Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Greenwashing

Social Sciences

Greenwashing’s foray into the mainstream has tied in several existing sociological issues. A chief one is eco-anxiety, which is anxiety specifically characterized by the topic of environmental decline and fear of social collapse. https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/world-news/what-eco-anxiety-could-you-17604207 That anxiety is a normal reaction to stressful or frustrating situations, but it is often internalized and can manifest as an individual feeling helpless about their inability to alter humanity’s trajectory. It can become deep-seated guilt, which is only exemplified by social media campaigns, government suggestions, and even corporate messaging, such as Coca-Cola publicly promising to reduce its waste while simultaneously opposing single-use plastic reforms and restrictions. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/plastic-waste-pollution-coca-cola-pepsi-nestle-sustainability-b455891.html This messaging is specifically formulated to shift blame onto the individual, even as these companies continue to pump out emissions, pollution, and toxic waste into the environment, and even withhold information relating to future climate change, as Exxon and Shell did in the 1980s. They hold the power, because they have the money to invest in predicting outcomes, and the ability to rival governments as they choose to avoid divulging that vital information. Instead, they can appease the public by putting on a front to show them that they care, essentially greenwashing their own practices, which can make consumers feel better about buying from them in a world where everything carries an environmental impact. The reason for the “annoying vegan” stereotype feeds off of psychological bias, which sows seeds of discontent between consumers themselves in regards to personal choices, rather than targeting those really responsible, again taking power away from the individuals who feel strongly about the issue. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200203-the-hidden-biases-that-drive-anti-vegan-hatred https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200618-climate-change-who-is-to-blame-and-why-does-it-matter Intrapersonal conflict can surpass simple lifestyle variations, and venture into class distinctions too. Eco-friendly products tend to be more expensive than their standard counterparts, which makes sense to an extent. Pesticide-free produce may take more time to grow, paying a living wage ups production costs, and wood, paper, or aluminum packaging may cost more than simple plastic wrap. However, for those struggling to make ends meet, paying an extra 25% for toilet paper, for example, simply isn’t feasible, and in many cases, the demand hasn’t been around long enough to scale up in order to lower cost. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/buying-green-is-too-pricey-for-the-average-consumer/ In the cases of certain more privileged groups going beyond the essentials, and transforming every aspect of their life with aesthetically-pleasing bamboo and stainless steel, the greenwashing has not only succeeded from a marketing perspective, but has served to act as a divisive element between those who can and cannot afford what is perceived to be the “perfect” eco-friendly lifestyle. This directly contradicts the fundamental concept of the issue that we face today: we are all on this planet together, and the most effective way to create change is to hunt down those who don’t want change. Unfortunately, the inequality prevalent in so many societies today, especially Western ones where some do have the disposable income to buy an electric car, for example, the desire to carry out environmentalism perfectly can easily put people off, especially if they feel excluded or targeted because of their inability to “succeed.” The implied power dynamic may not be intentional here, but it puts middle and upper-class individuals at the center of the debate and praises them for their contributions, though others not making the same effort may be in that position out of necessity. https://www.curiouslyconscious.com/2019/06/eco-perfectionism.html/ https://www.onewomanproject.org/blog/2019/9/29/privilege-and-sustainability https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/renee-peters-how-sustainably-is-for-privileged Meanwhile, greenwashing continues to flourish as more and more people try to put their money into the vision of sustainability that they are exposed to through the distortion of influencer and corporate-controlled media.

Dyinghouseplant (discuss • contribs) 11:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick Documentation: we had a group meeting on tuesday and decided to specify our topic even more (focus on fast fashion, specifically h&m's "conscious" line) and split up the social sciences portion between the other two sections to minimize words count and integrate the different disciplines.

Hey, so I just finished adding putting everything together to see the final draft, even tough we are not finished, this is what it could look like. In today's session we will discuss the tensions around the disciplines a little bit more to have a wikichapter that has a deeper knowledge of the subject. Also we have to fix a few references that are missing or incomplete. As we approach finishing our wikichapter we need to be careful about the word counts are we are already at the maximum number so every change in word will have to be carefully chosen. --Uclqesm (discuss • contribs) 11:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Just went through the intro and environment section to clear up grammar and remove repetition. cut about 100 words but kept most of the actual content. maybe we can add more specifics about where the clothing goes/comes from, who is profiting etc. Also we should probably mention the western POV that we are writing from. Lastly, the problem of labor conditions and ethics/transparancy might be something worth exploring if we have space. I'm going to edit the other half tomorrow morning and find some more sources as well. Dyinghouseplant (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

As we approach the deadline, after a zoom call yesterday, we agreed to look deeper into the kinds of truth we really wanted to talk about and especially the ones that we might have used but have the same meaning. We though that it was very difficult to talk about different kinds of truth because our views where very different and it is very subjective. I am currently trying to harmonise the style of our referencing because they are not always the same and find again some references that we forgot to include in our initial draft on the google doc. --Uclqesm (discuss • contribs) 10:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

All the references are now on the Harvard referencing model. --Uclqesm (discuss • contribs) 11:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Tried to tie the subject of environmental studies more clearly into greenwashing and especially how the analytical tools used in the study of the impact of humans on the environment is implicitly related to an objective truth. Therefore it is interesting to see the tension here between the impact on greenwashing that claims to be environmental friendly and the objective truth behind that is based on scientific tools. --Uclqesm (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)