Killing the Planet one Day at a Time
As we enter a time when the public demands that corporations both be economically sustainable and make environmental improvements, companies are cracking under the pressure to keep up. Chevron, Exxon/ Mobil, BP, and other massive contributors to carbon emission pollution, attempt to hide their planet-killing practices from the public through “greenwashing,” highlighting small environmentally beneficial practices to divert attention from their assault on the planet we all depend on to sustain human life. Companies are trying to shift towards being eco-friendly businesses where consumers are comfortable with spending their money but are lacking transparency to what happens behind the scenes.
It should be no surprise environmental changes need to be made; global warming has been on the rise for quite a while now, since the 1950s to be specific. As the world continues to develop, mass production also continues to “help” with all of the technological advancements. This is what birthed large companies, leading to uncontrollable pollution that is becoming irreversible. According to the Carbon Disclosure Project, a non-profit that manages environmental impacts, just 100 companies are responsible for 71 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions alone. We cannot argue the facts, the large fossil fuel companies are the problem, and the greenwashing is hard to decipher from the truth.
A major contribution to greenwashing is the government turning a blind eye when companies outright lie to the public. For instance, one of the largest, and widely used oil companies in the United States, Chevron, has been in the spotlight for quite some time because of their mass contribution of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. They contributed 697 million tons of CO2 togreenhousegas emissions according to Client Earth’s greenwashing files in 2019. Since being exposed, they have promised to progress towards a low carbon future by 2050 but have only been putting .2 per cent of their capital towards this project between 2010-2018. They are fabricating any promises they have made by putting pocket change into their goals. This is possibly one of the worst greenwashing cases we have seen, but the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System claims that Chevron “remains in compliance with federal, state and local water regulatory standards.” It would be hard to believe that the people in power are not working for the best interests of the people, but the evidence proves their neglectful behavior.
Many companies have started to share similar goals that want to produce fewer damaging products by using recyclable materials such as rPET (recyclable polyethylene terephthalate). This material is versatile and sustainable, so numerous companies are trying to get their hands on it to reach their recycling goals. Karen Ho says in her sustainability article, “To meet the recycling goals of US beverage brands, an estimated 1.1 billion pounds of food-grade rPET will be needed in the next decade — almost three times the amount produced in 2017.” The problem with a rise in demand is also the price rises, which causes companies to back away from sustainability claims. When it comes down to money or the environment, money is prioritized. Companies start to fabricate what materials they are using to appeal to consumers and save their money.
A material that is cheaper than rPET is Virgin Polyethylene terephthalate (vPET), a plastic manufacturing material that is in its purest form. Robin Hicks states in his article that vPET has fallen to $500-600 a ton while rPET is double the price around $1,000 a ton. This price gap encourages companies to take the cheaper way out by using one time use plastics and claiming them to be recycled materials. According to Dr. Steve Wong, “it’s also hard for companies that buy polymers to use in their packaging to distinguish between the plastic types without laboratory testing.” This testing could prove the authenticity of the plastic companies’ claim to use, but it is near impossible to test every individual item made. One example is insuring beverage bottles that are labeled as recycled plastic, like Coca-Cola, are truly recyclable. When diving into further research, only 25 per cent of the bottle is actually recycled plastic while the 75 per cent that remains is Virgin Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) according to Beth Newhard in her article, “Plastic vs. Plastic: Which Packaging is Best. Companies use vPET material to greenwash their consumers into thinking their products are being recycled, but really have ended up in landfills, adding to the mass of pollution that end up in our atmosphere.
Environmental credentials are made by many companies, but not all of them reach the high bar that they set for themselves. One of the biggest food distributers, Nestle, has been named the top plastic polluters in the world for three consecutive years according to “Break free From Plastic” 2020 annual report. This has led them to promote their “ambitions” about being 100 per cent recyclable by 2025, but the campaign was not backed with any proof. Nestle’s form of greenwashing is subtle but there, they claim they are moving towards being recyclable but have no existing targets to hit according to Perry Wheeler in his “Greenpeace” article. A large company that contributes to this much waste for many years should have a bigger plan than just feeding the public outright lies through their campaigns.
The numerous companies that are relying on greenwashing to appeal to their audience has increased in recent years. Consumers want to see changes made in their campaigns that show they are willing to switch to eco-conscious habits even though it takes some muscle. Fabrication, outright lies, and propaganda are the only appropriate terms to use when referring to the countless greenwashing campaigns that have been exposed and that are continuing to be investigated. Companies promote misleading environmental sustainability efforts that are actually hiding the public from the harsh truths of destructive business practices.
References
Paben, J. (2020, December 2). PET bottle recycling rate drops in US . Plastics Recycling Update.
Wong, S. & Hicks, R. (2020, May 28). Cheap virgin plastic is being sold as recycled plastic—it’s time for better recycling certification. Eco-Business.
Wheeler, P. (2018, April 10). Nestlé misses the mark with statement on tackling its single-use plastics problem. Greenpeace USA.
Ho, K. K. (n.d.). Companies like Nestle and Coca-Cola are eager to use more recycled material — here’s why that actually raises concerns over long-term sustainability goals. Business Insider.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
I am just looking for feedback on my argument at the moment.
Oh, BlogUser, your instincts here are all SOOOOO positive! 🙂
Let me help you with execution. OK?
You say:
—You’re so right that being economically sustainable is necessary>
—No company survives if it isn’t.
—And it’s also “desirable,” and “beneficial,” and “ethical” to “make environmental improvements,” it ISN’T necessary, is it? Companies can survive long and well without being conscientious.
—What you really mean is that to LAST FOREVER, companies will have to be BOTH economically sustainable and environmentally conscientious.
—And that’s hard, because environmental sustainability is expensive.
—So, yeah. Companies are cracking under the pressure of two incompatible goals. How can they respect the environment AND stay profitable?
—One way, the way you want to highlight, is to REALLY BE profitable, while PRETENDING TO BE conscientious (or environmentally friendly) (or green).
—And THAT’s what your introduction (even your first sentence) should communicate, because that’s what you mean.
Companies are attempting to hide their bad business practices from the public with greenwashing, and it is increasing at an alarming rate.
—You haven’t defined Greenwashing yet, and it’s a term unfamiliar to some readers, so you can’t DEPLOY it effectively yet.
—Suppose, instead, you defined it WHILE deploying it for the first time:
Companies are attempting to hide their bad business practices from the public with greenwashing, and it is increasing at an alarming rate.
—Describe the “companies” as big polluters
—Describe HOW they hide their practices
See the difference?
As we enter a time when the public demands that corporations BOTH be economically sustainable AND make environmental improvements, companies are cracking under the pressure to keep up. Chevron, Exxon/Mobil, BP and OTHER massive contributors to Carbon Emission Pollution, attempt to hide their planet-killing practices from the public through “greenwashing,” highlighting small environmentally-beneficial practices to DIVERT ATTENTION from their ASSAULT on the PLANET we all depend on to sustain human life.
Does that, or something like that, set up the dilemma AND name the companies you want to target for criticism?
See if that small change of focus improves the rest of your draft.
Might be helpful: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions
Thank you for leaving feedback. I will apply these suggestions to a rewrite and put it back into feedback please. 🙂
I made suggested changes to this post.
I am questioning whether I should put different evidence in place of the plastic pollution (most text after my third paragraph) because my other arguments are based on fossil fuels now. Please let me know what you think. If you have better sources, you think I should use in place, I am willing to make changes. Thank you. 🙂
As you may know, BlogUser, plastics are all made from petroleum, so although we use the term “fossil fuels” to include all the flammable stuff that comes out of the ground, we shouldn’t ignore that whether we burn it and return it quickly to the atmosphere, or turn it into plastic, we still drill for oil to make plastic, and that means that eventually the stuff that should have stayed deep in the planet will eventually find its way into our air, soil, water, and bones.
It’s actually good news that plastics will “still be with us hundreds of years from now” in landfills, for example. If they decayed faster, we’d be living with their poisons much earlier. But they don’t go away. They just pollute our environment . . . . S L O W L Y.
Plastic pollution is a perfectly good complaint to make against big chemical companies, just keep the timeline perspective in mind. Helpful?
Very helpful. I will make some changes to my argument.
I see improvements to your early paragraphs.
October 2023 has just been named the “hottest October ever recorded.” You might want to check out a source for that statistic and use it in place of the vague “global warming is getting worse.”
Just noted this. I will add tomorrow.
I have made changes to my argument and put back into feedback please. Let me know if you think this makes a significant difference. Thank you!
You make all the right moves, BlogUser. Congratulations. If you were hoping to place this in a scrupulous science magazine, the evidence would not hold up as proof of your claims, but for an undergraduate Comp course, you make the claims forcefully and directly, you set up the conditions for a convincing proof, and you come in with evidence at the right time. Our work here is done!
Great. Thank you for helping in the process!
I’m very proud of you for sticking with it! 🙂