I really enjoyed this week’s content as it brought up a lot of interesting discussions in the smaller groups as well as the seminar group. The effect of media was the initial focus this week, but this expanded to encompasses broader discussions - on which I chose to focus on. I realised there was a lot to unpack regarding industries, companies and the environmental impact they have. We discussed the importance of educating the population on these effects, which lead me to try and find more sources to educate myself better, as there were some aspects I myself felt I could learn more about.
I came across this podcast by The Guardian called Science Weekly, a trusted source of information. The episode relevant to this week's topic (see here) lthough fairly short (less than half an hour), I felt that it was quite good as an introduction to the things that people can do to instigate change and make a difference. A particular point I found interesting was the mention of writing to your MP about issues that you think should be addresses – something I hadn’t considered before – and taking your environmentally conscious mind into all areas of your life such as the workplace, where if you notice something that is not environmentally friendly, and for which there may be a solution, to discuss with someone higher up about this. I thought these were interesting as they were different from the usual “don’t use plastic straws” narrative, which, despite being a good initiative, is not enough in the grand scheme of things to make a change. There are plenty more things that we as a community can do and I think there should be more education around the things that are available to us.
This brings up the issue of who is responsible in these situations. Similar to last week’s discussion of the Big Food and tobacco industries, there is the divide and debate between what is the responsibility of the big companies and big corporations vs. the responsibility of the consumers. Is the film industry required to make changes to become more environmentally friendly or are the customers to blame as well as without them there would be no industry in the first place?
In terms of the corporations’ responsibility, we found this, in our group task, to be a tricky point to address as we came across the term “greenwashing”. This is where companies will advertise small changes they have made as a means of appearing environmentally friendly and sustainable, when in fact the reality is far from it – the small changes do not mean much in comparison to the other damage they are causing. An example of this that I came across is H&M’s recycling scheme, where you can drop off your old clothes at the store in exchange for vouchers. I had heard of this a few years ago and I thought it was a great idea for a clothing company to do. Now though, I realised this was in fact a case of greenwashing.
This video by CBC (a Canadian public broadcasting service) from two years ago really revealed to me the extent to which this small scheme by clothing companies is greenwashing. The fast fashion industry produces new clothes at alarmingly fast rate which greatly outweighs the amount of clothes donated and also the system’s business model itself, which this recycling scheme distracts from, produces a lot of textile waste. A shocking statistic from the video was the fact that 25 billion pounds of waste were produced per year in North America alone. These clothes are often made from synthetic, non-biodegradable materials such as polyester and nylon and can also release chemicals and dyes into rivers that are toxic and then affect the life there. Even more shocking, it was mentioned that only about 1% of the clothes donated are actually recycled. Moreover, because of the clothing deficit myth, a lot of the times the clothes are not donated to needy people but sold overseas and, unfortunately, often finishing up in those countries’ landfills if they are not usable.
However, in our group task we also discussed instances of environmental changes that should be encouraged so that there will be more pressure for companies to build on these changes later on, to a point where they genuinely reach a point of being sustainable. This pressure seems to have had an effect in Europe, where recently the financial times has released an article (see here) informing that for companies to take up ESG investing (investing where environmental, social and governance issues are considered) in Europe there will be stricter regulations they will have to meet. Many of these current funds in fact invest in the world’s largest carbon emitters and therefore this regulation a good change as it should reduce the amount of greenwashing; with tougher requirements needing to be met for a fund to be marketed as sustainable. Seemingly, despite the undeniable damage already done to our planet, there is some little hope for change.
References
CBC News (2018, January 19). How fast fashion adds to the world's clothing waste problem (Marketplace). [Video File]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elU32XNj8PM
Grover, N. (Host). (2021, February 25) A practical guide to tackling the climate crisis [Audio podcast episode]. In Science Weekly. Spotify. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0za8LpCGa5zlbVpLxbIjBS?si=kgfuu7FrTbW1MtTNZZetuQ
Mooney, A. (2021, March 10). Greenwashing in finance: Europe’s push to police ESG investing. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/74888921-368d-42e1-91cd-c3c8ce64a05e
Comments