Green Culture, or Not.

Ecological rhetoric proves to be a difficult beast to wrestle if you want to protect nature. From one side, the more difficult side to argue, folks that want to protect the environment create campaigns (as noted in our readings) that put nature into commodified terms that we understand based on our capitalist system, which one would think is a wise course of action. From another side, big business holds the car keys to that luxury car (most) everyone wants to drive in that big business forces commerce based upon cultural standards of comfort and convenience, which, in all honesty, is what most of us seek--a relaxing place to enjoy life while still feeling that we are doing our part
So big business focuses on that easily absorbable discourse--it's not real, there is no science behind it, the environmentalists (a problematic term to be sure) are crazy tree-hugging vegetarians who want to take away your right to eat a nice steak now and again, we (as big business) are careful to protect your needs (think Wal-Mart, all the negative press they have gotten in the past, but their profits keep soaring), and we are creating new ways to protect the Earth--you just don't see them yet--we can drill in Yellowstone and not disturb the delicate balance of nature and get all the resources... trust us!

The problem is not entirely big business, it's us--consumers. Typically, we want the easiest, most cost-effective way to get what we believe we need. Do you really think the "store brands" of products would even be on the shelf if a lot of people didn't buy them? I think Wal-Mart's new Great Value line is a stroke of genius--new packaging (reminiscent colors and styling of the "generic" brands I grew up seeing in the stores), expanded line of products (it's rare to see a major brand of anything without the Great Value brand right next to it), and Wal-Mart's current media campaign suggesting they are lowering prices because they are cutting costs by protecting the environment (less cardboard in boxes, fuller trucks = less gas, etc.).
In short, the resources of getting their rhetoric out there are, well, there! They have the mountains of money to promote themselves not only as an enhanced shopping experience where one can by whatever they may need but also environmentally aware, not overtly stating we are protecting the environment by doing this and this, but suggesting such and such measures are being taken to lower prices (and, oh, btw, protecting the environment, but we are stating that out right, but you understand, yes?).
So as big business (not just Wal-Mart) suggest they are protecting all these wonderful things around us by actually helping us save money--who wouldn't jump on that wagon?

Thus, as consumers look over the literature pumped out by corporations and governmental agencies, we conclude that the best interests of humanity are at the forefront of thought because we think we see how items in the above picture are being implemented all around us--wind farms go up, water conservation campaigns are direct mailed to us, coal producers run commercials (with trains running through untouched forests) that explain how careful they are and how important coal is, and politicians continually tell us the "environment" is one of their priorities.
But like Herndl and Brown point out in their first paragraph, we've constructed the term environment (among others) based upon science and what we've been told by others, which is not the problem, of course.
Let me divert to this video:



Early in this video, the speaker tries to convince the audience that e-commerce has helped the environment by saving fuel such as that used by UPS (see this). All this may be well and good, but consider if one makes one trip to a store such as Wal-Mart and purchases a month's supply of "stuff" that they will use, gets some entertainment DVDs, etc. That one trip, let's say in Athens, OH, would cost, what ten miles round trip? Now consider the expense of just Netflix to one address for the month, a four DVD plan (I'm not up on my Netflix plans, so sorry) takes the postal service four trips to one's address, not counting the packaging and electricity used to select the films. I'm not suggesting this meandering of logic doesn't have it's flaws, but it needs to be calculated to be sure which is more cost effective. Although I champion UPS and other providers for the apparent measures to save money and lessen their FOOTPRINT on the Earth, our rhetorical appeals that point the reality of the environment are being cast aside because the constant bombardment from billion dollar businesses is a bit more devastating that the lone sniper.