Human Impacts Lab
Part 1 Ban Plastic Bags or Not
A. "Articles in Favor of Ban on Plastic Bags"
1. I think that the use of plastic bags are just as bad on the enviorment as paper bags. I have not read any scientifc facts that support my decision.
2. The bags I prefer are the reusable bags that some stores give you to carry your groceries. These bags are usually recycled cloth material and can carry a lot more weight than both plastic and paper bags. These bags can be washed and also have a small discount for an incentive.
B.
1. a) Muskegon County- A man named Terry J. Sabo brought fourth a contract for the city to pay a company for the clean up of plastic bags at the county solid waste disposal. b) Issaquah Washington- City council adopted an ordinance that ban single-use plastic bags for both large and small retail stores. They than pushed the issue of how plastic bags are harmful to the environment and how reusable bags will benefit the environment. c) Austin- Put in effectthat plastic bags be made thicker to be able to carry more weight to cut down on plastic bag quantity. Paper bags must contain 40% recycled material beginning on a certain date and 80% recycled material one year later.
2. The reasoning is supported scientifically through research. a) Austinites use 263 million bags a year b) Plastic bags made thicker to cut down on waste.
3. Two exceptions to the plastic bag ban in Austin are: a) Plastic bags be 4ml in thickness or greater with handles. b) Paper bags made of 40% recycled content with handles.
C. " Articles Against Ban on Plastic Bags"
1. a) Scientific research shows plastic bags are better than paper for the environment. b) It's been proven that people recycle plastic bags better. c) Some plastic bags are considered greener for the environment than paper bags.
2. Two examples of reasoning supported scientifically are: Plastic bags have a much lower carbon footprint. Small amounts a energy and raw material are needed to make plastic bags.
D.
1.The two findings I found in the research paper of the United Kingdom environmental agency were simple concepts. a) The environmental impact of all types of bags dominated by resource use and production stages b) Whatever type of bag being used, the key was to use the back multiple times and find different ways to recycle that back such as replacing it has a liner in the trash.
2. there were two items in the article that surprised me. First, the starch reusable bags actually had a more negative effects on global warming and Second, how significant it is using recycled bags in contrast to global warming.
E.
1. In Japan retailers will actually charged fees for using bags. But, Japan has one of the highest recycle rates in the world at 77%.
2. Italy band the use of non-biodegradable bags to support the movement for biodegradable plastic.
Part 2 Greenwashing
A.
The Coca-Cola Company
B.
Coca-Cola is being accused of "greenwashing". The company released an advertisement stating that they're going green by packaging their new plastic bottle in a plant base material rather than using petroleum or other fossil feels. Sources say that the giant soft drink company marketed the new Eco friendly bottle without the full life cycle assessment. Coca-Cola simply had no proof that its product has positive effect on reducing CO2 emissions.
C.
The ad misleads with words - "PlantBottle Marketing Exaggerated Environmental Benefits, Says Consumer Report". I believe this ad did mislead the truth. The words sis make you think that the company was green. it said in the actual advertisement they were being greener. The ad is saying they are packaging their bottles to benefit the environment.
The ad misleads with visual and/or graphics- There were only a couple images in this add. One didn't show any direction of going green. The other ad picture just showed the facts about the new bottle being 100% recycled. This makes you think as a reader the company cares about the enviorment.
The ad makes a green claim that is vague or seemingly not provable- The ad claims that the new bottling materials are a benefit. But on the other hand the new bottle material was not tested completely through the cycle. The claims does refer to the company in a appropriate way.
The ad overstates or exaggerates how green the product/company/service actually is- I believe the advertiser is overstating how green the company is. The green claims in the ad are believable to people that don't know better. I think it's possible for the company and product to make good on the green aspect. Coca-Cola has the money and resources to go green.
The ad leaves out or masks important information, making the green claim sound better than it is- I think this ad defiantly diverts the attention from the real problems of the company. The company uses harmful materials for their bottles. So This was a quick fix idea to divert the attention away from the fact. I think there is things missing from the ad. It shows the bold important green information but it hides the truth.
D.
"Coca-Cola Company (KO) Busted For 'Greenwashing': PlantBottle Marketing Exaggerated Environmental Benefits, Says Consumer Report." International Business Times. 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.