I have to admit, I had never really heard of greenwashing until class. Greenwashing is when a company, government, or organization promotes green-based environmental initiatives or images but in actually functions in a way that is dangerous to the environment. It is essentially misleading customers about benefits of the product through false advertising and false claims. So, I stared looking around my apartment for products with misleading labels and lo in behold I came across my antibacterial dish soap, Dawn. The image on the front label features a baby duckling with the phrase “Dawn helps save wildlife” next to it. After a bit of research I discovered that this is deceptive. Yes, it is true Dawn donates their soap to help clean animals that are affected by oil spills, but the product itself contains chemicals that are extremely harmful to animals. Animal tests have proved that the chemicals in this particular soap have extremely harmful effects. Some of these ingredients are, trisoclan, sodium bisulfate, and quaternium 15. Trisoclan is linked to heart disease/ heart failure and also impairs muscle formation. Sodium bisulfate can be toxic if ingested potentially causing life-threatening effects. And lastly, Quaternium 15 can cause non-reproductive organ toxicity and also irritate the eyes and skin. It is apparent that companies only have one goal in mind, profit, no matter the consequences.

It is frightening how companies are trying trick customers into thinking their product is healthier, more sustainable, or in some cases even helps wildlife (Dawn). Even so, it is even scarier that people are not particularly aware of this. It seems as though our society is generally trying to become greener, for instance, our semi-recent emphasis on buying organics. Companies are using this to their advantage in order to increase their profits.

To my surprise, greenwashing is a much larger problem then I originally thought. Greenwashing is when a company decides to promote their product as “green” or “sustainable” although it isn’t at all. Probably one of the most shocking way greenwashing is used is to sell toys. Many toy products that can be bought in stores now-a-days have labels like “lead paint free.” This is all great when it is actually true. It is startling to hear of such cases like in 2007 when a toy company, Mattel, who produces Barbies and many other popular children’s toys, had a recall on most of its toys because of the discovery of lead paint on the toys. This isn’t the first instance of this happening either. 

Toys R Us is another culprit in the greenwashing facade of the toy marketing world. Because going green is becoming more and more mainstream, more and more parents are expecting a certain standard for what they are going to let their kids play with. This may be why Toys R Us and other large toy stores are beginning the switch to reusable bags. This is great for cutting back on the use of plastic bags, but what about the toys? If kids are playing and being poisoned because of toxic chemicals on their toys, then what do these bags do then? This facade is used by many to employ that they are in fact sustainable when in reality it’s a front.

The dangers of greenwashing doesn’t just stop with toxic toys. It is also important to pay close attention to food, cosmetics, cleaning products, and even airlines. The move towards wanting more green and sustainable products is great, but it is getting lost in translation between companies and consumers. It is our job as consumers to look out for these labels and to fact check the label.

When greenwashing was introduced in class, I have to admit that I had never heard about it before. After doing some research online, I found that greenwashing was a lot more complex that I originally thought. I thought that greenwashing only pertained to food, stating that it was “all natural”, ect. What surprised me is that it can affect all kinds of products that we buy. I found an article online (which can be found here:  https://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/02/greenwashing-costing-walmart-1-million/ ) that discusses how Walmart has to pay $1 million to “settle greenwashing claims that allege the nation’s largest retailer sold plastic products that were misleadingly labeled “biodegradable” or “compostable” in violation of California law” (Hardcastle, “Greenwashing” Costing Walmart $1 Million). It doesnt fully surprise me that things like this happen, but I did not consider how it actually was greenwashing. It is sad to me how the populace is pretty much being lied to about not only what they are eating, but also many other products that we purchase on a regular basis. When we buy things that are marketed as biodegradable, we believe that they will eventually biodegrade and not have such a negative on the environment. The article discusses how using the term biodegradable is misleading because almost nothing biodegrades in landfills (Hardclastle). As I continued to research this topic online, I found out that in California, where this lawsuit took place, it is illegal to sell plastic advertised as biodegradable without an attached disclaimer that states how long it takes to decompose.

Learning about greenwashing will definitely change the way that I look at shopping as a whole. I feel like it is definitely worth doing your research if you but products that are made to seem more ecofriendly than they really are, especially if it makes them more expensive. If you care about the environment enough to take the extra step or spend the extra dollar on trying to make less of a negative impact on the planet, it is worth your time to go online and see if you’re getting what you think you’re buying.

As I learned more about greenwashing, it made me wonder how my hometown grocery stores were affected by this topic. Being from upstate New York, I definitely prefer a grocery store called Wegman’s (they don’t have any locations even close to Charleston, sadly). Looking into Wegman’s, I was thankful to learn how sustainable and green their practices really are. I was hesitant to believe everything I read from the first sites that I went to, but as I continued my search, I found that Wegman’s really is an ecofriendly business. When they advertise something as local, it truly is local. I learned how they work with farms across New York state and the surrounding states to provide their customers with local and sustainable goods. By working closely with their growers and responding to the demand of their customers, Wegman’s claims to believe in adding to its sustainable practices through keeping the farms they buy from productive year round. I know that this is a topic that we discussed in class, talking about how farmers can grow different crops at different times of the year to keep their lands productive while also producing better in-season produce. I feel like this is especially important in areas such as upstate NY, because our seasons are so extreme. It is beneficial for the farmers in that area, because they can grow crops that need warmth in the warmer months, and then grow crops that can withstand the cold (One of which I learned was baby leaf greens). This makes it possible for the farmers to make a profit, while also providing customers with a constant supply of local, in-season produce.

Learning this information was reassuring because I can know that when I am buying “organic” or “local” food at home, I can be at least a little bit more confident that I am getting what I pay for. Since what I learned mostly pertained to produce, I would have to do more research about other Wegman’s brand products, but after today I definitely believe that it would be worth it. I would 100% recommend looking into your own local grocers and see if they are being up front about how green their products really are, because there is a good chance that you will be surprised by what you find. I feel like I got lucky with the results of my search, and can see myself looking further into stores like Bi-Lo and Harris Teeter before I go shopping while I am down here at school.

On February 28th, I was lucky enough to be one of the forty people that got to attend a DIY workshop hosted by the College of Charleston’s Office of Sustainability. The workshop focused on teaching us how to produce homemade versions of toothpaste, face wash, and body scrub. The event started with introductions as well as a brief discussion on the micro plastics that are put into many of the hygiene products that we use every day. Next, we all split into groups to begin making our products. My group started with toothpaste. I was especially lucky because I had actually just run out of normal  toothpaste that morning, and this was the perfect opportunity to restock. It was a truly simple process in all honesty. The toothpaste was made from only three ingredients. We just had to mix coconut oil with baking soda. After that was thoroughly blended, we had to add in peppermint oil as an additional way to fight off bacteria. Next, we got the chance to make an simple body scrub. This had a recipe that was just as simple as the toothpaste. All we had to do was mix Epson salt with baking soda. After that, we got to add whatever essential oils we wanted to the mix to match our individual preferences. Finally, we moved on the the exfoliating face wash. This was a bit more complicated. We had to mix Castile soap with carrier oil. Then, we added in honey to help exfoliate the skin. Next, we were given an enormous selection of essential oils that had different health benefits such as helping dry or damage skin. Lastly, my group thanked our hosts, and I asked if there would be any other events like this later in the semester because it was really fun. The office will be hosting more events in April as an FYI. Overall, this was a great learning experience, and I believe the products turned out fairly well.

In a previous blog post I wrote about the documentary The True Cost, which focuses on the environmental effects of fast fashion. I’m also writing my research paper on the fast fashion industry, so I clearly have a connection with this topic. I was scrolling through my Facebook feed this afternoon with absolutely no intention of using this as a time of learning, but I happened across a video from the HuffPost Lifestyle page that stood out to me.

The video features a natural dyer and artisan by the name of Cara Marie Piazza. Piazza uses the bouquets of flowers from weddings to create beautiful masterpieces that the bride is able to keep forever. Instead of throwing the flowers away when the big day is over, Piazza uses the flowers to dye clothing such as a kimono so the bride will have a forever keepsake. While this is a super unique thing to do, it is also a cool way to repurpose flowers and clothing items.

As if repurposing or upcycling flowers and clothing items isn’t enough, Piazza makes the point that the natural dyes from the flowers are better for the environment than synthetic dyes. Synthetic dyes as well as synthetic dye production sites pollute the water. I had never though about the synthetic dyes and their production process as a pollutant, but now I do and it’s scary especially since I love to tie-dye and try new dying techniques. I have thought about trying natural dyes in the past, but this video definitely makes me want to change the way I tie-dye.

Piazza also talks about fast fashion in this short video and she encourages viewers not to throw their clothing away. She urges viewers to repurpose old clothing or at least donate the clothing to someone who is in actual need.

I really think that Cara Marie Piazza is on to something incredible in the fashion world. Her technique gives consumers the uniqueness many want from fast fashion, she can repurpose clothing to turn them into works of wearable art, and she uses natural dyes that are made from things that come directly from the earth.

It’s crazy to think that cities as we know them today are systematically different than they were even 100 years ago. During the 1960’s especially we saw a major shift in urban areas. As the automobile became widely used and aspects of war affected families, Americans jumped on the band wagon of suburbanism. They valued living in the quiet country as a form of escapism, and also as a way to rebuild their family structure in a peaceful environment. This trend caught on extremely fast, and if you had the money you could have a nice home in a suburban community erected in less than a month. This is the mindset behind how many of these neighborhoods were built- quickly with few, cheap materials.
In the last fifteen years we have seen another shift. Now Americans want to live in the city center again, surrounded by the hustle and bustle, so urban areas have been straining to support these new residents. This trend is only increasing, and in thirty years a majority of us will live in one of twelve major hubs in the United States. So how can we plan for this influx of people in order to save the integrity of the area? Cities have a need for a new comprehensive plan including aspects of transportation, housing, job opportunities, and tourism. An overarching theme of these master plans is sustainability.
One way we can implement sustainability is by utilizing the abandoned suburbs I discussed earlier. In order to divert a large portion of Americans from moving to overcrowded cities, they must have access to an area that gives them everything a city center could offer. Through an idea called “retrofitting suburbia” there is potential to give some TLC to those smaller cities and neighborhoods that were lost in our turn of the century urban flight. This plan allows developers and city planners to reestablish an area that has existing structures, but no draw.
City centers offer many aspects that millennials are intrigued by. Some of these include an awesome job market, mixed use housing, and strong community involvement. Retrofitting aims to integrate these components to a suburban area with hopes that people would want to move there; featuring compactness, connectivity and multiple transportation options, diversity, and cultural relevance. Developers will take abandoned box stores or malls and convert them into mixed use structures. There will be bike and car sharing programs implemented. A new town center will be established as a grounds for community gatherings and events. Green space will allow people to get outside and enjoy their city. Energy/water saving technologies will be used.

Retrofitting is a great way to ensure that our country can sustain us in years to come. However it will take a shift in cultural norms and a greater overall mindset which focuses on environmentalism. Let’s work to save our cities!

I am a part of an organization called APE, Alliance for Planet Earth, here on campus, and through APE I have had the opportunity to stand up for issues I believe are important and help raise awareness on campus. Most recently, I tabled in cougar mall and helped students sign petitions to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. At our table we not only had the link and website for people to sign the petition, but we also had contact information for our South Carolina politicians so we could contact them and voice our opinions. In such big widespread national issues such as the DAPL, voicing your input and strong opinions to officials that are meant to represent you is crucial. They are the voices that are heard at the end of the day, and when enough concerned citizens contact them on an issue they react.

The reactions I received for people were very across the board and all interesting. I personally only got one person with an outright negative reaction who was in favor of the DAPL, but other than him I got a response of either enthusiasm or a cold shoulder. I believe that the students who gave us the cold shoulder didn’t do so because they had no opinion on the matter, but because going out of their way or changing their routine to discuss something with people they don’t know is too unfamiliar. I can’t say that I wouldn’t be intimidated by someone tabling and trying to get people to come over. I would be lying if I said I hadn’t given the cold shoulder to other tables that have tried to bring me in. But how do we break this urge to ignore instead of interact?

But all and all the turn out was successful, and in higher numbers that we had anticipated. And knowing that I may have made the tiniest impact on an issue I believe in is an amazing feeling!

People warned me when I told them that I was going to be an Environmental Studies minor. They told me I would become sad, would become discouraged…and also that I would become vegan. I always laughed at the last warning. I grew up in a German family and the entire food pyramid is built around meat and butter. It is what I grew up with. However, recent facts learned in class and the documentary Food Inc. make me want to rethink what I eat.

The thing that struck me the most about Food Inc. was the power that the big companies in the food industry hold. The fact that 80% of the meat in supermarkets is controlled by only four major companies was a wake up call.  It is true that the illusion of diversity is upheld but it is only that, an illusion. They have grown so big that if one thing goes wrong, it will affect one fourth of our meat. That is a little terrifying. Also, it was made clear how these big companies are abusing their power when it comes to their workers and farmers. I was already aware of the terrible conditions that some animals find themselves in but I was not aware of how bad the situation was for the people. When the lady showed the crew inside her chicken farm against the will of Tyson, it struck me how brave that was of her. Companies can make sure that farmers get so in debt that they cannot afford to stand up to them is wrong on multiple levels.

Also, the way workers get treated needs to be looked into. When they interviewed workers from Smithfield it became clear that we have moved backwards ninety years when it comes to worker conditions in the meat packing industry. Consumers enjoy cheap food but have they ever thought of why their food was so cheap? It is because immigrants are being used for cheap labor and they cannot fight for better wages because plants set up shop where they know the people need the job and will not fight back. This exploitation of humans needs to be common knowledge to consumers in order to make any change in this system.

Now, not saying that I will become vegan but it does make me want to become more aware of where my food comes from. Is my meat from one of the four big companies that controls the meat industry or is it from a local farmer? Is this chicken truly a free-range, organic chicken or has it been pumped full of hormones to the point of its hearts exploding? It makes me want to learn when certain fruits and vegetables are in season and if they came from local growers. I agree when the documentary said at the end that consumers often feel powerless when it comes to what they eat. In the case of the food industry, knowledge is power, and I plan to use knowledge to at least make a minor, positive change in our environment. And maybe, if more people follow, we can even change the whole industry.

When I was around 7 years old, my sister and her son moved in with us. One thing that my sister did on a regular basis was to give things to “charity”. This meant going through toys, clothes and whatever else and giving away the old things we didn’t need or simply didn’t use. The first time she approached my room with a giant black trash bag, I definitely freaked out internally. Less stuff?? What if she gave away my favorite shirt with that beautiful horse or my favorite stuffed dog from Build-a-bear! She, in fact, did not get rid of those things but she did give away the things at the way back of my closet that I never used. Over the years, we made this a yearly routine, going through our closets and giving bags away or simply passing them to our younger friends. Though it was annoying sometimes, and sometimes I didn’t want to give up something, even though I hadn’t used it in years, I am incredibly grateful for my sister’s ways. Now, I continue this tradition and it greatly helps, especially with living in a very small apartment downtown. I have grown less attached to my stuff and it greatly cuts down on clutter, which is definitely a stress reliever.  I think that it has also cut down on the amount of clothes and other things that I buy. If I know I am only going to wear it once, I’m not going to buy it. To me, the movie Minimalism was simply on cutting down on the amount that we buy. I absolutely love this idea, and though I am not perfect at it, I try to buy less and have less clutter. It’s not only helpful to our environment, but also to the level of stress I have (plus, it’s a lot better for moving).

Recently I have watched a two part documentary about fracking called Gasland.

This documentary focused on one man who lived on land that companies wanted to frack on. They offered him money and hounded him about allowing them to frack on his land. When this was going on, he set out across the country (mostly in the west) to see what he could dig up about fracking.

The things that he found out were extremely alarming. Understanding how fracking can be seen as beneficial (technically easier to extract natural resources while providing usually technically economic benefits for small towns) still does not justify its negative impacts. This documentary showed many environmental and social impacts that fracking has on the communities that it borders on. Environmentally, fracking is alarming. It involves forcing water, sand, and a multitude of chemicals under the ground to force natural gas and oil to the surface. These chemicals are often unregulated, and find their way into the environment. Runoff of these chemicals are shown to be stored in shallow man-made ponds that are lined by nothing stronger than a tarp to keep the chemicals from leaking back into the ground. Fracking can also cause seismic activity. (This is currently important because there have been large earthquakes in the midwest lately, but a large one was during the election on the same day that Trump said yet another ridiculous thing – so it took the media’s attention away from the earthquakes- subsequently causing a lack of coverage so it was not as big of a story as it should have been)

Socially, fracking is shown to cause a lot of problems. These documentaries showed how people in the midwest had their tap water polluted by fracking companies, and how it was both undrinkable as well as flammable. It showed how people were able to turn there water on and then light it on fire. It caused illnesses and conditions in people who drank it and were unaware that it was contaminated. Fracking also caused fumes that made people sick. Another thing it did was (because a lot of people in the midwest raise cattle) was kill or cause illness in those cattle. These factors drove people from their land, even if the fracking was not going on directly on their property.

From these two films, I have learned a lot more about fracking. Even though it has the potential to wean the US off of our dependency on foreign oil, the destruction it causes is not worth it. Fracking companies fight hard with very powerful lawyers to protect themselves as well as deny any responsibility for the environmental and social damages that they cause. They hide what they are actually doing, and in the film, they refused the man who was making these documentaries from filming a lot of what was actually going on both near the rigs as well as in the courtroom. Overall, I believe that we should end fracking and place both the monetary aspect as well as our energy as a nation into focusing on renewable resources.