Did you know that polar bears are listed as endangered species now? Maybe many people just know that the North Pole and South Pole are melting because of global warming. Perhaps they might think that it will not be a problem or it doesn’t matter about what is the happening. People often don’t believe we have a problem, before a situation happens, and then they regret the past events. I think that we are reaching a point like that. We may not know whether it will go quickly or not. So I want to give some information about how big a problem the threat to polar bear is. As I say on the first part, polar bears are listed as endangered animals and every year many polar bears are diminishing quickly. The main reason polar bears are decreasing is ice melting because of global warming. According to Polar Bear (n.d.), “Climate change, which is causing the loss of older stable sea ice and the thinning, disappearance and moving offshore of older sea ice, is reducing essential polar bear habitats and is the great threat to their survival” (para 7). It means that polar bears only can depend on thick ice to live. Another reason is human activity; for example, the poaching of bears is one of the factors causing polar bears to decline (Polar Bear Background and Recovery, n.d). The polar bears are one of the important Arctic animals because if they disappeared, the ecosystem would start to break down with other species. Therefore, government and people have to try to protect polar bears with responsibility.
Humans should protect polar bears, because decreasing of polar bears is caused by human’s activity, destruction of environment, and development. The government has to make a regulation, for example reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. Then people have to fulfill the condition of regulations to preserve polar bear’s habitat, protect polar bears from hunters, and maintain the Arctic’s ecosystem. We should perform the above actions to help and protect them.
First of all, the governments have to work together to make a regulation to reduce greenhouse gases and the use of fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels and emitting greenhouse gases are influences for global warming; then, it causes polar bears to decrease. The fossil fuels have been used importantly in our society and it brought the industrial revolution; nevertheless, has caused various environmental pollution, and especially contributed to global warming. It caused polar bears’ loss of habitat because of ice melting. In “Global warming threatens millions of species,” Bhattacharya (2004) writes, “Global warming may drive a quarter of land animals and plants to the edge of extinction by 2050” (para 1). It is now and it will proceed more rapidly. Also, the ice melting makes it hard for polar bears to hunt because ice melting restricts their hunting place. According to Science Daily (Wildlife Conservation Society, 2007), “Polar bears rely on seasonal ice for stalking their principal prey. Also, without the ice, the bears generally cannot get anywhere near these fast swimming marine mammals” (para 5). So, the ice melting makes it hard for them to live. Actually, we cannot recover to the previous condition of the sea ice and it is true. We can only accomplish reducing greenhouse gases and developing other renewable resources instead of using fossil fuels. Therefore, the government has to make a regulation for reducing the use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gases, and the scientists need to invent alternative energy resources.
Second, the government should protect polar bears from humans. Human is the largest factor to threaten polar bears. For example, Canada is the only nation to allow polar bear hunting; also, they sell licenses for hunters who want trophies (Stop Polar Bear Hunting, n.d.). It is an unbelievable situation as of threatening the polar bears. Canada has to forbid polar bear hunting. “Because of their long lives and slow reproduction, polar bears rely on high adult survival rates to maintain their numbers” (The Humane Society, para 3). So, polar bear hunting should be prevented. Another main reason from humans is sea pollution. Every year huge amounts of sea dust just get thrown, and it threatens all sea species, because if any level of predator eats a polluted thing, finally the last predator will eat it. So, the last predator can’t avoid the principals of the food chain. Now many sea areas are developed for pumping oil, tourism, and ship’s moving; of course, this includes the North Pole and South Pole. It definitely affects the polar bears population because they depend on only sea ice. These human activities will make sea ice become less stable and destroy the ecosystem. Hence, the government should forbid human’s activity. Especially, the government has to prohibit these by law, to help protect polar bears from hunting, destroying, and polluting.
Third, people have to know and announce the situation threatening the polar bears. Many people may just accept the situation or not, because people only can contact the situation through the newspaper or magazine. So, usually they might take no notice; however, we can announce this by using the media place and we have to. Every day lots of people use the internet or watch television to get information. Using the media is good idea to easily announce something to people; for example, some famous website or advertisements on television. These are open and we can use them. So, we can make a short film or documentary to announce this, and it will work gradually. Also, the broadcasting stations have to allow the advertisements about the situation with global warming threatening the polar bears. If they telecast continually, people may have interest about the situation. And then they may feel it is practical to save them. So, we can collect some donations for study and to rescue polar bears. After many people know and are interested, various enterprises and companies that influence the power in society may support polar bears with sponsorship. Above all it can be announced in the media, because many people are using the media nowadays. Therefore, many various media places have to announce the polar bears’ threatening situation. Also, the announcement should be allowed more than before, and the broadcasting stations have to pass it. It will work and the associations for polar bear with many supporters can help polar bears.
My opponents argue that this extinction debate of the polar bear is a natural cycle. According to Hintermister (2008), “It is silly to predict the demise of the polar bear in 25 years on media-assisted hysteria” (para 3). However, it is not a practical solution. If polar bears disappear, then different species will start to be extinct. Although the author’s opinion is right, how can we ensure this, and how can we just wait with today’s huge change? Because of global warming, the world of countries is facing a strange disaster, fluctuation of temperature, and sea level rising by ice melting. If we just stare after seeing those situations, it will be too late. Nobody can predict the future and we can only prepare for and study it. Therefore, the government and people should try to prevent this situation and protect ourselves from it, or it will continue.
In conclusion, polar bears are endangered due to global warming, which is caused by human activities. There are three ways that we can cope with these problems. To put it another way, the government has to make a regulation to reduce greenhouse gases and use less fossil fuels; the government has to prohibit hunting by law to protect polar bears from hunters, and various media places should announce the polar bears’ threatening situation. As a result, we have to follow the condition of regulation; also, we should keep studying to develop other alternative solutions. Although we don’t know the exact reason of the phenomenon yet, we have to keep finding and studying the factors to save polar bears.
Reference
Bhattacharya, S. (2004, January 7). Global warming threatens millions of species. NewScientists.com. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4545-global-warming-threatens-millions-of-species.
Hintermister, R. (2008, June 9). Polar Bears Are Doing Fine. Courant.com. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-digedlets0609.art1jun09,0,3463341.story
Polar Bear. (n.d.). Defenders of Wildlife. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/polar_bear.php
Polar Bear Background and Recovery. (n.d.). Defenders of Wildlife. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://www.defenders.org/programs_and_policy/wildlife_conservation/imperiled_species/polar_bear/background_and_recovery.php
Stop Polar Bear Hunting. (n.d.). Stop Polar Bear Hunting. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://www.stoppolarbearhunting.com/
What You Can Do to Protect Polar Bears. (n.d.). THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/a_closer_look_at_marine_mammals/polar_bears/what_you_can_do_to_protect_polar_bears.html
Wildlife Conservation Society. (2007, Jun 1). Want To Save Polar Bears? Follow The Ice. ScienceDaily. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070531095420.htm
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Practice Final - Chat could have fatal effects
Do you usually chat with someone? Maybe many people have experienced it at least one time and some may have seen strange word even if it was their own language. Nowadays, because of the extension of Internet, many people are using Internet. Because many people are using the Internet, there is made some chat language to use easily by the young generation. Also, it is becoming a controversy in many societies. According to Lee (2008), “Some teachers find the new writing style alarming. ‘First of all, it’s very rude, and it’s very careless,’ said Lois Moran, a middle school English teacher” (para. 37-38). As you see the problem is that many of the young generation are ignoring their grammar and form in their language. This phenomenon can have a bad effect on the young generation, because that kind of chat language might be a change from their own language. So, it is necessary for them and us to work out a new countermeasure.
It can be an acute problem, because language has been changed by the passage. Also, if the chat language is translated to the next generation, it might induce the destruction of their own languages. Therefore, there is a need to educate the young generation in school.
They have to be educated to use less. According to Weeks (2008), “Most prose that young people read nowadays, Yagoda says, is unedited – blogs, text messages and instant messages. Consequently, ‘the things that suffer most are spelling and punctuation. They put a comma, not a period, where there is a pause’” (para 36). As in the above situation, it becomes serious. As they use the word, it can became an unchangeable word between them, because they are already familiar with that language with their friends and life. Therefore, it requires education and help to use the chat language less in school and at home.
The young generation shouldn’t to use a chat words because using chat words could produce misunderstanding, because the chat words usually abbreviate their key words. One survey found that most students know what is important in writing, but their chat words don’t have emotions (Weeks, 2008). Because most students abbreviate their key words, their conversation could be misunderstood. Therefore, they have to realize that using chat language is bad for them and it can induce misunderstanding.
In conclusion, many of the young generation should not use the chat language, when they are being educated. Moreover, many movements which support less use of chat words should be announced among the young generations. Then many of them will know it has the influence of a bad effect for them. If so, they will recognize this, and they will use less chat language.
Reference
Weeks, L. (2008, June 15). The fate of the sentence: is the writing on the wall? Washington post. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://tinyurl.com/6bp4kz
Lee, J. (2002, September). Nu shrtcuts in school R 2 much 4 teachers. NY Times. Retrieved June 16, 2008, http://tinyurl.com/5p7vtb
It can be an acute problem, because language has been changed by the passage. Also, if the chat language is translated to the next generation, it might induce the destruction of their own languages. Therefore, there is a need to educate the young generation in school.
They have to be educated to use less. According to Weeks (2008), “Most prose that young people read nowadays, Yagoda says, is unedited – blogs, text messages and instant messages. Consequently, ‘the things that suffer most are spelling and punctuation. They put a comma, not a period, where there is a pause’” (para 36). As in the above situation, it becomes serious. As they use the word, it can became an unchangeable word between them, because they are already familiar with that language with their friends and life. Therefore, it requires education and help to use the chat language less in school and at home.
The young generation shouldn’t to use a chat words because using chat words could produce misunderstanding, because the chat words usually abbreviate their key words. One survey found that most students know what is important in writing, but their chat words don’t have emotions (Weeks, 2008). Because most students abbreviate their key words, their conversation could be misunderstood. Therefore, they have to realize that using chat language is bad for them and it can induce misunderstanding.
In conclusion, many of the young generation should not use the chat language, when they are being educated. Moreover, many movements which support less use of chat words should be announced among the young generations. Then many of them will know it has the influence of a bad effect for them. If so, they will recognize this, and they will use less chat language.
Reference
Weeks, L. (2008, June 15). The fate of the sentence: is the writing on the wall? Washington post. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://tinyurl.com/6bp4kz
Lee, J. (2002, September). Nu shrtcuts in school R 2 much 4 teachers. NY Times. Retrieved June 16, 2008, http://tinyurl.com/5p7vtb
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Summary Response #2
In Melville’s (2003) article entitled “polar Bears Face Serious Threat,” the author of the article mentions that polar bears will disappear unless we prevent global warming. In the article, first, he states that polar bear’s main habitat is melting more than scientists believed. Then, one of scientists stressed that if climate predictions of huge changes in sea ice are correct, obviously we will lose polar bears. Next, he explains by sharing his research that although there remains some polar bears. Next, he explains by sharing his research that although there remains some polar bears in the Candian archipelago, still extinction is a concern because of ice melting. Finally, he tells with information of polar bear reproduction that polar bears can tolerate each different condition; however, they still are declining without scientist’s evidence. According to this article, the author thinks extinction of polar bear is going to come true sooner than people thought. Also, he warns that forest fires could be related to polar bear populations.
This article talks about how polar bears are disappearing because of ice melting and burned forests. According to this article, I could understand another cause of polar bear’s extinction. Then I though the situation is not an unrealistic problem, because the author gave some example of a place that is already changing seriously. And I also think that the polar bear’s disappearing problem is not only focused on the polar bear’s problems, but also the destruction of the ecosystem of the Arctic.
First of all, the government has to make a law to reduce greenhouse gases, because greenhouse gases cause global warming. If the governments don’t make any laws to prevent emissions of greenhouse gases, nobody is going to take any actions. Greenhouse gas is very serious for polar bears because it makes temperature rise rapidly. Then, this climate makes the ice melt, polar bears lose their habitat, and makes it hard for them to hunt for polar bear’s food. So, nowadays polar bears threaten their food chain and ice melt condition will provide a bad condition for polar bear’s living. Therefore the government should try to make new methods to diminish greenhouse gases, and then it will prevent global warming.
Second, the government should make a law to prohibit hunting polar bears. Hunting polar bears is one of the problems, because some hunters hunt them for fun. Those people have to get punishment, because polar bear is not a common animal. If people hunt al lot, polar bears will move away from area. Actually, we don’t need to hunt them because there are many animals that we can hunt in the world.
Third, these days, humans always try to develop their lives. Sometimes people cause fires at the poles or have oil spill problems. That is a problem that threatens the polar bear, and it makes their habitat collapse. In fact, many companies and countries destroy Arctic sea ice, because of their development of new places, study of Arctic places, and ships moving. So polar bears lose their habitat because of these reasons. From human’s various environmental pollution, polar bears are threatened.
In conclusion, government should make sure there are methods to take care of polar bears. Especially, we should try to reduce greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide, because these gases are a big problem of global warming. Then, government has to prohibit development and hunting . If we can stop those problems, polar bear will increase and the ecosystem will be better.
Reference
Melville, K (2003, January 9). Polar bear Headed For Extinction. Scienceagogo.com. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20030008220241data_trunc_sys.shtml
This article talks about how polar bears are disappearing because of ice melting and burned forests. According to this article, I could understand another cause of polar bear’s extinction. Then I though the situation is not an unrealistic problem, because the author gave some example of a place that is already changing seriously. And I also think that the polar bear’s disappearing problem is not only focused on the polar bear’s problems, but also the destruction of the ecosystem of the Arctic.
First of all, the government has to make a law to reduce greenhouse gases, because greenhouse gases cause global warming. If the governments don’t make any laws to prevent emissions of greenhouse gases, nobody is going to take any actions. Greenhouse gas is very serious for polar bears because it makes temperature rise rapidly. Then, this climate makes the ice melt, polar bears lose their habitat, and makes it hard for them to hunt for polar bear’s food. So, nowadays polar bears threaten their food chain and ice melt condition will provide a bad condition for polar bear’s living. Therefore the government should try to make new methods to diminish greenhouse gases, and then it will prevent global warming.
Second, the government should make a law to prohibit hunting polar bears. Hunting polar bears is one of the problems, because some hunters hunt them for fun. Those people have to get punishment, because polar bear is not a common animal. If people hunt al lot, polar bears will move away from area. Actually, we don’t need to hunt them because there are many animals that we can hunt in the world.
Third, these days, humans always try to develop their lives. Sometimes people cause fires at the poles or have oil spill problems. That is a problem that threatens the polar bear, and it makes their habitat collapse. In fact, many companies and countries destroy Arctic sea ice, because of their development of new places, study of Arctic places, and ships moving. So polar bears lose their habitat because of these reasons. From human’s various environmental pollution, polar bears are threatened.
In conclusion, government should make sure there are methods to take care of polar bears. Especially, we should try to reduce greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide, because these gases are a big problem of global warming. Then, government has to prohibit development and hunting . If we can stop those problems, polar bear will increase and the ecosystem will be better.
Reference
Melville, K (2003, January 9). Polar bear Headed For Extinction. Scienceagogo.com. Retrieved June 1, 2008, from http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20030008220241data_trunc_sys.shtml
Summary Response #1
In this article entitled “Polar bear facing extinction due to warming waters of the arctic,” the author states that the number of polar bears has diminished because of global warming. First, the author says that many scholars who study climate and zoology are concerned about decreasing polar bear numbers. Second, the author states polar bears are threatened by rising temperatures. Third, polar bears eat lots of various foods but not penguins. In conclusion, the author points out that polar bears are facing extinction.
It is clear that global warming affects the decreasing polar bear. The author has a valid point. Global warming is destroying the Arctic and polar bears are leaving more and more. Therefore, people need to help polar bear to stay in their place.
First of all, polar bear numbers are decreasing because of global warming. Nowadays, the ice shelves keep melting and sea levels keep rising. This article said scholars of climatology and zoology are warned that reducing polar bears is caused by global warming. So, global warming is a serious problem and we need to know what this problem will be.
Second, rising temperature is contributing to polar bears’ decreasing. According to this article, polar bear only can live the place that is a cold place. However, it is a serious problem that polar bears are moving away from the poles because they can only live and hunting in thick ice. It’s going to cause the extinction of the polar bear. People have to think about polar bears moving because extinct animals can’t be recovered. Therefore, we need to help the polar bears by providing a secure and stable place for them.
Third, the polar bear eats a lot of various foods and animals. The author said that they only don’t eat penguins because they live in Antarctica. So, if Antarctica’s ecosystem is destroyed, maybe polar bears will start to find another kind of food. It could work negatively on Antarctica. They will get many changes; also they’ll appear among the people. Already I’ve seen some case of polar bears appearing among the people. It will increase and before it increases we need to prevent.
In conclusion, we need to find a way to prevent polar bears from moving and decreasing because of global warming. It contributes to rising temperature and moving the polar bear away from the Arctic. We can help them and many people should know about this strange situation. Unless we do, they will become extinct.
Reference
Reville, W. (2008, January 31). Polar bear facing extinction due to warming waters of the Arctic. Science Today, P.15. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from LexisNexis.
It is clear that global warming affects the decreasing polar bear. The author has a valid point. Global warming is destroying the Arctic and polar bears are leaving more and more. Therefore, people need to help polar bear to stay in their place.
First of all, polar bear numbers are decreasing because of global warming. Nowadays, the ice shelves keep melting and sea levels keep rising. This article said scholars of climatology and zoology are warned that reducing polar bears is caused by global warming. So, global warming is a serious problem and we need to know what this problem will be.
Second, rising temperature is contributing to polar bears’ decreasing. According to this article, polar bear only can live the place that is a cold place. However, it is a serious problem that polar bears are moving away from the poles because they can only live and hunting in thick ice. It’s going to cause the extinction of the polar bear. People have to think about polar bears moving because extinct animals can’t be recovered. Therefore, we need to help the polar bears by providing a secure and stable place for them.
Third, the polar bear eats a lot of various foods and animals. The author said that they only don’t eat penguins because they live in Antarctica. So, if Antarctica’s ecosystem is destroyed, maybe polar bears will start to find another kind of food. It could work negatively on Antarctica. They will get many changes; also they’ll appear among the people. Already I’ve seen some case of polar bears appearing among the people. It will increase and before it increases we need to prevent.
In conclusion, we need to find a way to prevent polar bears from moving and decreasing because of global warming. It contributes to rising temperature and moving the polar bear away from the Arctic. We can help them and many people should know about this strange situation. Unless we do, they will become extinct.
Reference
Reville, W. (2008, January 31). Polar bear facing extinction due to warming waters of the Arctic. Science Today, P.15. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from LexisNexis.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Antartica's Wilkins Ice Shelf Eroding at an Unforeseen Pace
In Peter Spotts’ (2008) article entitled “Antarctica’s Wilkins ice shelf eroding at an unforeseen pace,” he states that ice shelf melting keeps increasing nowadays. He argues that Wilkins, which is the southernmost shelf, is vanishing seriously. And he said researchers are saying it is an unprecedented situation. Next, he states that glaciologists are concerned that Antarctica’s ice going to move to sea if there is no brake. Also, the author says that the greatest concern of West Antarctica’s buckling is that it is a place where scientists study about snowfall and ice loss. Last, he states that scientists attribute the global warming to various factors but other scientists say it’s a kind of period of ice age. In conclusion, he points out that scientists need to improve their model with precise mechanisms.
It is apparent that the author’s opinion is right in this article. Nowadays, the earth is getting a threat from global warming. Also, the sea level keeps rising every year because of sea warming. Therefore, the author’s idea of improving the models should be supported, because the earth’s global warming is going faster and faster.
First of all, global warming contributes to rising sea levels because of the melting of Antarctica’s shelf. It is surprising news and not a normal phenomenon. Already much of the ice shelf melted, and every year the sea level keeps rising now. According to this, a few islands have become soaked, and polar bears are moving somewhere to find another place. It seems like an unnatural situation, so we need to find an alternative way or find a solution.
Second, West Antarctica shouldn’t disappear; we should maintain it. The article said that West Antarctica is an important place to study snowfall and ice loss. Also, there are a lot of research complexes and many scientists are there to study. If that place just disappears, enormous cost and value in use will be gone. Also, the development of scientists’ study will retreat. Furthermore, they will not recover that place. Therefore, we need to find a solution and find a replaceable place.
Third, we need to prepare for both cases and then keep studying to find the reason and solution. There are some controversial issues about Wilkins Ice Shelf’s losing its ice is caused by global warming or a natural situation. The article said that scientists attribute that to the warming of the earth and higher temperatures of the sea, which are contributing to melting the ice shelf. However, other scientists argue that it is a period of the ice age. So, there is uncertain evidence.
In conclusion, the melting of Antarctica’s Ice shelf is a serious problem. The sea level is increasing, so islands are threatened and Antarctica’s animals leave to find another place. And it is an important place to study earth. So, people need to maintain that place to keep studying. However, there are some controversial issues and they still don’t know what the reason is. Therefore, many people need to develop their mechanism’s model and should study in those fields.
Reference
Spotts, P.N. (2008, March 28). Antarctica’s Wilkins ice shelf eroding at an unforeseen Pace. CSMONITOR.com. Retrieved May 20, 2008, from
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0328/p25s10-wogi.html
It is apparent that the author’s opinion is right in this article. Nowadays, the earth is getting a threat from global warming. Also, the sea level keeps rising every year because of sea warming. Therefore, the author’s idea of improving the models should be supported, because the earth’s global warming is going faster and faster.
First of all, global warming contributes to rising sea levels because of the melting of Antarctica’s shelf. It is surprising news and not a normal phenomenon. Already much of the ice shelf melted, and every year the sea level keeps rising now. According to this, a few islands have become soaked, and polar bears are moving somewhere to find another place. It seems like an unnatural situation, so we need to find an alternative way or find a solution.
Second, West Antarctica shouldn’t disappear; we should maintain it. The article said that West Antarctica is an important place to study snowfall and ice loss. Also, there are a lot of research complexes and many scientists are there to study. If that place just disappears, enormous cost and value in use will be gone. Also, the development of scientists’ study will retreat. Furthermore, they will not recover that place. Therefore, we need to find a solution and find a replaceable place.
Third, we need to prepare for both cases and then keep studying to find the reason and solution. There are some controversial issues about Wilkins Ice Shelf’s losing its ice is caused by global warming or a natural situation. The article said that scientists attribute that to the warming of the earth and higher temperatures of the sea, which are contributing to melting the ice shelf. However, other scientists argue that it is a period of the ice age. So, there is uncertain evidence.
In conclusion, the melting of Antarctica’s Ice shelf is a serious problem. The sea level is increasing, so islands are threatened and Antarctica’s animals leave to find another place. And it is an important place to study earth. So, people need to maintain that place to keep studying. However, there are some controversial issues and they still don’t know what the reason is. Therefore, many people need to develop their mechanism’s model and should study in those fields.
Reference
Spotts, P.N. (2008, March 28). Antarctica’s Wilkins ice shelf eroding at an unforeseen Pace. CSMONITOR.com. Retrieved May 20, 2008, from
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0328/p25s10-wogi.html
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Greenwashing of Royal Dutch Shell
According to “CorpWatch: Greenwash Fact Sheet” article (2001), “Shell, the world’s third largest oil company, continues its clever but misleading ad series ‘Profits or Principles’ which touts Shell’s commitment to renewable energy sources and features photos of lush green forests” (para. 13). As in the above example, Shell’s greenwash has been acted out over a few decades, and includes destroying the environment, destruction of evidence with money, and faking advertisement for their profit. In “How Royal Dutch shell Whitewash Led To Greenwash,” Donovan (2007), writes “Shell fined $19.75 million for oil spill from Martinez Refinery, settles Martinez Refinery dumping suit for $3 Million, release of chemical pollutants at Shell Texas Deer Park complex, Shell pipeline ruptured in Washington, Groundwater contamination by shell in USA, and Unauthorized venting and flaring of gas” (para. 11.). However, a recent version of Shell’s advertisement has been issued because it is a fake advertisement for their image with the public. So the Royal Dutch Shell Group deceived the public. Therefore, the government and public should make several solutions to prevent the greenwashing.
Greenwash is “a term that is used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practice of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service” (Wikipedia, n.d.). Since advanced mass media, company has increasingly seized an advertisement opportunity to announce and public relations for their image and brand power. In the 1960s and 1970s, greenwashing has started to appear in newspapers and magazines. According to CorpWatch (2001), “In the year 1969 alone, public utilities spent more than $300 million on advertising more than eight times what they spent on the anti-pollution research they were touting in their ads” (para. 4). Then greenwashing advertisements became even more numerous and more sophisticated in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1993 Shell was ejected from Nigeria because their refinery emissions in South Africa contributed to the country’s global warming.
First of all, Shell needs more intensive regulation and stronger laws. In the meantime, Shell has been pointed out that Shell company is clear environmental; however, they have polluted in various ways such oil spill problem, rupturing pipeline, polluting groundwater, and flaring gas and poisoning the people, etc. According to Rowell’s (2006) article,“In Shell’s Sustainability report, there are pages and pages about what Shell is doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However the company also admits it is heavily involved in the Canadian Tar / oil sands project. This is where oil is extracted from sand, a hugely energy intensive and dirty project which will be devastating to the local and global environment” (para 9). As in the above example, many environmental groups’ opinions have also been ignored by Shell’s installing the platform project. These forms have been repeated during a few decades. So, government needs to control it because there is nothing like government control. Therefore, government needs to increase regulation or negotiate with Shell about how environmental problems can be solved to prevent destroying the environment. Also, government needs to upgrade the law to limit oil pumping, but they need to well control them because shell is one of biggest companies and they could affect oil prices. So government should consider that and solve together interdependently.
Second, the public should know about Shell’s greenwashing through mass media. Shell’s recent one of advertisement was issued. According to Bruno’s (2000) article, “The ad is pretty, of course, and it sounds reasonable, caring and honest. But Shell has a history of “greenwash” green themed advertising and public relations aimed at presenting an environmentally responsible image. So let’s take a deeper look at the ‘clouding the Air’ ad” (para. 2). As explained in Bruno’s article, Shell used a clear sky picture on the background of their advertisement. Also, in one other advertisement made consumers dizzy. According to Donovan’s article (2007), “The Shell campaign in question is about the most blatant and hypocritical example of treating the public as fools. In its advertising graphics, flowers are seen rising from a shell oil refinery. In reality the emissions are rather more deadly in nature” (para. 10). In the above examples, public is dazzled by Shell’s blinding advertisement. This kind of greenwashing, furthermore, hid with Shell’s settlements lawsuit. However, we can prvent this by announcing it on the Internet. According to Greenhouse Market Mania (n.d.), “There goal is to prevent public opinion from turning against them, as happened numerous times in the past decade” (para. 1). They are afraid of the public because it relates to their profits. This strong way that public power can be shown, can change their greenwashing. So, if Shell’s negative side is announced to the public on any mass media, their reputation will be down and also consumers will be decreased.
Third, to prevent Shell’s greenwashing, they should change themselves. Also, the public and government should encourage Shell, for example by using the other green companies or composing an atmosphere in which many companies go to green. According to today’s environmental issue, many companies are trying become green. For example many car companies are developing Hybrid car, electronic companies are making product that certify energy efficiency, and in many other various different fields people are studying to make green products. Agreeably to those cases, government can encourage Royal Dutch Shell to reduce the pollution and be careful with their burning at refineries. According to “Friends of the Earth: Shell clean up in Durban” article (n.d.). “Local Shell mangers in South Africa ignored calls for the pipes to be replaced even though evidence showed that the pipelines had 50% rust” (para. 11). And many other places had troubled with environmental destruction with their pipeline problems. The Royal Dutch Shell needs to admit to their environmental problem. And they need to change it to fit into green practice. Also, they need to be aware many customers prefer green companies and products. According to “Corp Watch: USA: Top 10 Greenwashing Companies of 1999” article (2000), “A 1999 Cone/Roper Survey found that Americans are more likely to conduct business with companies supporting strong causes such as environmental protection and 83 percent of respondents say they have a more positive image of a company supporting a cause they care about” (para. 4). Therefore, they need to know that unless they change their environmental sector, then they will lose their consumers. Also, government needs to compose an atmosphere that encourage going green.
Some opponents of Shell’s greenwashing say that Royal Dutch Shell actually has been contributed in various fields. They say Shell tried sustainable to make change their image to clean. According to “Shell.com: Shell wins social reporting award” article (2000), there is an “Important contribution the Shell Group is making in pioneering the way large corporations report their performance and impact in economic, social and environmental terms alongside traditional financial reporting” (para. 2). Also, Shell of China coorperative is working and developing natural gas, alternative energy, and trying a nonprofit enterprise in China. However, one remarkable thing is they invest only 7% of their entire profit even though they are the third largest company and richest company in the world. Of course they are a global group, and they are investing in various fields, for example, medical prosperity, education, development of community, etc. But in many places they have still suffered oil spill problems, pipeline ruptures, settlement of dumping suits, etc. They can spend on and reduce the environmental problems. Therefore, Shell needs to spend and invest on the environmental practices to prevent destruction of environment.
In conclusion, Royal Dutch Shell worked and tried to change their image. They destroyed the environment, made fake advertisements, and tried to settle their opponents’ suits. Therefore, government and public power controlled and was shown to them. Government needs to control the regulation of laws about advertising, paying fines, and destroying the environment to prevent their negative working. And Shell’s behavior needs to become shown and announced to the public through any of media place. Also, Shell needs to the number of aware that many customers want to go green and unless they can’t go green, consumers will be decreased. Furthermore, they need to spend and invest more in environmental fields than in their profitable investment. The above solutions will be working correctly to change from Shell’s greenwashing to green. Then, through Shell’s social responsibility, Shell will be recognized as a company of reliability and morality.
Reference
CorpWatch. (2001, March 22). Greenwash Fact sheet. Retrived April 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=242
Donovan, J (2007, July 9). How Royal Dutch Shell Whitewash led to Greenwash. HULIQ.com. Retrived April 24, 2008 from http://www.huliq.com/26761/how-royal-dutch-shell-whitewash-led-to-greenwash
Rowell, A (2006, May 12). More Shell Greenwash. OIL CHANGE INTERNATIONAL. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://priceofoil.org/2006/05/12/more-shell-greenwash/
Bruno, K (2000, November 15). Shell: Clouding the Issue. CorpWatch. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=218&printsafe=1
Greenhouse Market Mania. (n.d.). The Climate Greenwash Vanguard: Shell and BPAmoco. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.corporateeurope.org/greenhouse/greenwash.html
CorpWatch. (2000, Novewmber 20). Shell’s Climate Greenwash. Retrieved april 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=925
USA: Top 10 Greenwashing Companies if 1999. (2000, March 30). CorpWatch. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=331
Shell clean up in Durban. (n.d.). Friends of the Earth Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/corporates/success_stories/shell_durban.html
Shell wins social reporting award. (2000, May 4). Shell.com. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.shell.com/home/content/investor-en/news_and_library/press_releases/2000/shellwinssocial_10101500.html
Greenwash is “a term that is used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practice of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service” (Wikipedia, n.d.). Since advanced mass media, company has increasingly seized an advertisement opportunity to announce and public relations for their image and brand power. In the 1960s and 1970s, greenwashing has started to appear in newspapers and magazines. According to CorpWatch (2001), “In the year 1969 alone, public utilities spent more than $300 million on advertising more than eight times what they spent on the anti-pollution research they were touting in their ads” (para. 4). Then greenwashing advertisements became even more numerous and more sophisticated in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1993 Shell was ejected from Nigeria because their refinery emissions in South Africa contributed to the country’s global warming.
First of all, Shell needs more intensive regulation and stronger laws. In the meantime, Shell has been pointed out that Shell company is clear environmental; however, they have polluted in various ways such oil spill problem, rupturing pipeline, polluting groundwater, and flaring gas and poisoning the people, etc. According to Rowell’s (2006) article,“In Shell’s Sustainability report, there are pages and pages about what Shell is doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However the company also admits it is heavily involved in the Canadian Tar / oil sands project. This is where oil is extracted from sand, a hugely energy intensive and dirty project which will be devastating to the local and global environment” (para 9). As in the above example, many environmental groups’ opinions have also been ignored by Shell’s installing the platform project. These forms have been repeated during a few decades. So, government needs to control it because there is nothing like government control. Therefore, government needs to increase regulation or negotiate with Shell about how environmental problems can be solved to prevent destroying the environment. Also, government needs to upgrade the law to limit oil pumping, but they need to well control them because shell is one of biggest companies and they could affect oil prices. So government should consider that and solve together interdependently.
Second, the public should know about Shell’s greenwashing through mass media. Shell’s recent one of advertisement was issued. According to Bruno’s (2000) article, “The ad is pretty, of course, and it sounds reasonable, caring and honest. But Shell has a history of “greenwash” green themed advertising and public relations aimed at presenting an environmentally responsible image. So let’s take a deeper look at the ‘clouding the Air’ ad” (para. 2). As explained in Bruno’s article, Shell used a clear sky picture on the background of their advertisement. Also, in one other advertisement made consumers dizzy. According to Donovan’s article (2007), “The Shell campaign in question is about the most blatant and hypocritical example of treating the public as fools. In its advertising graphics, flowers are seen rising from a shell oil refinery. In reality the emissions are rather more deadly in nature” (para. 10). In the above examples, public is dazzled by Shell’s blinding advertisement. This kind of greenwashing, furthermore, hid with Shell’s settlements lawsuit. However, we can prvent this by announcing it on the Internet. According to Greenhouse Market Mania (n.d.), “There goal is to prevent public opinion from turning against them, as happened numerous times in the past decade” (para. 1). They are afraid of the public because it relates to their profits. This strong way that public power can be shown, can change their greenwashing. So, if Shell’s negative side is announced to the public on any mass media, their reputation will be down and also consumers will be decreased.
Third, to prevent Shell’s greenwashing, they should change themselves. Also, the public and government should encourage Shell, for example by using the other green companies or composing an atmosphere in which many companies go to green. According to today’s environmental issue, many companies are trying become green. For example many car companies are developing Hybrid car, electronic companies are making product that certify energy efficiency, and in many other various different fields people are studying to make green products. Agreeably to those cases, government can encourage Royal Dutch Shell to reduce the pollution and be careful with their burning at refineries. According to “Friends of the Earth: Shell clean up in Durban” article (n.d.). “Local Shell mangers in South Africa ignored calls for the pipes to be replaced even though evidence showed that the pipelines had 50% rust” (para. 11). And many other places had troubled with environmental destruction with their pipeline problems. The Royal Dutch Shell needs to admit to their environmental problem. And they need to change it to fit into green practice. Also, they need to be aware many customers prefer green companies and products. According to “Corp Watch: USA: Top 10 Greenwashing Companies of 1999” article (2000), “A 1999 Cone/Roper Survey found that Americans are more likely to conduct business with companies supporting strong causes such as environmental protection and 83 percent of respondents say they have a more positive image of a company supporting a cause they care about” (para. 4). Therefore, they need to know that unless they change their environmental sector, then they will lose their consumers. Also, government needs to compose an atmosphere that encourage going green.
Some opponents of Shell’s greenwashing say that Royal Dutch Shell actually has been contributed in various fields. They say Shell tried sustainable to make change their image to clean. According to “Shell.com: Shell wins social reporting award” article (2000), there is an “Important contribution the Shell Group is making in pioneering the way large corporations report their performance and impact in economic, social and environmental terms alongside traditional financial reporting” (para. 2). Also, Shell of China coorperative is working and developing natural gas, alternative energy, and trying a nonprofit enterprise in China. However, one remarkable thing is they invest only 7% of their entire profit even though they are the third largest company and richest company in the world. Of course they are a global group, and they are investing in various fields, for example, medical prosperity, education, development of community, etc. But in many places they have still suffered oil spill problems, pipeline ruptures, settlement of dumping suits, etc. They can spend on and reduce the environmental problems. Therefore, Shell needs to spend and invest on the environmental practices to prevent destruction of environment.
In conclusion, Royal Dutch Shell worked and tried to change their image. They destroyed the environment, made fake advertisements, and tried to settle their opponents’ suits. Therefore, government and public power controlled and was shown to them. Government needs to control the regulation of laws about advertising, paying fines, and destroying the environment to prevent their negative working. And Shell’s behavior needs to become shown and announced to the public through any of media place. Also, Shell needs to the number of aware that many customers want to go green and unless they can’t go green, consumers will be decreased. Furthermore, they need to spend and invest more in environmental fields than in their profitable investment. The above solutions will be working correctly to change from Shell’s greenwashing to green. Then, through Shell’s social responsibility, Shell will be recognized as a company of reliability and morality.
Reference
CorpWatch. (2001, March 22). Greenwash Fact sheet. Retrived April 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=242
Donovan, J (2007, July 9). How Royal Dutch Shell Whitewash led to Greenwash. HULIQ.com. Retrived April 24, 2008 from http://www.huliq.com/26761/how-royal-dutch-shell-whitewash-led-to-greenwash
Rowell, A (2006, May 12). More Shell Greenwash. OIL CHANGE INTERNATIONAL. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://priceofoil.org/2006/05/12/more-shell-greenwash/
Bruno, K (2000, November 15). Shell: Clouding the Issue. CorpWatch. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=218&printsafe=1
Greenhouse Market Mania. (n.d.). The Climate Greenwash Vanguard: Shell and BPAmoco. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.corporateeurope.org/greenhouse/greenwash.html
CorpWatch. (2000, Novewmber 20). Shell’s Climate Greenwash. Retrieved april 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=925
USA: Top 10 Greenwashing Companies if 1999. (2000, March 30). CorpWatch. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=331
Shell clean up in Durban. (n.d.). Friends of the Earth Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/corporates/success_stories/shell_durban.html
Shell wins social reporting award. (2000, May 4). Shell.com. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.shell.com/home/content/investor-en/news_and_library/press_releases/2000/shellwinssocial_10101500.html
Arguement essay
Greenwash is “a term that is used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practice of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service” (Wikipedia, n.d.). Since the 1960s and 1970s, greenwashing has started to appear in newspapers and magazines. Then greenwashing advertisements became even more numerous and more sophisticated in the 1970s and 1980s. Shell’s greenwashing has been carried out from that time to now, and includes destroying the environment, destruction of evidence with money, and faking advertisements for their profit, etc. In “How Royal Dutch Shell Whitewash led to Greenwash,” the author states, “Shell settles Martinez Refinery dumping suit for $3 Million, Shell pipeline rupture in Washington and groundwater contamination by Shell in USA” (2007, para. 3). Also, Shell’s one advertisement is issued because the advertisement was not believable in its contents, and it seemed like it made them change their image. In “When truth comes in wash,” the author states, “British advertising watchdog found Royal Dutch Shell’s ads were likely to mislead readers” (2008). However, even though many scientists and environmental group argued Shell’s advertisement was not improved story, Shell said that their producing of refinery’s C02 aims growing flowers.
First of all, Shell needs was more intensive regulation and stronger laws. Shell’s advertisement obviously person intended to change their image and hide their environmental problem. Every person may know today’s advertisement showers their good image to focus on their profit. Shell also hid their established problem with money. Shell is one of richest companies, so they have solved any problem with money. So they need to increase fines until greenwashing companies face a burden with fines. Therefore, to prevent false advertising like Shell’s, advertisement standards need regulation which relies on proven information. Also, to stop Shell’s ungentlemanly behavior, the fines should be increased.
Second, the public should know about Shell’s behavior through mass media. With advanced information in the technology society, many people contact and communicate using mass media. Also, this is one strong way that public power can be shown. Shell’s main purpose is increase or maintain their consumer. So, if Shell’s negative side is announced between to the public on any mass media, their reputation will be down and also consumers will be decreased.
Third, to correct their behavior, we can encourage Shell, for example by using the example of other green companies or composing an atmosphere in which many companies go green. For this, Government should make a policy to support companies’ going green smoothly. Also, Government can encourage having a conference about the environment, and announcing how other green companies are going now. Also, environmental groups can negotiate with companies which have greenwashing problems. Then it will eb easy for Shell to change to green.
Shell is insisting that their behavior is part of a sustainable development process. They also say they are now continuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, this problem can’t be believed easily. In “Shell: Clouding the Issue” author states, “According to Greenpeace, Shell spends a minuscule 0.6% of its annual investment on renewable. In true greenwash fashion, shell’s actions do not match its words” (2000). Furthermore, their destroying environment is not only this time. Hence, shell needs to recognize what they have done now and then they need to show us what they can do.
In conclusion, Shell’s is accused of greenwashing these days because they used fake advertisement, they controlled their environmental problem with money, and they have been destroying the environment. Therefore, they are need more intensive regulation and laws to change the advertisement standards, and the public should know how Shell acted. Moreover, the government needs to help them, by making conferences between groups of environmentalist and Shell. Also, the government should try to make an atmosphere in which many companies try to go green.
Reference
Bruno, K. (2000, November 15). Shell: Clouding the Issue. CorpWatch. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=218&printsafe=1
Dow, S. (2008, January 23). When truth comes out in wash. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from LexisNexis
Donovan, J. (2007, July 9). How Royal Dutch Shell Whitewash led to Greenwash. HULIQ.com. Retrived April 24, 2008 from http://www.huliq.com/26761/how-royal-dutch-shell-whitewash-led-to-greenwash
First of all, Shell needs was more intensive regulation and stronger laws. Shell’s advertisement obviously person intended to change their image and hide their environmental problem. Every person may know today’s advertisement showers their good image to focus on their profit. Shell also hid their established problem with money. Shell is one of richest companies, so they have solved any problem with money. So they need to increase fines until greenwashing companies face a burden with fines. Therefore, to prevent false advertising like Shell’s, advertisement standards need regulation which relies on proven information. Also, to stop Shell’s ungentlemanly behavior, the fines should be increased.
Second, the public should know about Shell’s behavior through mass media. With advanced information in the technology society, many people contact and communicate using mass media. Also, this is one strong way that public power can be shown. Shell’s main purpose is increase or maintain their consumer. So, if Shell’s negative side is announced between to the public on any mass media, their reputation will be down and also consumers will be decreased.
Third, to correct their behavior, we can encourage Shell, for example by using the example of other green companies or composing an atmosphere in which many companies go green. For this, Government should make a policy to support companies’ going green smoothly. Also, Government can encourage having a conference about the environment, and announcing how other green companies are going now. Also, environmental groups can negotiate with companies which have greenwashing problems. Then it will eb easy for Shell to change to green.
Shell is insisting that their behavior is part of a sustainable development process. They also say they are now continuing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, this problem can’t be believed easily. In “Shell: Clouding the Issue” author states, “According to Greenpeace, Shell spends a minuscule 0.6% of its annual investment on renewable. In true greenwash fashion, shell’s actions do not match its words” (2000). Furthermore, their destroying environment is not only this time. Hence, shell needs to recognize what they have done now and then they need to show us what they can do.
In conclusion, Shell’s is accused of greenwashing these days because they used fake advertisement, they controlled their environmental problem with money, and they have been destroying the environment. Therefore, they are need more intensive regulation and laws to change the advertisement standards, and the public should know how Shell acted. Moreover, the government needs to help them, by making conferences between groups of environmentalist and Shell. Also, the government should try to make an atmosphere in which many companies try to go green.
Reference
Bruno, K. (2000, November 15). Shell: Clouding the Issue. CorpWatch. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=218&printsafe=1
Dow, S. (2008, January 23). When truth comes out in wash. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from LexisNexis
Donovan, J. (2007, July 9). How Royal Dutch Shell Whitewash led to Greenwash. HULIQ.com. Retrived April 24, 2008 from http://www.huliq.com/26761/how-royal-dutch-shell-whitewash-led-to-greenwash
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)