According to recent statistics, Wikipedia is a controversial issue because many students are using it, even if they don’t know whether the site’s information is verified information or not. There are three reasons the Wikipedia controversy has occurred among academics. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which has grown in not enough time to verify the all information; the information posted could be changed inaccurately by people who want just to change the information, or who do an intentional act, and students just depend on the Internet. So, many students should know why and how the Wikipedia’s information has risk danger.
First, the Wikipedia has grown during a short time. Generally, the data of study has passed through analysis and study. According to Wolverton’s article (2007), “contributing to the debate is the speed in which Wikipedia has grown. While many scholary and academic sources have decades – if not centuries – of history, Wikipedia’s popularity has surpassed all of them in a matter of just six years” (para. 8). So, students need to know how different the library’s data and Wikipedia, are cause usually many of them just followed from their friends or online information.
Next, Wikipedia’s information can be changed by people who do not have correct information. So Wikipedia’s information is not as safe as scholary and academic sources. According to Martin’s article (2008), “Under the current system, anyone can edit an entry at any time, which means that people often post inaccurate and sometime malicious information” (para. 5). Many students should know that Wikipedia’s information could be change wrong. So, there is need for education to let students know the changeable information from school and university.
In addition, many students are using Internet and the number of users keeps increasing now. According to Martin’s article (2008) “Seven per cent of all internet users now visit the site every day” (para. 13). Those students using Wikipedia has a bad information on their study. Also, their dependence on Wikipedia is easier to understand. Furthermore, their data will not be correct and they might lose information. So they need to realize that they don’t have to depend on Wikipedia’s article.
In conclusion, using Wikipedia’s source is unsafe, and there is not verified information. Many students still don’t know Wikipedia’s actual problem. Many of them just use Wikipedia because it is easy to find. However, if there is incorrect information, it can be hard for students to judge. Also, depending on Wikipedia could be their life. Therefore, students need to know why they don’t have to find article’s in Wikipedia through education from school and university.
Reference
Wolverton, J. (2007, January 22). Wikipedia Wisdom. Valley Vanguard. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141
Martin, N. (2008, January 21). Wikipedia clamps down on ‘unreliable’ editors. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wiki120.xml
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
Sunday, April 13, 2008
How Royal Dutch Shell Whitewash led to Greenwash (S/R #3)
In Donovan’s (2007) article entitled “How Royal Dutch Shell whitewash led to Greenwash,” he points out that Shell controls its green image with money. First of all, he tells how marketing and advertising changes their profit when they sell products. Next, he claims that Shell’s advertising campaign is not an unrealistic story. Third, he claims that when Shell got a lawsuit or problem, they solved all problems with hidden money. In conclusion, the author states that the company’s value hss fallen since they suppressed facts.
First, we don’t know the intrinsic value of marketing and advertising, when we look at only outward appearance of advertising. However, when we look at advertisement in particular, we can easily find out whether the seller’s wants or sometimes does not. So, a person who doesn’t analyze advertisements, just might be fairly taken in. The problem is they are doing it on purpose. There is a policy for consumers; however, it still requires accurate and more powerful regulation. The reason they do this, is the company was fined after being punished with a low fine. Hence, government needs to upgrade its policy such as increasing the money and making a new law for consumer.
Next, Shell’s advertising campaign is unrealistic. In this article, the author states that Shell’s carbon dioxide gives damage to nature rather than helping grow flowers. Sensibly it can’t be imagined that Shell’s carbon dioxide helps grow flowers. It could be a kind of ethical issue. So, public and environmental groups have to strongly fight to prevent them, because they will continue make pollution if nobody or just a few people fight them. Of course many other oil companies do like this, but we should make them manage the environmental system themselves. They are trying to make untruthful advertisements. So, if there is no control, many companies will not stop this. Therefore, government should control them or give them an enormous fine to stop this as an example.
Third, Shell’s management tried to all kinds of ways to cover up green campaign problems with money. They did anything if they could solve it with money, because they had a lot of money. So, we have to announce to people who don’t know about their actions online, in the street, and on any media. If it becomes a public issue, they’ll stop, because public power is very strong; also it will change to become a big issue.
In conclusion, government needs to control the company which is acting like a fake, and public and environmental groups have to fight them. Many companies have been solving their problems with money. Therefore, government has to consider making regulation of new laws, upgrading policy, increasing fines, etc. Also, through the mass media, many people should know how they are acting and hiding. Then, their play will be eradicated or decreased.
Reference
Donovan, J. (2007, July 9). How Royal Dutch Shell Whitewash led to Greenwash. HULIQ.com. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://www.huliq.com/26761/how-royal-dutch-shell-whitewash-led-to-greenwash
First, we don’t know the intrinsic value of marketing and advertising, when we look at only outward appearance of advertising. However, when we look at advertisement in particular, we can easily find out whether the seller’s wants or sometimes does not. So, a person who doesn’t analyze advertisements, just might be fairly taken in. The problem is they are doing it on purpose. There is a policy for consumers; however, it still requires accurate and more powerful regulation. The reason they do this, is the company was fined after being punished with a low fine. Hence, government needs to upgrade its policy such as increasing the money and making a new law for consumer.
Next, Shell’s advertising campaign is unrealistic. In this article, the author states that Shell’s carbon dioxide gives damage to nature rather than helping grow flowers. Sensibly it can’t be imagined that Shell’s carbon dioxide helps grow flowers. It could be a kind of ethical issue. So, public and environmental groups have to strongly fight to prevent them, because they will continue make pollution if nobody or just a few people fight them. Of course many other oil companies do like this, but we should make them manage the environmental system themselves. They are trying to make untruthful advertisements. So, if there is no control, many companies will not stop this. Therefore, government should control them or give them an enormous fine to stop this as an example.
Third, Shell’s management tried to all kinds of ways to cover up green campaign problems with money. They did anything if they could solve it with money, because they had a lot of money. So, we have to announce to people who don’t know about their actions online, in the street, and on any media. If it becomes a public issue, they’ll stop, because public power is very strong; also it will change to become a big issue.
In conclusion, government needs to control the company which is acting like a fake, and public and environmental groups have to fight them. Many companies have been solving their problems with money. Therefore, government has to consider making regulation of new laws, upgrading policy, increasing fines, etc. Also, through the mass media, many people should know how they are acting and hiding. Then, their play will be eradicated or decreased.
Reference
Donovan, J. (2007, July 9). How Royal Dutch Shell Whitewash led to Greenwash. HULIQ.com. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://www.huliq.com/26761/how-royal-dutch-shell-whitewash-led-to-greenwash
Friday, April 4, 2008
When truth comes out in wash (S/R #2)
In Dow's (2008) article entitled "When truth comes out in wash," he points out that some companies' greenwashing is actually different from the truth. He argues that steam washers of LG electronics are not saving money when we use this product. He states that the LG washer-dryer practically needs more water. Next, he discusses that even though they know that information is different, companies still advertise like they are green. Last, he explains that there is also a problem which that consumers don’t carefully select products. In conclusion, the author states that people need a new certifiable method like commercial regulation.
It is clear that greenwashing is controversial issue today. And many products are developing. However, this article talks about some companies not telling the truth about energy efficiency. The author’s opinion is a good solution. So, they need to make commercial regulation for consumer’s assurance about product.
First, the author states that LG washer-dryer’s condenser was not truly energy efficient. For the most part, people believe a producer’s claim about its condenser before they decide to buy the producer. That is because people can’t do justice to those products; to put it another way, they can’t certify whether the product is correctly the same as a condenser or not. So people just depend on the company’s explanation. It is kind of unfair and they have to have right to know what is true.
Second, the author stressed that multinational companies are falsely advertising from international countries. He mentioned Saab, which is one of the car companies in France, and which advertised falsehoods like “every car is green” in Australia. They might try to get hook in buying or to induce interesting. The author said it is kind of global marketing strategies. Actually, it makes people regard the advertisement as true. People became suffers because of some hook word.
Finally, the author explains that consumers are realizing that green products are false. So, the article said that surveyors of consumers answered that they need to change their buying behavior. But the article tells us that companies are going to change their strategy when consumers change. Accordingly, consumers need o think carefully when they are interested in some product or should make a safety document.
In conclusion, there is lot of fiction in advertisement now. Many companies’ advertisements tempt consumers by unsure information. The last parts of the article give a good example of making labels such as improved product. We don’t know if that idea is associated with a stable product, but people can’t just be deceived. Also, government needs to fight those companies behavior, not just le them steal money.
Reference
Dow, S. (2008, January 23). When truth comes out in wash. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from LexisNexis
It is clear that greenwashing is controversial issue today. And many products are developing. However, this article talks about some companies not telling the truth about energy efficiency. The author’s opinion is a good solution. So, they need to make commercial regulation for consumer’s assurance about product.
First, the author states that LG washer-dryer’s condenser was not truly energy efficient. For the most part, people believe a producer’s claim about its condenser before they decide to buy the producer. That is because people can’t do justice to those products; to put it another way, they can’t certify whether the product is correctly the same as a condenser or not. So people just depend on the company’s explanation. It is kind of unfair and they have to have right to know what is true.
Second, the author stressed that multinational companies are falsely advertising from international countries. He mentioned Saab, which is one of the car companies in France, and which advertised falsehoods like “every car is green” in Australia. They might try to get hook in buying or to induce interesting. The author said it is kind of global marketing strategies. Actually, it makes people regard the advertisement as true. People became suffers because of some hook word.
Finally, the author explains that consumers are realizing that green products are false. So, the article said that surveyors of consumers answered that they need to change their buying behavior. But the article tells us that companies are going to change their strategy when consumers change. Accordingly, consumers need o think carefully when they are interested in some product or should make a safety document.
In conclusion, there is lot of fiction in advertisement now. Many companies’ advertisements tempt consumers by unsure information. The last parts of the article give a good example of making labels such as improved product. We don’t know if that idea is associated with a stable product, but people can’t just be deceived. Also, government needs to fight those companies behavior, not just le them steal money.
Reference
Dow, S. (2008, January 23). When truth comes out in wash. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from LexisNexis
Controversy blights UN net summit (S/R #1)
In Twist's (2005) article entitled "Controversy blights UN net summit," she stressed that Tunisian's human rights are controversial, and are a topic at a UN net summit. First of all, she states that many countries participated to support a summit for solutions. Next, she says that the government of Tunisia opposed a commitment to freedom of expression. In conclusion, the author states that even though UN and many countries support the Tunis commitment, there were still problems.
It is right that human should have their rights. However, they are still living in an old era because of their government. There is no way for them to have rights if governments do not want to agree with the summit. A Tunisian is a citizen of Tunis; therefore, the government should consider the release of the restriction of freedom of expression.
First, Tunisians should assert humans right strongly. This event is caused by whoever managers the net. Then, the summit of solutions was made by UN's attendance, but the nations approved admitted that funding is not enough. Many participating countries agree that every country needs technological development.
Next, Tunis also has lots of other global events, but at that time it's people's only the summit was focused on by civil society. However, the Tunisian government prevented their opportunity. In China, they agreed that restriction of freedom of speech was necessary online because of cyber security. Then, the secretary of the ITU said his goal is for everyone to be able to freely use the information society.
In conclusion, this event issued from the citizens of Tunisia. They had trouble with between their government. They assert that they don't have human rights. Also, they are in conflict with each other. In fact, the government has more power in Tunisia. So, even though many countries of the UN supported the summit, it was not approved. Now, they need to collect funds from supporting countries or have compromise with government.
Reference
Twist, J. (2005, November 18). Controversy blights UN net summit. BBC News.com. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4450474.stm
It is right that human should have their rights. However, they are still living in an old era because of their government. There is no way for them to have rights if governments do not want to agree with the summit. A Tunisian is a citizen of Tunis; therefore, the government should consider the release of the restriction of freedom of expression.
First, Tunisians should assert humans right strongly. This event is caused by whoever managers the net. Then, the summit of solutions was made by UN's attendance, but the nations approved admitted that funding is not enough. Many participating countries agree that every country needs technological development.
Next, Tunis also has lots of other global events, but at that time it's people's only the summit was focused on by civil society. However, the Tunisian government prevented their opportunity. In China, they agreed that restriction of freedom of speech was necessary online because of cyber security. Then, the secretary of the ITU said his goal is for everyone to be able to freely use the information society.
In conclusion, this event issued from the citizens of Tunisia. They had trouble with between their government. They assert that they don't have human rights. Also, they are in conflict with each other. In fact, the government has more power in Tunisia. So, even though many countries of the UN supported the summit, it was not approved. Now, they need to collect funds from supporting countries or have compromise with government.
Reference
Twist, J. (2005, November 18). Controversy blights UN net summit. BBC News.com. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4450474.stm
Sunday, March 23, 2008
What's your favoriate kind of music?
My favoriate kind of music is hip-hop music because it makes me excited. I can say that one of my hobbies is listening to music. I usually listen to all kinds of music, but my one of favorites is hip-hop music. Sometimes I listen to both black music and Korean hip-hop. I listen to those kinds of music when I do something like riding a bycicle, driving a car, doing exercise, etc. At that time, it makes me excited and happy. Also, I think hip-hop music helps me concentrate, rather than disturbing me except when I study. And when I drive on the highway for a long time, I listen to hip-hop music because it doesn't make me sleepy while driving. Maybe some people or most people hate hip-hop, but I also like hip-hop's rhythem, rhyme, lytics, etc. One of the reasons that I like hip-hop music is I like to play drums. Sometimes I listen to classicla music also, because it makes me settle down when I get confused or have complicated problems. So those kinds of music make me feel good and I like it. -Moon-
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Summary for "The Longevity Code" by Dr. Zorba Paster
In Paster's article, "The Longevity Code," she says about how person can live length of life through five ways that we can find easy in our life. First, the author gives that person who had lived longer. According ro her, the longevity code is how well take care of your body by ourselves. Next, she gives example of five unique spheres of wellness like the Olympic rings, which are the physical, the mental, the family and social, the spritual, and the material. Finally, Paster also refer to is is important that mediating what you do, or planting a garden, or playing with friends. In Paster's opinion that when we have balanced the five spheres of wellness, we can have longevity and great lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)