For those readers who haven't noticed, we've taken a bit of a hiatus as Tim, Max and I suffer through exams, but I wanted to briefly share with you a topic of incredible concern to me before I return to writing an essay on the what a couple of dead theorists WOULD have thought of the Internet had they been alive...
I just returned home from my Monday night Intro to Marketing course, completely horrified. The professor has had a knack for making ridiculously ignorant comments throughout the semester, but for the most part has been excused with assumptions like "well, he's kind of old" or "maybe he doesn't watch the news". But tonight went too far.
It began with his statement:
"I have to say, this global warming thing doesn't sound quite right to me."
I look up, distracted from rolling up my rim (I'm Canadian), immediately on the defense but making a distinct effort to hear him out regardless.
He continues, and I'm not even joking:
"The Earth's really big. If you ask me, what's heating it up is the sun!"
I turn to the guy beside me and say in a stunning display of my own intelligence:
"What the fuck?!"
But the professor goes on:
"And why do they call it Greenland? When the Vikings first arrived, it was green, and they planted things, and called it Greenland. That says to me that at one point the Earth was a lot warmer than it is now."
At this point I'm taking deep breaths and the guy beside me is squeezing my hand.
"Besides," concludes the professor, "we're Canadian... it's cold here. If we cut back our energy usage, we'll freeze. What, do they want us to go back to dogsleds?" He laughs at his hilarious comment. "It's just not practical."
This man is teaching tomorrow's leaders. Tomorrow's business men. Tomorrow's MARKETERS, and we certainly don't require further proof of the influence marketing has on society. The class has 200 students, and he teaches 4 other sections with goodness knows how many more students in each. To make matters worse, he's been teaching the course for some 20 years.
And the madness didn't stop there. We were next shown a series of billboard ads for a workboot company, featuring attractive female models in sexy lingerie wearing workboots and holding powertools in suggestive poses. He then showed a clip from a CBC report on the women who were offended and their success in having the billboards removed. I, like an idiot, am thinking "oh okay, finally he'll influence these future marketers for the better and maybe do some good in terms of the objectification of women." But no.
He explains his point:
"By putting these ads on billboards where anyone could see them, this company missed their target audience. People were angry, and the result was negative publicity for the organization. These types of ads should be strategically placed in men's magazines, etc. where they will not be seen by women who'll take offence."
Just before I began to pack up my things to leave in a fury, he made a comment regarding taxes on SUV's and other larger vehicles, claiming it doesn't make any sense for the Canadian government to harm the automotive industry just for the sake of the environment.
"The last time I checked, the only fuel efficient car manufactured in Ontario was the Toyota Corolla. So should the government penalize the entire industry? I don't think so." What!?
And to top it off, a final comment that I plan, for my own sanity's sake, to place in the "maybe he doesn't watch the news" category:
"How will pet food manufacturers market their organizations as trustworthy ever again? Did you hear about what happened? Completely innocently, they had rat poison in their warehouses that got into the pet food, and is now killing pets!" Click here or here if you'd like to join me in wondering where the hell he came up with that.
It was time to go.
This man has a responsibility to the future. He is an educator, and more importantly, an educator of one of our culture's most influential (not to mention harmful!) industries. It is not a secret to anyone reading this (way to preach to the choir, I know) that advertising is the root of much of Western society's ailments. Ask Noam Chomsky, or Sut Jhally, or read a little Marshall McLuhan. And this professor, unlike many of us, is actually in a position to do some good. But instead, he promotes a neo-conservative free market capitalist agenda to the world's future business leaders, claiming that global warming is junk science, and what those crazy feminists don't know can't hurt them.
How do you fix this?
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Monday, April 2, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Go Green or Go Home
I visited Foxnews.com yesterday and discovered an alarming news video. It was entitled, Not-So-Green Gore? I watched the whole video through, and really listened to what the right-winged news station had to say. Almost immediately my “Bullshit Alarm” went off. John Gibson’s “The Big Story” segment of Fox News is claiming that at Al Gore’s Tennessee mansion consumes twenty times as much energy in a year than an average American household does in one year. Fox News is known for its right-wing agenda and I’m not surprised that they decided to bash Gore. Right off the bat, he is a prime target for scrutiny and anything Gore does environmentally will be under inquiry. You don’t see Fox News going in depth into the Bush Administration asking any questions about his War in the East do you?
The choice of words that Gibson uses in this segment is astonishing as well. He says that Gore wants people to hop on his “Green Band Wagon”. Using these words is showing the viewers that this is just a trend and it if you do not go green then it's not a big deal. It’s like saying, “Hop on the blonde hair band wagon”, or “Hop on the Doritos band wagon” With those simple words they trivialized Gore’s hard work on the global warming crisis.
Gibson asks the question, “What is Gore doing to make a different, apparently he talks a lot.” The following will be dripping with sarcasm: Um…Hello? I think Gore created this documentary, I think it was about Global Warming. I do also remember hearing somewhere that he travels all over the world to give his lecture about the crisis of global warming. You can’t tell me that Gore isn’t doing anything to make a difference, the very fact that you’re talking about him is because of the documentary, so Gibson, you’ve heard of it?
Next Gibson introduces Drew Johnson the president of the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research. Gibson asks him to explain the allegations against Gore. Johnson does not talk about anything else but the fact that Gore uses twenty times as much energy as an average household does in a year and that Gore is a hypocrite. Near the end of the segment between Johnson and Gibson:
Gibson: Is there something Green that Gore is doing that you and I are not discussing?
Johnson: Not that I can see.
Are you kidding me? Again, they are assuming that Gore has all this knowledge about how to reduce carbon emissions and you act like he does not do them. Johnson and Gibson are muddling the facts, what is an average household anyways? Because of Gore I know about the global warming crisis and now so do billions of people all over the world. Again I ask, is that not being green? You can’t tell me that that’s not green enough for ya Gibson.
Johnson then mentions Gore’s carbon credits are, “a way for him to buy his way out of his own guilt”. In response to this Gore brought on Laura Swartz, a democratic strategist. She explains exactly what Gore does, he calculates carbon footprint which means how much carbon his house emits, and offset the rest that can’t be cut back, because not everything can be. It’s not electricity, it’s CARBON EMMISIONS. Swartz explains it, and Johnson just ends the segments by saying that he has to look up what she just told him. Basically, Gore is doing everything he can, and they were just stooped.
Max’s Final Thought
Why does Fox need to bash Gore personally? Does this prove that global warming isn’t happening? Does this mean that the ice caps won’t melt and that we should all buy Hummers? If what Gibson is accusing Gore of is in fact is true, and Gore does emit a ton of carbon emission into the atmosphere (which in fact Fox News did NOT prove, but we’ll use this argument to make a point) does this mean that we could just forget about the problem of global warming and just sit back, relax and wait for the earth to warm up? Does this mean that all the hard work Gore has done for this cause should go unwarranted because John Gibson claims that Gore is a hypocrite? No, Fox News has proved nothing of the sort; Gibson actually accused Gore of something that he in fact did not even understand.
Gibson would do better to take a good look at the wonderful job Bush is doing to save the world and comment on that, because isn’t Bush using troops for his own fight for oil or something like that? John Gibson and Drew Johnson should watch Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and then make sure that they understand what carbon is before they try to bash the man who is undoubtedly trying to save the world.
References:
Fox News: John Gibson’s “The Big Story”
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?022707/022707_big_gore2&Big_Story&Not-So-Green%20Gore%3F&acc&Politics&-1&News&387&&&new
The choice of words that Gibson uses in this segment is astonishing as well. He says that Gore wants people to hop on his “Green Band Wagon”. Using these words is showing the viewers that this is just a trend and it if you do not go green then it's not a big deal. It’s like saying, “Hop on the blonde hair band wagon”, or “Hop on the Doritos band wagon” With those simple words they trivialized Gore’s hard work on the global warming crisis.
Gibson asks the question, “What is Gore doing to make a different, apparently he talks a lot.” The following will be dripping with sarcasm: Um…Hello? I think Gore created this documentary, I think it was about Global Warming. I do also remember hearing somewhere that he travels all over the world to give his lecture about the crisis of global warming. You can’t tell me that Gore isn’t doing anything to make a difference, the very fact that you’re talking about him is because of the documentary, so Gibson, you’ve heard of it?
Next Gibson introduces Drew Johnson the president of the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research. Gibson asks him to explain the allegations against Gore. Johnson does not talk about anything else but the fact that Gore uses twenty times as much energy as an average household does in a year and that Gore is a hypocrite. Near the end of the segment between Johnson and Gibson:
Gibson: Is there something Green that Gore is doing that you and I are not discussing?
Johnson: Not that I can see.
Are you kidding me? Again, they are assuming that Gore has all this knowledge about how to reduce carbon emissions and you act like he does not do them. Johnson and Gibson are muddling the facts, what is an average household anyways? Because of Gore I know about the global warming crisis and now so do billions of people all over the world. Again I ask, is that not being green? You can’t tell me that that’s not green enough for ya Gibson.
Johnson then mentions Gore’s carbon credits are, “a way for him to buy his way out of his own guilt”. In response to this Gore brought on Laura Swartz, a democratic strategist. She explains exactly what Gore does, he calculates carbon footprint which means how much carbon his house emits, and offset the rest that can’t be cut back, because not everything can be. It’s not electricity, it’s CARBON EMMISIONS. Swartz explains it, and Johnson just ends the segments by saying that he has to look up what she just told him. Basically, Gore is doing everything he can, and they were just stooped.
Max’s Final Thought
Why does Fox need to bash Gore personally? Does this prove that global warming isn’t happening? Does this mean that the ice caps won’t melt and that we should all buy Hummers? If what Gibson is accusing Gore of is in fact is true, and Gore does emit a ton of carbon emission into the atmosphere (which in fact Fox News did NOT prove, but we’ll use this argument to make a point) does this mean that we could just forget about the problem of global warming and just sit back, relax and wait for the earth to warm up? Does this mean that all the hard work Gore has done for this cause should go unwarranted because John Gibson claims that Gore is a hypocrite? No, Fox News has proved nothing of the sort; Gibson actually accused Gore of something that he in fact did not even understand.
Gibson would do better to take a good look at the wonderful job Bush is doing to save the world and comment on that, because isn’t Bush using troops for his own fight for oil or something like that? John Gibson and Drew Johnson should watch Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” and then make sure that they understand what carbon is before they try to bash the man who is undoubtedly trying to save the world.
References:
Fox News: John Gibson’s “The Big Story”
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?022707/022707_big_gore2&Big_Story&Not-So-Green%20Gore%3F&acc&Politics&-1&News&387&&&new
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Capitalism to Save the Planet?
“Bashing flyers has become part of the conversation whenever the chattering classes gather, especially in London, Paris and New York. Admitting in such company that you like to fly is the new farting loudly.” When I read this quote in the article “Planes, Prizes and Perfect PR” from Economist.com, I knew I’d found my subject for this week.
The environment has been a topic of widespread public concern for six whole months now. Of course, science has pointed for decades to the problems we are currently facing, but within the last year, likely due in large part to Al Gore’s staggering documentary An Inconvenient Truth, the issue of climate change has entered the public discourse as a legitimate cause for distress. This after thirty years of attributing warnings to the rants of freedom-hating environmentalist quacks.
The consensus amongst scientists worldwide is that the lifestyles of heavily industrialized first world nations are destroying our planet. It really is as simple as that. But in a society where the supreme being we all fear and worship is the economy, a complete overhaul of the way we live our lives seems a difficult task, particularly without the assistance of lawmakers, happily sleeping with the corporations who benefit from the harmful emissions responsible for global warming.
Though hardly a flawless solution, the Kyoto Accord could have helped, but not without the cooperation of the US. Sadly, the agreement has now lost Canada’s support as well, thanks to our year-old Conservative minority government. The Opposition is attempting to legislate the promises made in regards to Kyoto, details of which can be found in the CBC article listed below.
But while the entire planet faces a crisis of such epic proportions that the sustainability of our entire race is at stake, our human will to survive seems not to be enough to stop us from driving SUV’s. Particularly as I sit at home, with my own little Toyota Echo buried in three feet of snow, I am confident that global warming will not be on the public agenda at least until spring. After an entire six months of public discourse, it became clear to one man that more incentive than continuing life on this planet needed to be offered.
Enter Sir Richard Branson, Founder of Virgin and all of its ventures. His next undertaking, having accomplished his dream of starting the world’s first space tourism business, Virgin Galactic, is to use what he knows best (Capitalism) to entice someone else to save the world.
It’s called the “Virgin Environmental Challenge” and it goes like this: “The Virgin Earth Challenge is a prize of $25m for whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate.”
The contest closes in 5 years, at which time the winner receives the first $5m in prize money. Ten years following that, if their invention has succeeded in removing greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and should continue to do so, they will then receive the remaining $20m.
Someone please tell me if this is anything more than global bulimia. When the scientific evidence is overwhelming that our planet will heal if we simply cut back our emissions, we don’t seem to have even tried! Instead, a man who makes the bulk of his staggering wealth from an airline and his own personal satisfaction from a space tourism business, is offering a tiny piece of the fortune to anyone who can suck the emissions he puts in back out. Air travel is one of the biggest offenders against the makeup of the earth’s atmosphere, and yet the only viable solutions seem to be the ones that don’t require any sacrifices on our part. Well why not? I can’t believe its possible that human beings on an individual basis would not make personal lifestyle changes - should they be made available and affordable - to save the planet, if only for their children’s sake. Even CEO’s of major corporations, including the least environmentally friendly ones, are rarely evil people at a personal level. But this contest – I’m sorry, “challenge” – is the kind of solution that presents itself when it is left entirely to the private sector to make all the changes.
Call me a socialist, for I’d proudly follow in the footsteps of C.B. Macpherson and if you insist, Hugo Chavez, but I believe we elect a government for a reason. And right now, the one directly south of us offers a $100,000.00 tax write-off to SUV owners, legally qualifying as “small trucks” when it comes to emissions standards. Apparently your average North American family requires a small truck, and is rewarded for it come tax time. The system is in place to provide incentives - financially, if that’s what’s required - to entice people to do the right thing. Instead of offering $25m to develop a way of taking the greenhouse gases out so we can keep putting them back in, why don’t we just stop? I flew from Chicago to Detroit this past weekend, and though the plane holds 137 passengers, it took off with 18 seats sold. Should I feel good about my contribution to the environment because I took a plane that weighed less due to lack of passengers? Doubtful.
Now Al Gore is with Sir Richard on this one, and Bill Clinton gave him a hug. I’m somewhat of the mind that anything Al Gore thinks is a good idea, I like too. Similar to the notion that if Johnny Depp agreed to be in a movie and I didn’t like it, I must be mistaken, because Johnny couldn’t be wrong. But I can’t help but think that this won’t stop the former future president of the United States of America from continuing to demand a little more. He's a politician - he knows how to play the game. And besides, the contest doesn’t close for another five years. What do we do until then?
References
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006.
“Kyoto Bill Sparks Constitutional Questions.” CBC. 15 Feb. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/15/kyoto-bill.html?ref=rss.
McQuaig, Linda. It’s The Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet. Anchor Canada, 2005.
“Planes, Prizes and Perfect PR.” Economist.com. 13 Feb. 2007. http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8692742&fsrc=RSS.
Virgin Earth Challenge. 2007. Virgin Group. http://www.virginearth.com/.
The environment has been a topic of widespread public concern for six whole months now. Of course, science has pointed for decades to the problems we are currently facing, but within the last year, likely due in large part to Al Gore’s staggering documentary An Inconvenient Truth, the issue of climate change has entered the public discourse as a legitimate cause for distress. This after thirty years of attributing warnings to the rants of freedom-hating environmentalist quacks.
The consensus amongst scientists worldwide is that the lifestyles of heavily industrialized first world nations are destroying our planet. It really is as simple as that. But in a society where the supreme being we all fear and worship is the economy, a complete overhaul of the way we live our lives seems a difficult task, particularly without the assistance of lawmakers, happily sleeping with the corporations who benefit from the harmful emissions responsible for global warming.
Though hardly a flawless solution, the Kyoto Accord could have helped, but not without the cooperation of the US. Sadly, the agreement has now lost Canada’s support as well, thanks to our year-old Conservative minority government. The Opposition is attempting to legislate the promises made in regards to Kyoto, details of which can be found in the CBC article listed below.
But while the entire planet faces a crisis of such epic proportions that the sustainability of our entire race is at stake, our human will to survive seems not to be enough to stop us from driving SUV’s. Particularly as I sit at home, with my own little Toyota Echo buried in three feet of snow, I am confident that global warming will not be on the public agenda at least until spring. After an entire six months of public discourse, it became clear to one man that more incentive than continuing life on this planet needed to be offered.
Enter Sir Richard Branson, Founder of Virgin and all of its ventures. His next undertaking, having accomplished his dream of starting the world’s first space tourism business, Virgin Galactic, is to use what he knows best (Capitalism) to entice someone else to save the world.
It’s called the “Virgin Environmental Challenge” and it goes like this: “The Virgin Earth Challenge is a prize of $25m for whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth’s climate.”
The contest closes in 5 years, at which time the winner receives the first $5m in prize money. Ten years following that, if their invention has succeeded in removing greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and should continue to do so, they will then receive the remaining $20m.
Someone please tell me if this is anything more than global bulimia. When the scientific evidence is overwhelming that our planet will heal if we simply cut back our emissions, we don’t seem to have even tried! Instead, a man who makes the bulk of his staggering wealth from an airline and his own personal satisfaction from a space tourism business, is offering a tiny piece of the fortune to anyone who can suck the emissions he puts in back out. Air travel is one of the biggest offenders against the makeup of the earth’s atmosphere, and yet the only viable solutions seem to be the ones that don’t require any sacrifices on our part. Well why not? I can’t believe its possible that human beings on an individual basis would not make personal lifestyle changes - should they be made available and affordable - to save the planet, if only for their children’s sake. Even CEO’s of major corporations, including the least environmentally friendly ones, are rarely evil people at a personal level. But this contest – I’m sorry, “challenge” – is the kind of solution that presents itself when it is left entirely to the private sector to make all the changes.
Call me a socialist, for I’d proudly follow in the footsteps of C.B. Macpherson and if you insist, Hugo Chavez, but I believe we elect a government for a reason. And right now, the one directly south of us offers a $100,000.00 tax write-off to SUV owners, legally qualifying as “small trucks” when it comes to emissions standards. Apparently your average North American family requires a small truck, and is rewarded for it come tax time. The system is in place to provide incentives - financially, if that’s what’s required - to entice people to do the right thing. Instead of offering $25m to develop a way of taking the greenhouse gases out so we can keep putting them back in, why don’t we just stop? I flew from Chicago to Detroit this past weekend, and though the plane holds 137 passengers, it took off with 18 seats sold. Should I feel good about my contribution to the environment because I took a plane that weighed less due to lack of passengers? Doubtful.
Now Al Gore is with Sir Richard on this one, and Bill Clinton gave him a hug. I’m somewhat of the mind that anything Al Gore thinks is a good idea, I like too. Similar to the notion that if Johnny Depp agreed to be in a movie and I didn’t like it, I must be mistaken, because Johnny couldn’t be wrong. But I can’t help but think that this won’t stop the former future president of the United States of America from continuing to demand a little more. He's a politician - he knows how to play the game. And besides, the contest doesn’t close for another five years. What do we do until then?
References
An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. DVD. Paramount Classics, 2006.
“Kyoto Bill Sparks Constitutional Questions.” CBC. 15 Feb. 2007. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/15/kyoto-bill.html?ref=rss.
McQuaig, Linda. It’s The Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet. Anchor Canada, 2005.
“Planes, Prizes and Perfect PR.” Economist.com. 13 Feb. 2007. http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8692742&fsrc=RSS.
Virgin Earth Challenge. 2007. Virgin Group. http://www.virginearth.com/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
