In the article “Greenwashing America” (November 7 2010) the author, Alan Caruba makes many bold and rather emotionally driven claims attacking the use and production of environmentally friendly products and their claims. With the raising threats and concerns of society’s impact on the environment, “environmentally friendly products” are one way that has been offered to help individuals contribute to a solution. However, with any new and alternative product comes controversy and speculations, particularly revolving around environmentally friendly products are the doubts that they truly live up to their claims and that they are merely a cash grab by the respective companies.
Caruba attacks the industry of “green products” with an onslaught of rather weak and very opinionated arguments that, for the most part, do not seems to draw from any source of evidence or support. Caruba claims that everything comes from nature and is essentially “natural”, and thus stating that if a product is “all-natural” it in no way improves the quality or safety of the product in any fashion. This is a very narrow minded claim and it bears no support or evidence to be built upon, in other words the evidence is weak that all-natural products are the same as everyday products simply because they are both products of the planet. It is not the materials that the product is made of that make it “green” but more the method in which it is extracted from the earth and how it is returned when use is finished, being a more sustainable and ecological approach. Caruba shows his ignorance in this when stating:
“Environmental organizations have been greenwashing and brainwashing the public for decades. Directed at chemicals, plastics, how livestock is raised, or some other totally superfluous “issue” that has nothing to do with the quality, price or safety of the product. The object is always the same, to lay a guilt trip on the consumer, i.e., to greenwash them.”
He claims that these variables that contribute to the sustainability of the product are superfluous and lack external validity, that we shouldn’t look at the process of manufacturing but that the price and safety of the final product. It is not the state of the final product that qualifies a product as green but how it promotes a sustainable ecosystem and positive effects on the environment. Caruba completely misinterprets the purpose of environmentally friendly products. Caruba also misinterprets the whole notion behind environmental regulations instilled by the government, claiming that their bottom line is to raise prices on commercial products; cash grab for the government. He doesn’t support this claim with any reference to where this money is going or if the government is even benefiting from these regulations at all.
Caruba posses an even weaker argument towards his cause as he begins to diverge from his original issue; he begins to lack external validity when he changes the subject to a comparison of greenwashing to the communist “re-education” of prisoners. Stating that “Communism murdered more people in the last century than all its wars combined” is a very weak statement indeed; where it isn’t even clear as to what war(s) they are comparing to, it is completely irrelevant to the original issue of environmentally friendly products extremely lacking in external validity. He claims that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is out of control with what they regulate as an environmental concern and that bodies of water as small as puddles and air pollutants as common as dust particles are of no threat and are signs of the crazed nature of the EPA’s binge regulations. It is not for him to say if these environmental concerns are of no importance; research could prove them to be just as significant as the BP oil spill, everything in the ecosystem is important and interconnected. This whole statement on the EPA and the government seems to be merely a shot at those in power and has no real place in the argument at hand concern environmentally friendly products. Caruba will then go on the compare the “insanity” of environmentalism to a religion that aims to gain complete control over all of us. This bold statement seems to lead you to believe that Alan Caruba has certain anti-establishment views which make you question his credibility as a journalist in the first place.
In conclusion there are two main factors which contributed to Alan Caruba’s argument being a weak one. First was his emotionally driven opinion to begin with, his view on the topic of environmentally friendly products is extremely narrow minded and subjective. This causes Caruba to sometimes voice strong statements that he cannot support. Second is that he suddenly eluded from external validity. Caruba’s passion in his argument led him to rant about the governments objectives concerning environmental conservation; this has very little to do with the original topic and can confuse the reader. The author is a rash and opinionated individual and these factors are the first steps to creating a weak argument that will never see both sides of an idea or argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment