Greenwashing

While greenwashing is not new, its use has increased over recent years to meet consumer demand for environmentally friendly goods and services. The problem is compounded by lax enforcement by regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission in the United States, the Competition Bureau in Canada, and the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice in the United Kingdom. Critics of the practice suggest that the rise of greenwashing, paired with ineffective regulation, contributes to consumer skepticism of all green claims, and diminishes the power of the consumer in driving companies toward greener solutions for manufacturing processes and business operations.[6] Usage[edit] Hotel "greenwashed" laundry card The term greenwashing was coined by New York environmentalist Jay Westervelt in a 1986 essay regarding the hotel industry's practice of placing placards in each room promoting reuse of towels ostensibly to "save the environment."

Greenpeace | Greenwashing Gullibility Failure of social intelligence Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action. It is closely related to credulity, which is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence. Classes of people especially vulnerable to exploitation due to gullibility include children, the elderly, and the developmentally disabled.[3] Meaning The words gullible and credulous are commonly used as synonyms. Yamagishi, Kikuchi & Kosugi (1999) characterize a gullible person as one who is both credulous and naïve. Etymology and history The verb to gull and the noun cullibility (with a C) date back to Shakespeare and Swift, whereas gullibility is a relatively recent addition to the lexicon. Examples Greenspan (2009) presents dozens of examples of gullibility in literature and history: Theories Against gullibility The relationship between gullibility and trust has led to alternate theories. See also Notes

March Against Monsanto Greenwashing Use of the aesthetic of conservationism to promote organisations An example of greenwashing is when an organization spends significantly more resources on advertising being "green" than on environmentally sound practices.[4] Greenwashing can range from changing the name or label of a product to evoke the natural environment (for example on a product containing harmful chemicals) to multimillion-dollar campaigns that portray highly-polluting energy companies as eco-friendly. Greenwashing covers up unsustainable corporate agendas and policies.[5] Highly public accusations of greenwashing have contributed to the term's increasing use.[6] Many corporations use greenwashing to improve public perception of their brands. Greenwashing has increased in recent years to meet consumer demand for environmentally-friendly goods and services. Characteristics[edit] History[edit] In the mid-1960s, the environmental movement gained momentum. The first Earth Day was held on April 22, 1970. Examples[edit]

Occupy Monsanto Half-truth Deceptive statement Purpose[edit] The purpose and or consequence of a half-truth is to make something that is really only a belief appear to be knowledge, or a truthful statement to represent the whole truth or possibly lead to a false conclusion. Examples[edit] In January 2018, U.S. Politics[edit] Some forms of half-truths are an inescapable part of politics in representative democracies. William Safire defines a half-truth, for political purposes, as "a statement accurate enough to require an explanation; and the longer the explanation, the more likely a public reaction of half-belief".[6] It has been shown that the order of the half-truth makes a difference in reported belief in the statement. In his 1990 work The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of 1989 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague, Timothy Garton Ash responded to Václav Havel's call for "living in truth": Now we expect many things of politicians in a well-functioning parliamentary democracy. Meme theory[edit]

March Against Monsanto March Against Monsanto, Vancouver, Canada; May 25, 2013 The March Against Monsanto is an international grass roots movement as well as a protest against the Monsanto corporation and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).[1] The initial march took place on May 25, 2013. The number of protesters who took part is uncertain; figures of "hundreds of thousands"[4] and the organizers' estimate of "two million"[5] were variously cited. Events took place in between 330[3] and 436[5] cities around the world, mostly in the United States.[3][6][7] Canal said that the movement would continue its "anti-GMO cause" beyond the initial event,[5] and a second march occurred on October 12, 2013.[8] A third march is planned for 24 May 2014.[9] GMO controversy and Monsanto[edit] Monsanto, headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri, is the largest producer of genetically engineered seed. Origin of the protests[edit] California Proposition 37[edit] Founder Tami Canal, March Against Monsanto, Salt Lake City, Utah

Green goods scam The green goods scam, also known as the "green goods game", was a fraud scheme popular in the 19th-century United States in which people were duped into paying for worthless counterfeit money. It is a variation on the pig-in-a-poke scam using money instead of other goods like a pig. In the typical green goods scam, the mark, or victim, would respond to flyers circulated throughout the country by the scammers ("green goods men") which claimed to offer "genuine" counterfeit currency for sale. This currency was sometimes alleged to have been printed with stolen engraving plates. Victims, usually living outside major cities, would be enticed to travel to the location of the green goods men to complete the transaction. Victims were guided by a "steerer" to be shown large amounts of genuine currency – represented to be counterfeit – which was then placed in a bag or satchel.[1] Victims then received offers to purchase the money at a price much less than face value. See also[edit]

Deep Green Resistance Deep Green Resistance (DGR) is an environmental movement that views mainstream environmental activism as being largely ineffective.[1] DGR also refers to the strategy described by the movement for saving the Earth. DGR believes that industrial civilization is endangering all life on the planet, and that a broad range of tactics are needed to achieve environmental and social justice in decisive material ways. It advocates for a radical shift in society's structure and function and calls for humans to actively fight for the Earth. DGR's goals are to deprive the rich of their ability to steal from the poor and to stop those in power from destroying the planet. DGR promotes the defense and restoration of landbases, and the recognition that most of the land belongs to indigenous peoples, who are suffering under foreign military occupation. Beliefs[edit] Origins and advocates[edit] The term was created for a conference entitled "Deep Green Resistance. Tactics[edit] Violent resistance[edit]

Lie Intentionally false statement made to deceive A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the purpose of deceiving or misleading someone.[1][2][3][4] The practice of communicating lies is called lying. A person who communicates a lie may be termed a liar. Generally, the term "lie" carries a negative connotation, and depending on the context a person who communicates a lie may be subject to social, legal, religious, or criminal sanctions; for instance, perjury, or the act of lying under oath, can result in criminal and civil charges being pressed against the perjurer. Types and associated terms A motivational poster about lying declares "An ostrich only thinks he 'covers up'" A cover-up may be used to deny, defend, or obfuscate a lie, errors, embarrassing actions, or lifestyle, and/or lie(s) made previously.[9] One may deny a lie made on a previous occasion, or alternatively, one may claim that a previous lie was not as egregious as it was. Consequences Detection

Deep Green Resistance Wisconsin Good cop/bad cop Interrogation tactic Good cop/bad cop is a psychological tactic used in negotiation and interrogation, in which a team of two people take opposing approaches interrogating their subject.[1] One interrogator adopts a hostile or accusatory demeanor, emphasizing threats of punishment, while the other adopts a more sympathetic demeanor, emphasizing reward, in order to convince the subject to cooperate.[2] It is an instance of the Reid technique.[3] Technique[edit] The disadvantage of this technique is that it can be easily identified, and the "bad cop" may alienate the subject.[5] See also[edit] References[edit] External Links[edit]

Technogaianism Technogaianism (a portmanteau word combining "techno-" for technology and "gaian" for Gaia philosophy) is a bright green environmentalist stance of active support for the research, development and use of emerging and future technologies to help restore Earth's environment. Technogaians argue that developing safe, clean, alternative technology should be an important goal of environmentalists.[1] Theory[edit] This point of view is different from the default position of radical environmentalists and a common opinion that all technology necessarily degrades the environment, and that environmental restoration can therefore occur only with reduced reliance on technology. While many environmentalists still contend that most technology is detrimental to the environment, technogaians point out that it has been in humanity's best interests to exploit the environment mercilessly until fairly recently. The theories of English writer Fraser Clark may be broadly categorised as technogaian.