil tort, and under US law they should be vigorously prosecuted in civil court”, this seems a bit extreme compared to what these corporations and businesses are doing to us, environmental groups are just doing the right thing by telling the truth in order to protect people.
My question is how are these companies getting away with these “green” labels and making them seem ok?? How far is too far until people realize who they are really buying from???
Toxic Sludge Is Good For You:
ReplyDeleteChapter 8:
1. The treatment of sewage works just like the GDP. “The more advanced the treatment of sewage (the more successful the separation), the more sludge will be produced, and the worse—the more unusable and dangerous—it will be. That is, the ‘better’ the treatment, the greater the range of incompatible materials that will have been concentrated in this highly entropic gray jelly.” It’s sort of the same with the GDP, the worse of an event that happens, the better our GDP does. The idea of progress and better are completely skewed.
2. The methods for getting rid of this toxic sludge include incineration, dumping into landfills, gasification, plant fertilizers, and ocean dumping. None of these ways are any better than the others; they are all horrible. But what amazes me is humans complete and utter disregard for all aspects of the planet. It’s bad enough that we are ruining the part of the planet that we inhabit, but then we have to go and ruin the ocean. I’m not saying that humans own the land, but the ocean is nowhere even close to being ours to ruin. We don’t live in the ocean, the effects of our actions really wont have any real dire impact on us for quite some time. It appalls and scares me to think that our beautiful oceans could become like the fake, toxic waves with the fake sand and fake wind of FEED. The ocean is one of the last untouched fronts on the planet, we should probably leave it that way. We’re like King Midas, except everything we touch turns to sludge, not gold.
3. Also, I love how everyone thinks that by changing an organizations name, they can some how change the chemical compounds of whatever they happen to be promoting or producing. No, juts by calling it biosolids, or humanure, or nutricake or whatever doesn’t mean its going to be any less toxic. You could call it happy rainbow juice, but it would still cause all sorts of diseases and congenital birth defects and all other problems. And then they say that they aren’t trying t hide anything… So why exactly are you changing the name? Oh right, to correct the misconceptions about toxic sludge, sorry biosolids. But let them answer this, have they actually gone and smelled it? If they did, I’m pretty sure there’d be no denying that it stuck to the high heavens. And they say that it’s safe and doesn’t hurt humans, well, I don’t see them having it pop up in their backyards like with the Love Canal incident and have no problem with it. I feel like I say this in almost every blog post but WHER ARE THESE PEOPLE’S MORAL COMPASSES?!?!?!?! This shit is hurting people, and children, and babies, and animals and their great-great grandchildren’s environment!!! How blind can you be?? I mean really? The studies are inconclusive…Yeah right, that’s just another way of saying yeah this stuff is pretty much horrible and will probably kill lots of people but on my short time on this earth I just want to make lots of money, so if some people die in the process of me making bank, oh well, such is life. These people are psychopaths and sociopaths in disguise!! And they are practically running our country!!! AHHH!!
4. Also, that forty-page report put out by the EPA with the ridiculously long title (made that long and unnecessary to deter people from ever wanting to read it in the first place) is sheer crap! “It warns that there is an ‘irrational component’ to the public’s attitude toward sludge, including the widely-held notion that sludge smells bad: ‘It is difficult to say to what extent odors emanating from sludge may be imagined.” Who are they calling irrational?!?!?! My goodness. And I thought EPA stood for Environmental Protection Agency…Protection…Environmental PROtection…Agency… Just making that clear. But apparently the EPA likes to side with the people who have literally no sense of smell and thus cannot smell the ensuing death they are creating.
5. I also find it quite disturbing that Rick Jarman from the NFPA thinks that “consumers don’t need to know whether their food has been grown in sludge.” I beg to differ. What is this, poisoning the people, and then taking away their right to knowledge, to know where their food comes from? How demeaning can we be? It begs the question, if there is nothing wrong with the sludge than why is it such a big deal if people know where their food comes from (sludge field or not) ?
ReplyDeleteMy Question is, why do these companies insist on continuing to destroy people and the environment? The people that work at these companies are people, individuals with what I hope are beating hearts. How can they justify these actions, and things that they are saying? I just don’t understand.
Chapter 9:
1. I find it so frustrating that companies can change their name or have a name that does not represent what the company actually does. For example, the Global Climate Coalition, which you would think would be all for helping the environment…Wrong…The Global Climate Coalition actually “opposes environmental action to prevent global warming.” Who knew? And apparently “in the perverse world of corporate public relations, propagandizing and lobbying against the environmental protection is called environmental, or green PR.” Now that just makes no sense whatsoever. Way to be blatantly sneaky. (side note, PR should stand for professional liar, not public relations…just saying.)
2. “Obviously business leaders are a minority whose opinions run contrary to the mainstream of American thought, but they are able to determine government policy thanks to carefully planned long term strategy.” This just does not seem right. Last I checked, it was majority rules, not minority who happens to have way more money than everybody else. This system is hugely flawed. It makes it so much easier for bad decisions to be made, because they profit the big guys up top more. A lot of things in this country seem to be set up that way. I’m starting to wonder if it was somehow created this way on purpose. The interconnectedness of all this corruption just seems way too commonplace to just be coincidence.
3. It’s also really disturbing to hear about the making of Earth Day a corporate commodity. Companies will stop at nothing to make a quick buck. To put it simply, its gross. And then on top of corporatizing the day designated to preserving the earth (even though you should do that every day) they let any old company be a part even if they are polluting the environment like there is no tomorrow. I’m not blaming the people at all, but its time the vast majority of us stop being such suckers for the words green and eco- whatever. We need to start seeing through the smoke and mirrors to what’s really going on behind the scenes. And we also need to stop letting companies stick their noses into every aspect of life. Earth day a corporate commodity, well apparently the fat lady has sung and pigs are flying because companies have corporatized saving the earth that they are simultaneously destroying. That’s talent…
4. And then the companies have the audacity to pin all the blame on the consumer, as if they had nothing to do with it, oh please. I agree that people can help solve the problem by changing their habits…But in no way it this entirely or mostly the consumers fault. The companies are the ones who are making the products and the pollution etc… etc… and the laundry list of offenses could continue for days. But how can they possibly make such an accusation. Okay, so say everybody changed their habits and started to save the world…Companies would go bananas, their profits would plummet and there would be a lot of business people running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to restore their beloved virtue of blind consumerism into the public eye. It would fare them much better if they changed their companies so people would appreciate the actual real environmental steps they are making (not just changing names) and people wouldn’t have to boycott them and send them down the tubes.
ReplyDelete5. “We feel that whenever any environmental group tells lies that have an economic harm against anybody, that is a civil tort, and under US law they should be vigorously prosecuted in civil court.” Oh yeah, but when some company tells lies that have an environmental harm, they can’t do the same? Instead the companies will pull some strings, dish out a few bucks here and there and the prosecution will get nowhere. How do they not see the disconnect here? Do they think people are going to hear the things they are saying and nod their heads in newfound agreement?? Yeah, not so much. The whole system just baffles me.
My question is what will generations to come think of today’s situation? What will they think as they learn about all of this in history class? Will all of this be skewed in the textbooks by the company writing them? Will anything ever be truth if companies are allowed to just lie and lie and lie and suffer no serious repercussions? How will history judge us??
Chapter 8:
ReplyDelete1: There is a shocking amount of chemicals in sewage sludge. One spot can contain over 60,000 toxic substances and chemical compounds. I didn’t even know that many existed. Well, I did because TSCA adopted in about that many chemicals and is a joke, but that many all in just one place is what shocks me.
2: Calling sludge “biosolids” is a little ridiculous because biosolids would decompose, but sludge involves chemicals that don’t.
3: The EPA’s scientists only put out positive reports on sludge because of their funding. True, there could be and are benefits, yet currently there are too many problems to just be studying benefits.
4: In 1985 NY realized that there was a bioaccumaltion of toxins in fish and fisherman realized the amount of fish they were catching was decreasing. It took them a while to realize this, after how many years of sludge dumping into the ocean?
5: The idea that a good idea of disposing of waste is trucking toxic sludge all the way from NY to Arizona is ridiculous. Surely a better, safer, and more cost effective disposal could have been made instead of shipping it all the way across the country.
Question: How are we supposed to dispose of this waste? It doesn’t really say.
Chapter 9:
1: I had heard about how companies would try to prevent books from being published but reading this chapter helped me understand this. I was surprised by how hard Monsanto and other chemical companies campaigned against the publishing of Silent Spring. Even though it was published the companies worked hard to give it bad reviews and prevent it from being read, I was unaware of these attempts and I believe they do play a crucial part in today’s media.
2: Greenwashing was a large concept mentioned in the book. The author seemed to be very against it and I disagree with him. I believe that greenwashing isn’t a bad thing because companies do have to do a little something to be considered green, and every little bit counts. Greenwashing also brings awareness to issues and other companies often follow to compete.
3: Changing the name of a company makes me mad. A company that sells oil is an energy provider, yet at the same time they aren’t mentioning the harm they are doing. Anyone can fall for this simple marketing and it does give companies a better reputation.
4: For a billion dollar company like McDonald’s 20,000 dollars is pocket change, therefore sponsoring Earth Day and green events is an interesting topic. It boosts McDonald’s reputation for very little, while at the same they aren’t changing who they are. Many people do not want to allow this, but 20,000 dollars toward the environment is better than nothing right? Or is the damage in increased McDonald’s sales destroying the environment more than the 20,000 dollars it would take to fix it?
5: There seems to be a good cop vs. bad cop concept in the book. I am a fan of the good cop because working together is always more effective than fighting a company. Working together also creates a better vibe and allows room for future improvements.
Question: Is the author in support of the good cop or bad cop approach? What approach should try to guide people and companies in?
Chapter 8
ReplyDeleteI have heard about the story of Hugh Kaufmann and the EPA whistle-blowers but this article sheds more light on the corruption of environmental legislation. There is so much conflict of interest between government and corporate bureaucracies. The same thing happened with the tobacco industry, there is this obvious love and marriage between lobby groups and government officials. The list is endless, in one instance the PR firm Powell Tate or had connections to the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
The renaming of sludge by the public relations group is very ironic in the context of this book, and particularly this chapter. The one quote by Rutgers Professor Frank Lutz on the newly coined term is hilarious, “It does have one great virtue, you think of biosolids and your mind goes blank.” Some of the other proposed names are simply laughable, “recyclite” as if the stuff is recyclable, and “black gold” this must be the type of gold where only a few make a significant profit.
It is hard to believe that New York City was dumping its waste into the ocean only 20 years ago. It is also unbelievable that it took complaints from the fishing industry to actually change policies. The image of the barge of trash getting pulled around the Atlantic Ocean sticks in my mind when thinking of the sludge situation
The PR campaigns for spreading sludge in rural towns particularly the ones in Texas are ridiculous. How can this group get away with paying off the mayor, giving money to the board of education, and having turkey dinners to convince the public? Their use of “passive” techniques instead of protesting and handing out flyers is smart and impressive but the subtleness is scary.
One really scary point is the last paragraph referring to how far greenwashing can go. I agree that a PR representative would go as far as saying that sewage sludge is so environmentally friendly it might as well be certified organic. This is indicative of greenwashing today and how much the organic label actually means in the market. Media and public relations can change the image of anything, even if it is hazardous as sludge to seem healthy and environmentally friendly.
My question is how twisted and greedy are proponents of land spreading of sludge? And how far are they willing to go to make a profit from exporting New York City’s waste to host towns?
Chapter 9
ReplyDeleteThis chapter does a great job of getting the perspective of anti-environmental groups and public relations campaigns with some good quotes. A good one is by former Interior Secretary James Watt saying “If the troubles from environmentalists cannot be solved in a jury or ballot box, perhaps the cartridge box should be used.” Another good one is by Ron Arnold of Wise Use he says, “Our intent is to sue environmental groups whenever there is a legal reason to do so.” He went on saying that environmental groups lie, skew data, and are economically harmful. These people should not have any power in this society.
There are so many references to the Greenpeace Guide to Anti-environmental Organizations, I feel I should purchase a copy of this, I am sure there is a list on their website. Anyway, it is interesting because I have never heard of some of these environmental PR groups such as ARCO or the environmental defense fund (EDF). They have clearly had an influence, especially for McDonalds to have risen to be one of the most environmentally friendly businesses. How is that possible?
It was a little disturbing to learn how much funding to the big environmental organizations received from notorious anti-environmental corporations. Corporate sponsors for the World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and more represent one quarter of the organizations in the Greenpeace guide.
I was never a huge fan of Earth day but it makes sense now because it is corporate public relations scheme. As described in the Good cop/Bad cop section of the chapter earth day helps create a schism in the environmental movement, and convinces people that the planet is healthy and worth celebrating. The one cartoon of the polluted industrial plant putting up an earth day banner explains the situation well. Public relations is everything, one company could be responsible for massive deforestation and unfair labor but if they put “recycle more” banners on their products or business they are fine.
Reiterated from Chapter 8, the issue of greenwashing is important and worse than I thought. Also termed as “Green PR” this form of propaganda has been rampant since Silent Spring was published. PR experts such as Burston-Marsteller, Ketchum, Bruce Harrison, and others are waging an all out war on environmentalists, and with the backing of large corporate clients they usually end up wining. It is amazing but $1 billion is spent by U.S. businesses every year on anti-environmental PR services.
My question is should activists try an focus on education to combat greenwashing and chemical corporations? Or is attacking the PR campaigns and businesses with protests and flyers more effective?
Toxic Sludge is Good For You
ReplyDeleteChapter 8
My question is How can we not have any way of letting companies get away with this? If a company such as Dow chemical what does that say about the whole celebration of Earth Day. Its nothing but a PR scheme to make the company seem better than it actually is. There is an open job market that has not been created yet to act as a checks and balances which I will talk about more in my next segment.
My question is why haven't we created a job market to the serve as a system of checks and balances to make sure large corporations such as Dupont and Monsanto are living up to standards they put forth to which they said they were going to do. I feel a system such as this would help to prevent environmental injustices and corruption. Almost every in the Northern part of the state of Delaware works for the DuPont chemical company. There are schools and towns named after family members of the founder of the company. I did not realize some of the environmental injustices. A study conducted by the Political Economy Research Institute in 2004 said that DuPont was the top contributing producer of air pollution in the country which completely surprised me since they were telling me that they had a completely green record. I also learned that the company created Chlorofluorocarbons or better known as CFC's.
My question is, why is DDT being allowed to be sold to other countries. It has been scientifically proven to cause birth defects in wildlife and humans. Don't the countries realize the history of the chemical? It is surprising that countries do not do the research on the product or even they are misled to thinking that the products are safe.
My question is the topic of Earth Day. I recently checked the Earth Day website and all the sponsors on there look like legitimate environmental organizations. I do not think it is fair of the author to bash these companies for trying to save the environment. Yes they may be taking “dirty money” from companies with bad reputations who can blame them in these tough economic times. Yes one may argue its completely wrong and I agree. That's why we need to take an initiative to re write the protocol on Earth
Day to make sure there isn't a corporate sell out to the unfriendly organizations looking to gain some PR just for the Earth Day logo. It has pretty much come down to Earth Day becoming a brand name. Once you have it you are in good terms with the environmental crowd supposedly.
My question is what was the author thinking when he wrote the book A moment on Earth. The Toxic Sludge states that the book says that all environmental crises are either already solved or they never existed . Corporations have learned about this and there shouldn't be any regulations. I think this philosophy is just nonsense. If you look back upon Chernobyl and the incident with leaking tritium at Vermont Yankee. He should really look at the facts before he should say something like that.
1. My question is what happens to the fledgling environmental organizations when they don't have any money to help run their operations? In this poor economic time they may have to bite their lip and accept donations from groups with poor environmental records in order to survive. Its unfortunate but they may have to accept the dirty money.
ReplyDelete2. My question is how did that PR get away with being the top green ethics PR firm? Maybe the author of the Toxic Sludge book and he maybe doing a great job but its the companies unwilling to change their minds about the traditional values that they have.
3. My question is why is this book so depressing? As read this book it almost felt as if there was a certain impending doom about to happen. Where is the connection to the audience? I want to know what I personally can do to prevent this from happening.
4. My question is there a way to prevent green washing? With a donation from a green organization comes a outsource of knowledge within the environmental organization the company donated to, so says the Toxic Sludge Book. Which makes me think its hard to believe that its true.
5. My question is where are the sources? I would of liked to of seen some sources in the text. But it could be just me. Some of the stuff in the book does seem a little extreme to be real.
Toxic Sludge is good for you:
ReplyDeleteChapter 8-
1.“We weren't planning to write about ‘toxic sludge’ per se. We were trying to reach so-called ‘Generation X’ readers with a ‘Generation X’ title -- a cynical, exaggerate parody of deceptive public relations.” I found it entertaining that, in this book about media literacy, the author chose to describe why the title was chosen. The title is catchy, easy to remember, and satirical, all of which are attractive to our generation of media skeptics.
2.The German politician Otto von Bismarck once said that ‘those who love sausage and the law should never watch either being made’.” I just love this quote. It is simple and very much to the point. This quote basically describes what I’ve learned so far at UVM in just one sentence. I also feel that media literacy in general targets this phenomena. People tend to like what they like, and continue to blindly consume it, oftentimes intentionally avoiding information about how the product was produced. This can’t continue.
3.It is interesting that the toxic sludge has been renamed to “biosolids”, which sounds completely opposite, and gives a positive connotation to what, in reality, is toxic by-product.
4.It is interesting how much of an effect the economy has on the environment over time. In the reading, it said that in the 1970s water pollution was a big issue for the public, and steps were taken to improve the health of watersheds, etc. In the 1980s, politicians sought to reduce federal spending, and thus money was cut from Clean Water Act type programs. By the 1990s, funding for keeping water supplies safe and clean had been eliminated. Water is the most essential substance for all of life on Earth, every person uses water every day for many purposes. It seems as though water purification should be the number one priority for any government or group of people. How is it not a priority at all?
5.I was completely blow away by the list of chemicals, bacteria, and heavy metals known to be in what is now called “biosolids”. These substances are known to be poisonous, carcinogenic, and obviously just not good for any life form to ingest.
My question is: How is it legal that people are exposed to so many deadly substances without our knowledge or consent?
Chapter 9-
ReplyDelete1.First of all, the opening quote of chapter nine is really frightening. This Vice Chairman of a public relations firm basically says that corporations need not be afraid of the environmental movement because big companies have so much money that environmentalist don’t stand a chance.
2.Monsanto spent a lot of money to publish and distribute a book, The Desolate Year, in response to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Monsanto’s book suggests that stopping the use of pesticides would create a mass outbreak of insects that would essentially take over our country. This is absolute bullshit, and I am not sure how anyone in their right mind could believe such a theory. There are places around the world which refrain from heavy use of chemical inputs to agriculture, and they get along fine (probably with lower cancer rates). This leaves me wondering how long Monsanto has been around.
3.Greenwashing has gone completely rampant just in the past couple of years. People mindlessly believe what is written on packages and advertisements about some products being better for the environment. There is certainly not enough public awareness of the fact that consumption in general is a huge environmental problem. I was talking about this issue with a friend the other day, and she said she believes that people are becoming “satiated” by consuming goods that they are told are ecologically sound. They may be so put off by all that they have been told they’re doing wrong that buying, for example, a T-shirt that says “Green is the new black” will sooth them.
4.The section “Good Cop/Bad Cop” was helpful in that it illustrates how PR will create a dichotomy among people involved in the environmental movement. The media certainly portrays some activists as being too radical, and therefore not justified in their concerns. Like with any other issue, the corporate-owned mainstream media seeks to convince the public that there is nothing that the public can or should do to improve society. They do this because if more people began to care about social and environmental issues, big businesses would be investigated, regulated, and boycotted.
5.It is a shame that corporations are trying to improve their image, but not their policies, just by funding things like environmental organizations, and events like Earth Day. On the other hand, though, they are contributing by giving lots of money that the movement wouldn’t otherwise have access to.
My question is: Is George Bush part of a Wise Use group? It seems like many of the eleventh-hour bills he signed (removing the Polar Bear from the Endangered Species Act, for example) were similar the examples given on page 141.
PSA GROUP BLOG POST #1: Our group members are Megan, Morgan, Nate, and Zack. We will be working on a PSA about marijuana decriminalization, which is an important issue in Vermont right now. Some tactics we may try to use to engage the viewer are humor, music, beautiful people (haha us of course), and presentation of important facts. I was inspired by the PSA about marijuana that you showed us in class, and I think that it could be done much better. The PSA could be helpful in gaining more support to pass a decriminalization bill in the Vermont Legislature. I do not have any valuable technological skills, but I would be excited to research facts, help film/act, and find people to interview.
ReplyDeleteChapter 8: I was blown away that there are over 60,000 toxins and chemicals in sewage sludge. I knew it was bad for you but wow. How is this reusable for farming let alone farming plants that we eat...
ReplyDelete2.) In Florida 10,000+ acres are routinely fertilized with "sludge" even though on the label it says not to use for food-producing soil. This makes me want to buy local.
3.) The EPA encourages communities to use sewage sludge even though they know the harmful effects. They need somewhere to put it and are "lulling" people into using it.
4.) New York Organic and Merco haul over a thousand tons of sewage sludge a day out of New York City. This is absolutely disgusting. Where is it all going? And for $634 million? crazy...
5.) The test sludge in Sierra Blanca in 1994 showed over 35x the level of fecal coliform bacteria and Jon Masters said it wasn't a problem and that the test results were often inaccurate. Even in the full on confrontation these people continue to lie.
Chapter 9
1.) There are more PR practitioners in the US than there are reporters. The power has been given to PR executives to completely dictate what is shared in the media. We are powerless to hear the truth.
2.) The reference to Environmental activists being "eco-terrorists" made me chuckle simply on how ridiculous it is. Yeah right. How can someone say that ecological crises don't exist.
3.) Corporations giving money to organizations such as the Audubon Society. These are the same corporations that are trashing the planet however if they are seen giving money there public image is environmentally friendly people? How do people buy this crap?
4.) Mcdonald's sued a tiny group in London for criticizing it's policies because they were undermining the company's cultivated image. THey are to this day one of the most environmentally harmful corporations in the world.
5.) The Wise Use Act is really really scary to me especially when there goal is to "wipe out every environmental group, by replacing it with a Wise Use Group" and they're closely involved with the PR industry. Talking about giving National Park development to corporations. Wise Use groups would be the perfect liars corporations would need to steadily trick Americans into handing there land and water over to the PR industry.
My Question is..Moving forward...Is it possible to organize a large and non-corporate funded organization that will be "allowed" to progress successfully without being "replaced" by groups such as Wise Use or other organizaitons?
1. Right off in chapter 8 I was blown away by the attempts of the WEF to relabel sludge, biosolids. Secondly, was the revelation that the water-based sewage system is relatively new and it is inefficient and polluting. Most shocking is that there are available dry toilet technology which we completely ignore. My third observation was the discovery of how much human waste is used to fertilize our food, this could be ok if it was properly developed compost, but it isn't, it is sludge filled with heavy metals and toxicants. I laughed at the ICPABUMWSLRBP's attempts to change the portrait of sludge by challenging the "widely-held notion that sludge smells bad". What a load of crock. Finally, after reading about New York City's attempts to pawn off their sludge on, essentially everyone, I really hope that none of it made its way into Vermont illegally.
ReplyDeleteMy question for chapter eight is, considering that using sludge for methane production is likely the most environmentally sound way of disposing of it, is the only obstacle to this goal price? Can we change cultural paradigms to recognize that money is not the ultimate universal truth?
2. In chapter 9 I was first blown away by efforts of the chemical agriculture industry to discredit Carson's Silent Spring. Monsanto even published a parody, The Desolate Year, to envision a world without pesticides. I was next surprised by the counter-protest groups sponsored by industry, my favorite being the Coalition for Vehicle Choice in response to the threats against cars. Thirdly, I both hate, and am intrigued by, E. Bruce Harrison. He actually makes an interesting argument when he points out that Earth Day has become divested and separated from its grassroots constituents in part due to its status as what Harrison calls a, "multi-million dollar environmental bureaucracy,". Fourthly, I'm torn by the state of environmental non-profits. I'm worried that the corporate donations are diluting the movement as each corporate sponsor takes some of the organization's public credibility in exchange for monetary support. It may be a necessary evil, but I'm scared that Harrison is right in saying that nonprofits really want to, "ensure the wherewithal that enable it to green." meaning its existence is more important than its message. Finally, the most shocking thing I saw was Ron Arnold's bold agenda for Wise Use, "We intend to wipe out every environmental group, by replacing it with a Wise Use group." After reading the article before this claim and hearing what Wise Use is, this statement scares me more than anything else.
My question for Chapter Nine is, Is there a place for corporate money in the environmental movement, or is the potential hypocrisy too great?
3. My group is myself, Casey and Colin and we are going to do a PSA about conserving water and electricity by striving to turn off electronic devices, and by turning those faucet knobs all the way. I'll be spearheading the editing thanks to two previous years of film majoring.